It’s important to look behind sometimes though. If you don’t learn from history you’re doomed to repeat it.
@firetyger - The Edmund Burke argument for conservatism is that our traditions and practices reflects the collective wisdom and experience of all those who went before us. There is great value to this and it would be foolhardy to cast it aside for the next new thing or the next new idea.
@firetyger - @Celestial_Teapot - Ultimately nothing is “right” or “wrong” by virtue of its longevity or recency alone. I’m sure that’s not a revelation to any of us. The virtue is in being able to discern what from our past, and in our future, is relevant, reasonable and worthy of retention/adoption rather than being bound by the equally fallacious ideas that something that is new/something that has been around for a long time is “good” just because.
You’re such a Godless Liberal. We’ve been over this, Krisko.
@moss_icon - No it’s not. Rather than age, ideas and positions stand on their merits– evidence and arguments. As individuals, we can only assess political, religious, and social positions through a lens with personal biases and a limited scope of personal experiences and education.
That is why in science and history, professional consensus matters so much. It matters when many minds, independently converge to a common consensus.
Conservatism (in the Burkian sense) recognizes the value of historical consensus. They believe that our forebears have had the arguments on the important issues, and through a long and continuous process, have winnowed down to what works and what seems true. The ideas given to us, through history, was borne through a consensus of the generations. Conservatives don’t believe that ideas are right just because they’re old– rather, because they’re so valuable, we must be conservative, careful, in the acceptance and adoption of untested, newfangled ideas.
@Celestial_Teapot - Well said. As per Conservatives, I believe that (the Burkian Sense) is how a Conservative of integrity would act, in that it’s a non-absolute position born of reason, trial and error. I don’t disagree with their position at all.
I think the modern Conservative, however, is largely reactionary and has little integrity in the way of consistent political/social philosophy. Rather than letting reason inform their prejudices, they let prejudice inform their reasoning.
@Celestial_Teapot - I mean, there’s also the problem of whether the collective wisdom of previous generations was indeed “wisdom” at all, and not merely prejudice. It’s a bit of a generalisation but when some major upheaval occurs, history generally shows that very rarely does “keeping things the way they were” win out or work. I’d like to think that, in those instances, it’s because people were able to do as all people should, regardless of political alignment – evaluate the issue reasonably and intelligently. A Liberal should be able to evaluate a bad “new-fangled idea” and reject it, just as a Conservative should be able to identify when The Old isn’t working and change and progress are needed.
I’m proud to say it too, much to the chagrin of my conservative parents.
@firetyger - I don’t think any liberal would advocate for change just for the sake of change.
@moss_icon - @Celestial_Teapot - what defines modern conservativism is drastic change, though. Take abortion, for example. Modern abortion law is the product of a long, painful historical realization by our society that abortion is a necessary part of a functional, first-world society. Many conservatives want to simply abandon decades of case law and outlaw/restrict abortion at a federal level that is unparalleled in American history. The same thing for the growing number of anarcho-capitalist libertarian/Tea Party conservatives that want to completely disband all/most federal agencies, outlaw taxation, or disband social programs like Social Security. Then, there are all the closeted racists who want to overturn the Civil Rights Act, affirmative action programs, etc., which have been around for decades. Again, there are all things that have existed for a long time and were created in the measured judgment of several generations of Americans because the society modern conservatives want to create simply wasn’t working.
When it comes down to it, what many conservatives want to “conserve” are aspects of a society that either never existed (e.g., abortions have always been prevalent in America, and their frequency has been declining since Roe v. Wade) or conserve aspects of our society that were failed and/or undesirable.
I always like to add social to it. I am a social liberal. If you never heard it in the typical ‘American’ context you could think of someone who defends a ‘liberal market’ aka a hardcore capitalist.
i just attempted to dialogue with a conservative. it’s become obvious to me that they haven’t the slightest idea what liberalism really stands for. i told her to continue seeing me as the scum of the earth, because the feeling is probably politically mutual.
I love this.
“if that is what they mean by a liberal…”
who’s “they”?
That definition does not match the majority of practitioners.
@flapper_femme_fatale - I don’t think it’s possible for us to find common ground. The best thing to do is split up the country and go our separate ways. Much like what the English did with India, when they created Pakistan and India as separate states, except that our split needs to be more thorough than that.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - i’d be all for it. my mother and i both agree that we should have just let the South secede. to quote an upcoming film, what’s the point of having civilization if no one wants to be civilized?
@flapper_femme_fatale - Now that is one thing we can agree on. There is no point in forcing people who are disparately different to live together. Of course, it doesn’t have to be a straight north/south split, it could be that every state goes it’s own way, or maybe different communities within each state. There is nothing wrong with having city states even.
@UTRow1 - I think splitting the country up is the best thing to do. Then you liberals could have your socialism and your huge invasive government, and we could have our borderline anarchy and family oriented societies. It’s the perfect solution which would make everyone happy, or at least us, and niether of us would have to deal with eachother any more.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - That might make sense in a world with no externalities, geographic proximity, a south with industrial capacity, no contracts between interstate parties, national corporations, etc. Unfortunately for us both, we don’t live in that world.
One can look to the future and care about people without being a liberal. The definitive feature of a liberal (in the modern, not classical, sense) is that he/she is willing to forcibly compel others to accept their vision of the future via taxation and government mandate.
@suicide_king23 - acceptance is a thought process. unless we’re actively hypnotizing you, i don’t see how we can control what you do and do not accept. just because certain policies are instituted, doesn’t mean you have to agree with them. i don’t agree with most conservative policies, but i’d never argue that conservatives were attempting to force my acceptance by managing to get those policies passed.
@flapper_femme_fatale - Well, I am not going to vouch for conservatives (I am not one). But if you do not understand how government policies involve the implementation of force, then allow me to walk you through it. Take Social Security, for example. Here is a government program (i.e., a kind of government policy). The idea is that people should set money aside so that they can retire. Nothing wrong with that idea. The problem I have is that a liberal politician (FDR) decided that the government should implement this idea on behalf of the American people by force. I do not have any choice with regards to whether or not I want to participate in this program. If I work, then money will be taken from my earnings without my consent in order to fund this program. Take the medical bill as another example. The idea is that people should buy medical insurance so that, should something catastrophic happen to them, medically, there will be a financial safety net to ensure that they get the treatment they need. It’s a great idea. Again, the problem is that a liberal politician (Obama) decided that the government should implement this on a national scale and force everyone to participate. Now, if I don’t buy health insurance, the government will fine me (the SC calls it a tax, but that’s BS; it’s a fine). It doesn’t help that the government has a track record of dishonesty, inefficiency, and fraudulent behavior with regards to these programs, which is why SS has become such a financial liability, and why government health care will be as well (if you don’t believe me, then just look at the Massachusetts health care system; our new system was designed off of that system).
@suicide_king23 - AS OPPOSED TO FORCING PEOPLE TO ACCEPTCOMPLETELY LOGICAL SOCIAL RULES, PARTICULARLY INVOLVING FAMILY PLANNING. NOW, “THOSE PEOPLE” SHOULD BE PERFECTLY WILLING TO ACCEPT THOSE.
@DEISENBERG - Type. Then read over, and make sure that what you have typed is intelligible. Then make any necessary corrections. Then stop typing in ALL CAPS.
… Only then should you click on the “Submit” button.
The part of that that speaks to me is that a liberal is someone who cares about the welfare of people. You may call me a liberal as well.
@suicide_king23 - (1) If you don’t want to live in a society where popularly elected representatives enacted legislation that creates legal obligations for you, I’m sorry, but that’s just tough. That’s how our government has always worked in this country, and it’s not a “problem” for most people. Most of us understand that that’s how living in a society with a government works. Find yourself a nice cave on a deserted island and create your “Libertopia” if you want to have absolute control over every aspect of your life. But it’s not reasonable (or desirable) to hope for a “forceless” world when you are living in a large democratic republic.
Furthermore, you seem to be hung up on government “force”. Are you not equally concerned with private acts of “force”? I don’t consent to irresponsible individuals choosing to forego health insurance, getting, sick, and driving up costs, hospital waiting times, my premiums, etc. which have direct impacts on my life. Why is government force any more inherently wrong than private force? Why is one more desirable than the other? Whose perspective matters on the “force” issue, and whose values prevail when there are conflicting opinions? Why? The standard is arbitrary. Anyone can make it mean whatever they please.
Also, according to your logic, every federal, state, and local law, regulation, ordinance, etc. would be a wrongful use of “force” because they all create legal obligations or requirements for you in certain situations. If I park my car in front of a meter and don’t put in a coin, I get a ticket; I can’t drink water without fluoride in it; I have to paint my house one of 10 colors in my neighborhood, or I face a fine; my kids have to go to the public school of the district we reside in; etc. If we adopt your standard, and struck down all laws that were not passed with unanimous, direct consent, we would have 0 laws, regulation, codes, etc. That’s completely insane. Your standard is unworkable.
(2) There’s no evidence that non-federal forces can handle large, interstate issues (like health care reform) as well as the federal government. In fact, there are numerous historical examples indicating that the federal government and only the federal government can effectively tackle certain issues, such as interstate pollution control and, ironically, health care reform. Regardless, only someone who has never worked within a major company could believe that they are not hilariously bureaucratic and inefficient.
At the very best, this qualm is based on an unproven assumption that non-centralized, non-governmental forces can be as effective or more effective than the federal government at everything or, at the very least, reforming healthcare. If the later was true, it seems we would have never needed government interference to begin with, or that doctors would not have overwhelmingly supported heatlh care reform in 2008.
(3) The Health Care law was not a uniform decision by Obama. It was drafted, created, and or accepted by Congress, major players in the health care services industry, major players in the insurance industry, etc.
(4) Lastly, by virtually every measure, Massachusetts has one of the best health care policies in the country. Most of the conservative talking points about it are factually wrong.
let’s drink to that!
@UTRow1 - “When it comes down to it, what many conservatives want to “conserve” are aspects of a society that either never existed (e.g., abortions have always been prevalent in America, and their frequency has been declining since Roe v. Wade) or conserve aspects of our society that were failed and/or undesirable.”
This! This is what I’ve long suspected. Especially the “never existed” part.
@UTRow1 - “(1) If you don’t want to live in a society where popularly elected representatives enacted legislation that creates legal obligations for you, I’m sorry, but that’s just tough. That’s how our government has always worked in this country, and it’s not a “problem” for most people. Most of us understand that that’s how living in a society with a government works. Find yourself a nice cave on a deserted island and create your “Libertopia” if you want to have absolute control over every aspect of your life. But it’s not reasonable (or desirable) to hope for a “forceless” world when you are living in a large democratic republic.”
Actually, originally, this was a constitutional republic in which democratic forces were very limited. There was, and is, a very good reason for this: pure democracy is simply the tyranny of the 51%. That’s not to say that things were ever perfect, but we did have the more or less the right idea up until about the time of Woodrow Wilson. “Furthermore, you seem to be hung up on government “force”. Are you not equally concerned with private acts of “force”? I don’t consent to irresponsible individuals choosing to forego health insurance, getting, sick, and driving up costs, hospital waiting times, my premiums, etc. which have direct impacts on my life. Why is government force any more inherently wrong than private force? Why is one more desirable than the other? Whose perspective matters on the “force” issue, and whose values prevail when there are conflicting opinions? Why? The standard is arbitrary. Anyone can make it mean whatever they please.” My argument is far broader than that. You see, you are correct: individuals who accept medical care without any intention of paying it are guilty of initiating force. That is just as wrong. ERs should not be forced to accept deadbeat patients. Yes. I know how harsh that sounds. That’s life. If we didn’t treat healthcare like a it’s some kind of divine birthright, then non-deadbeats wouldn’t have to be dragging the deadbeats around. And it would be more affordable; meaning more people would be in a position to choose not to be deadbeats. “Also, according to your logic, every federal, state, and local law, regulation, ordinance, etc. would be a wrongful use of “force” because they all create legal obligations or requirements for you in certain situations. If I park my car in front of a meter and don’t put in a coin, I get a ticket; I can’t drink water without fluoride in it; I have to paint my house one of 10 colors in my neighborhood, or I face a fine; my kids have to go to the public school of the district we reside in; etc. If we adopt your standard, and struck down all laws that were not passed with unanimous, direct consent, we would have 0 laws, regulation, codes, etc. That’s completely insane. Your standard is unworkable.” Again, you do not appreciate the scope of my argument. I believe in the legal principle of “self-ownership,” and I believe that all just laws are such that they directly support that principle (e.g., laws against theft, murder, rape, trespassing, etc.); and all just taxation is such that it is necessary to fund such government activities which are indispensable to the protection of that principle (such as a military, police force, etc.). I fail to see how being able to choose what color to paint my house, or being able to choose how to raise my child is “insane” and “unworkable.” “(2) There’s no evidence that non-federal forces can handle large, interstate issues (like health care reform) as well as the federal government. In fact, there are numerous historical examples indicating that the federal government and only the federal government can effectively tackle certain issues, such as interstate pollution control and, ironically, health care reform. Regardless, only someone who has never worked within a major company could believe that they are not hilariously bureaucratic and inefficient.” Pollution is an interesting case from the context of the self-ownership principle, because self-ownership entails property rights. When someone pollutes, they, generally, end up polluting other peoples’ properties. Thus, the government is well within its rights to fine individuals and businesses that pollute in order to compensate (or ameliorate) the damages incurred to other individuals and their properties. As for health care reform, the problem is not the private sector, per se, but rather a combination of laws forcing hospitals to provide care to deadbeats, the FDA driving up the costs of producing drugs, an aging population, a civil court system which vastly increases the risk (and therefore insurance cost) of practicing medicine, the need to squeeze ever dollar out of the insured in order to remain solvent while treating deadbeats, and the artificial shortage of medical professionals created by government requirements that must be met in order to practice medicine. “At the very best, this qualm is based on an unproven assumption that non-centralized, non-governmental forces can be as effective or more effective than the federal government at everything or, at the very least, reforming healthcare. If the later was true, it seems we would have never needed government interference to begin with, or that doctors would not have overwhelmingly supported heatlh care reform in 2008.” The problem is government. Is the solution more government? “(3) The Health Care law was not a uniform decision by Obama. It was drafted, created, and or accepted by Congress, major players in the health care services industry, major players in the insurance industry, etc.” And? Congress is at least as screwed up as the executive branch; probably more. And is it really any comfort to you that the insurance companies are so comfy with our government officials? “(4) Lastly, by virtually every measure, Massachusetts has one of the best health care policies in the country. Most of the conservative talking points about it are factually wrong. “ Your first source was a little heavy on the propaganda, and a little light on facts.Your second source admits to a number of substantial faults, including:1. Small businesses are disenfranchised.2. As many as 48% of physicians claim that wait times have increased.3. In spite of the fact that Mass is one of the most liberal states in the country, fully 1/3 of the people disapprove of the law, and approval has dropped since its inception.4. The state underestimated the cost of the project. Also, it alluded to (but failed to fully disclose) that you cannot run a business in Mass with more than 10 employees unless you offer health insurance, and if you fail to do so, you incur a fine. Furthermore, it failed to mention that the Mass uninsured rate wasn’t actually that high to begin with; so as expensive as it was, it will not even begin to compare with the same bill being applied on a national level (as the national uninsured percentage is much higher than Mass was in 2006). Additionally, copays max out at $7500 per family — the people that this bill will cover will almost certainly continue to stiff the system. What’s more, researchers have found that the Mass health reform has failed to decrease the number of medical bankruptcies. Your sources also fail to mention how people in Mass are gaming the system by being insured a few months out of the year in order to avoid paying the fine — essentially remaining uninsured. Also, the Blue Cross Blue Shield has estimated the actual cost of the Mass health care system to currently cost 2 billion a year, once you account for federal grants and waivers. The healthcare system has been problematic in Mass; it will be disastrous on the national scale because of the greater percentage of uninsured, as well as the various logistical and administrative problems that come with creating a national program, as opposed to a state program.
@suicide_king23 - (1a) I’m not disputing the country used to be a nation of competing city-states. But we have had a democratic republic for several hundred years now, way before Woodrow Wilson. Wishing to go back to a model of government that was rejected and replaced specifically because it didn’t work doesn’t seem like a great idea. At the very least, it’s a claim that requires significant evidence to support, which you don’t seem interested on providing.
And no, I understand your argument just fine. As I explained, it’s self-defeating and unworkable. The problem is that it’s arbitrary, subjective, and self-defeating, largely because it is too broad and nebulous to act as any sort of meaningful standard. For example, you believe in “self-ownership,” which allegedly supports laws against rape, theft, murder, etc. To a murderer, rapist, or thief, those laws are anti-self-ownership. They prevent those people, by force, from doing what they please. What this standard leaves us with is people picking and choosing, subjectively, what laws they feel are acceptable/not acceptable based on entirely subjective inclinations. That’s not workable in a society because it is a standard-less standard with no meaningful substance. To reiterate, every single law, regulation, ordinance, etc. is a violation of self-ownership.
And last, just to reiterate, there is no historical or legal basis for ever adopting this governance philosophy in this country. Not even if we really favorably interpret the early colonial, laissez-faire era America. Even if it would work (it wouldn’t) it’s analogous to advocating for policies that will require buxom elves to feed you grapes and fan you seductively on hot summer days. Yeah, it sounds great, but it’s just a fantasy.
(1b) Just so we are clear, you are advocating that we have a system where people who cannot pay for their care are turned away, correct?
The world is a much more complicated place than you seem to believe. There are more to these issues than your visceral, gut reactions and moral philosophies. Having a population of 43 million uninsured people sick people would have a tremendously expensive, negative impact on society. Property values would go down with large populations of unsightly sick people; diseases would proliferate throughout the population, including the insured population; the workforce would decrease, affecting businesses; etc. You have to demonstrate that the cost-benefit analysis of your approach outweighs the cost-benefit analysis of what has been proposed. And that’s not even broaching the subject of how morally reprehensible this proposal is.
(2) How does self-ownership entail property rights? Property rights are created and enforced by society based on a legal rationale that is completely antithetical to what you propose. Property rights of individuals frequently conflict. How do you resolve, for example, a dispute between an owner of a parcel of land and an adverse possessor who has made beneficial use of that land under your property rights rationale? Any resolution necessarily requires a use of force that deprives someone of a reasonable expectation to use or own property. That’s the issue. Your system isn’t really about “self-government”. It’s about “self-preservation.” You want to have everything, free of influence from anyone else. But, again, that’s not workable in the real world because there are other people with competing interests who would have conflicting rights with you.
You haven’t proven that government is “the problem”. You have asserted that the government is responsible for a bunch of health-care related issues, as if that’s a foregone conclusion, but it’s not. Furthermore, most doctors don’t agree with your point of view on these matters. If government was the problem with health care, generally, why did a significant majority of physicians want a single payer or universal health care in 2008? What is the basis for your belief? I am just curious because, as someone who worked in the health care industry for a number of years, virtually no physicians, administrators, or health care economists share your views.
(3) The issue is that you gave Obama full credit for Health Care Reform, as if it was his unilateral decision. This is a common tactic among conservatives who try (and fail) to paint Obama as some executive tyrant-king. I was pointing out that is factually incorrect.
More if I have time. But I will say that if you find Factcheck.org to be biased, and then link to a demonstrably less reliable, less substantiated source, it’s unlikely we can have a meaningful conversation about this.
@UTRow1 - “(1a) I’m not disputing the country used to be a nation of competing city-states. But we have had a democratic republic for several hundred years now, way before Woodrow Wilson. Wishing to go back to a model of government that was rejected and replaced specifically because it didn’t work doesn’t seem like a great idea. At the very least, it’s a claim that requires significant evidence to support, which you don’t seem interested on providing.”
What are you talking about? The constitution was written in order to limit what duly elected officials could enact; and it was (more or less) effective in doing so up until the early 20th century. It worked pretty well for over a hundred years, and then we got a progressive, clinically insane (according to Freud) ideologue for a president, and things steadily went downhill from there. “And no, I understand your argument just fine. As I explained, it’s self-defeating and unworkable. The problem is that it’s arbitrary, subjective, and self-defeating, largely because it is too broad and nebulous to act as any sort of meaningful standard. For example, you believe in “self-ownership,” which allegedly supports laws against rape, theft, murder, etc. To a murderer, rapist, or thief, those laws are anti-self-ownership.” No. Self ownership means you may not initiate the use of force. Rapists, theives, murderers, etc. initiate the use of force. Do you understand the difference between voluntary cooperation and basic, physical coercion? That is not subjective in the least. “And last, just to reiterate, there is no historical or legal basis for ever adopting this governance philosophy in this country. Not even if we really favorably interpret the early colonial, laissez-faire era America. Even if it would work (it wouldn’t) it’s analogous to advocating for policies that will require buxom elves to feed you grapes and fan you seductively on hot summer days. Yeah, it sounds great, but it’s just a fantasy.” It is true that it has never existed in its purest form. It is false to say that it is fantasy. This country came very close to creating a system of government based on this principle, which is, in large part, the reason why we have, historically, had a very flexible and resilient economy (not so much any more). “(1b) Just so we are clear, you are advocating that we have a system where people who cannot pay for their care are turned away, correct? “ Correct. “The world is a much more complicated place than you seem to believe. There are more to these issues than your visceral, gut reactions and moral philosophies. Having a population of 43 million uninsured people sick people would have a tremendously expensive, negative impact on society. Property values would go down; diseases would proliferate throughout the population, including the insured population;” So instead, we are artificially propping up our economy with debt (to the tune of $15,000,000,000,000) in order to stave off the inevitable demographic correction as long as possible. Make no mistake — the correction is coming, and the longer we stave it off, the worse it will be. “(1c) I would still like for you to address why private force, which is inevitable, is somehow inherently better than public force. What is your rationale for this.” I already did address this. What are your questions? “(2) How does self-ownership entail property rights? Property rights are created and enforced by society, and property rights frequently conflict. How do you resolve, for example, a dispute between an owner of a parcel of land and an adverse possessor who has made beneficial use of that land under your property rights rationale? Any resolution necessarily requires a use of force that deprives someone of a reasonable expectation to use or own property.” One acquires property through self-exercise (that is, work) and voluntary agreements and relationships. Thus, what follows from the idea that man owns himself, is that anything he has acquired through honest (i.e., sans the initiation of force) effort is rightfully his — regardless of any social recognition or lack thereof. “You haven’t proven that government is “the problem”. You have asserted that the government is responsible for a bunch of health-care related issues, as if that’s a foregone conclusion, but it’s not. Furthermore, most doctors don’t agree with your point of view on these matters. If government was the problem with health care, generally, why did a significant majority of physicians want a single payer or universal health care in 2008? What is the basis for your belief? I am just curious because, as someone who worked in the health care industry for a number of years, virtually no physicians, administrators, or health care economists share your views.” I have itemized what I see as the problems with the system, as well as the issues that I think will arise from the system we have chosen to implement. What are your questions? “(3) The issue is that you gave Obama full credit for Health Care Reform, as if it was his unilateral decision. This is a common tactic among conservatives who try (and fail) to paint Obama as some executive tyrant-king. I was pointing out that is factually incorrect. “ Tangential. I make no such claim here. He may not be a tyrant, but he is our leader, and the health care bill couldn’t have happened without him. “More if I have time. But I will say that if you find Factcheck.org to be biased, and then link to an unreputable internet source that is demonstrably less credible and less supported (e.g., less citations), I am doubtful I can have a meaningful conversation with you.” I am not necessarily saying it is biased, but I am saying that the author of that article takes a favorable view of health reform in Mass, and yet finds he must admit to certain faults in the system, while glossing over (or simply not addressing) a number of other issues with the system. I got most of my claims from Wikipedia; perhaps not the most scientific source there is, but reliable enough for the basic facts.
@suicide_king23 - Just curious what we should do with all the bodies of the Deadbeats?
@suicide_king23 - LOL!!! You just commented we should let people who work 40 hours a week (minimum wage) yet their employer doesn’t provide them insurance who gets hit by a car bleed to death. The definition of a Psychopath is that they lack any sort of empathy. You fit the bill homey.
@UTRow1 - Corporations and businesses don’t need government to exist, in fact, they would probably flourish better without.
@suicide_king23 - To say your “morality” is strange to me is an major understatement.
@tendollar4ways - Do you not get that I am mocking your 2-dimensional worldview?
@suicide_king23 - I can see you approve of Stalin’s tactics in dealing with Ukraine back in the day.
@tendollar4ways - Yeah, ’cause not allowing myself to be dismembered by the useless 20% of society is tantamount to genocide.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - You guys are good at making really outrageous assertions with no historical or evidentiary support.
Why don’t you do some preliminary research on anti-trust law, Gilded Age businesses, the reasons behind the rise of the federal administrative state, and then get back to me.
Look, a world without a government would be a world without enforceable contracts. No private replacement could ever arise. It’s not even theoretically possible, and not even the most insanely minimalist libertarian academics deny this. Business literally couldn’t happen on any significant scale without a fairly expansive government (by your standards).
@suicide_king23 - The Constitution was written to create a centralized federal government with expansive powers in particular, delineated spheres. That was its primary purpose, not “limit what duly elected officials could enact.” Point to text in the Constitution that supports this proposition, or case law with such an interpretation. The Constitution grants incredibly broad powers to the legislative branch as to what it can and cannot do.
Furthermore, your insistence on arguing about Wilson has nothing to do with what I have written. The Constitution explicitly created a democratic republic. The general populace has voted political representatives into office ever since. This is not a disputable point, and if your ideology relies on a different understanding of the Constitution, it is wrong. Provide me with an academic source that supports this belief, please.
When we are operating on a solid constitutional basis, I will address the other issues.
@suicide_king23 - You are a hardcore Psychopath homey. 60 million?? Your boy Stalin only did 20. Semantics smantics…..В то же
@UTRow1 - “The Constitution was written to create a centralized federal government with expansive powers in particular, delineated spheres. That was its primary purpose, not “limit what duly elected officials could enact.” Point to text in the Constitution that supports this proposition, or case law with such an interpretation. The Constitution grants incredibly broad powers to the legislative branch as to what it can and cannot do.”
Yes. With emphasis on “particular” and “delineated.” I am aware that what the founding fathers had in mind was not necessarily a proto-libertarian state (with the exception of Thomas Jefferson); however, that is what came about (more or less) from putting genuine limits on Federal Power — which absolutely was the intent behind the constitution. “Furthermore, your insistence on arguing about Wilson has nothing to do with what I have written.” Not so. I cited him as an example of a progressive politician who made exceptionally bad executive and legislative decisions. “The Constitution explicitly created a democratic republic. The general populace has voted political representatives into office ever since. This is not a disputable point, and if your ideology relies on a different understanding of the Constitution, it is wrong. Provide me with an academic source that supports this belief, please.” Yes, the constitution provides for electing leaders democratically. Saying that I deny this is a strawman; I haven’t and I don’t. My point is that the constitution is designed to limit the scope of what may be legislated. My academic source? The Bill of Rights (that would be constitutional amendments 1 through 10, to the layman). Also, if I may, I would like to address the following statement (even though it was not addressed to me, directly): “Look, a world without a government would be a world without enforceable contracts.” That statement is a strawman. I think I can safely say that no one here is an anarchist, and that we all believe that the government has a role in adjudicating contracts. I keep on getting the idea that you don’t fully grasp the theoretical-legal principles that we are invoking.
@suicide_king23 - If I had never heard of radical libertarianism…I would think you were one too. But alas, you are an objectivist grouper./cultist.
@suicide_king23 - I’ve known him like 4 years. He’s not a troll. Often an asshole, but not a troll.
@suicide_king23 - Stalin (the epitomy of Government evil) starved the Ukranians to death. He had his selfish reasons. SK23 would have us turn away POOR sick and injured people from ER and let um bleed to death and die the street. Your reasons are also selfish. Result is the same and you are using semantics to justify one immoral act while vilifying the other. Same shit if ya ask me.
@tendollar4ways - I think it’s great that you care so much about people who are broke and/or deadbeats. I highly encourage you to help them. With
your
money. I will thank you to keep your hands out of my pockets.
@tendollar4ways - What you do with your money and time is your business. What I do with my money and time is my business. End of story.
@suicide_king23 - Well, not exactly. You cannot say….. wire all your money to Al Qaeda in Yemen for instance to help Bomb the US embassy…….I thought you were soooo 5 dimensional?
@suicide_king23 - Sorry, that still doesn’t support your previous statement. I would like the support I asked for, either in the express language of the Constitution or federal case law, or I would like for you to admit that you misspoke and/or were mistaken.
Your philosophy necessitates a world with no government or law, whether you have come to recognize it or not. As I painfully explained, and you (inartfully) dodged. So no, I have not made a strawman argument. You have expressly and impliedly argued against that assertion multiple times.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That seems pretty straightforward to me; it seems to me that the meaning of this statement boils down to: “if we don’t specifically give the Federal Government the right act, then the Federal Government has no right to act.” This, therefore, amounts to a very straightforward limitation upon the powers of our democratically elected representatives to enact legislation. “Your philosophy necessitates a world with no government or law, whether you have come to recognize it or not.” That is quite simply not true. My argument boils down to this: Man owns himself, as well as the products of his actions and non-coercive relationships. A man is in the wrong if he initiates the use of force or commits fraud against another human being. The proper role of government is to prosecute those who initiate the use of force, coercion, and fraud. How do you extrapolate anarchy from that statement?
@tendollar4ways - When you exercise yourself toward an active initiation of force, then it becomes other peoples’ business. It is kind of sad that I have to go out of my way to point that out.
@suicide_king23 - It is sad I must point out to you that things like fraud, coersion, force as just about everything in life are subjective not objective.
@suicide_king23 - Stalin deny’s someone food and they die….Evil government. SK23′s ER denies someone medical treatment and they die…Good private business savy.
Subjective homeslice.
@suicide_king23 - Let me refresh your memory of what you said. You said, “Actually, originally, this was a constitutional republic in which democratic forces were very limited.”
The 10th Amendment is irrelevant to this claim. Not only was the 10th Amendment not “originally” a part of the Constitution, it has to do with the balance of powers between the federal/state governments. It has nothing to do with “limiting” democratic forces in any discernible way, as democratic forces can act at the federal, state, and local levels. That is, the sum total “democratic force” is not limited at all by the 10th Amendment; it is only allocated by it.
Also, as a general proposition, the 10th Amendment and most legal doctrines derived from it are virtually dead in constitutional jurisprudence. Some conservatives judges/justices have been trying to revive it as of late, but it really isn’t a sound legal basis to hinge an ideology on in any significant capacity. It’s been interpreted out of existence. I’m not interested in arguing whether that’s a good or bad thing, I am just stating a legal truth.
^^ this also applies to your related claim that the Constitution ”limit[s] what duly elected officials could enact.”
@tendollar4ways - I see human beings as self-motivated individuals who can and should be responsible for themselves. You apparently see human beings as dogs that have to be taken care of.
If you don’t see how murder, theft, rape, etc. are objective and wrong, then I think we’re done here. @UTRow1 - The constitution was put into effect in 1789. The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) was enacted by 1791. In constitutional terms, that’s a ridiculously small amount of time for 10 amendments to be passed. If you don’t think that the first 10 amendments do not limit the scope of government action, then I think that you either haven’t read them, or you are slightly delusional.
Amendment 1: the government may not restrict freedom of press, religion, assembly, or speech.Amendment 2: the government may not forbid the private ownership of arms, nor forbid the organization of a private militia.Amendment 3: the military may not forcibly occupy private homes.Amendment 4: the government may not conduct unreasonable search or seizure.Amendment 5 through 8: the government may not condemn a man without due process.Amendment 9: The rights of the individual are in no way limited to what is written in the constitution.Amendment 10: The government has no right to take any action that is not specifically authorized by the constitution. More so than any subsequent amendments, the first 10 must be seen as an integral expression of intent of the government, given the immediacy of their acceptance. The constitution had to be passed first in order to provide the framework for coming to an agreement on the initial amendments, but the Bill of Rights is most certainly the cornerstone of the original American government.
@suicide_king23 - You’re still technically incorrect. I would also point out that the 10 Amendments is not a direct or even proximate representation of the “original” intent of the Framers. The process that led to the adoption of the Constitution and the process that led to the ratification of the Bill of Rights were substantially different procedures with substantially different groups of people participating (i.e., constitutional convention versus bicameralism). The fact they were temporally proximate isn’t controlling, as significantly different people and processes are responsible for each. The Bill of Rights would have been included in the Constitution if it was intended to have been. One of the reasons it wasn’t is that they couldn’t agree what it would entail or whether it should exist at all.
Regardless, these Amendments still don’t adequately support your contention(s), particularly this one: “Actually, originally, this was a constitutional republic in which democratic forces were very limited. There was, and is, a very good reason for this: pure democracy is simply the tyranny of the 51%.”
You have provided no evidence of this. You can’t provide evidence for this because you are simply incorrect. The only question remaining is just how wrong you are. Depending on how you define “democratic forces,” you are either technically and insubstantially wrong, or you are impressively, fundamentally wrong. None of these amendments are directly relevant to “the democratic” process. What exactly where you trying to say? My issue is that you seem to be implying that “Obamacare” and the other progressive legislation you listed are, procedurally, unconstitutional or illegitimate. You may disagree with those policies substantively, or argue that the Founding fathers wouldn’t approve of it, but that’s not you seem to be doing.
@suicide_king23 - You are right…..we can all agree Abortion is Murder or was it a woman’s right to choose? I forget but I am sure we all agree…Trevon Martin was a murderer or was he murdered or was it manslaughter…..or was the other guy ? Damn memory….know the answer is simple but I am getting old and just forget.
If you wish to be done and go back to your black and white, 2 dimensional world without the slightest shade of grey you live in fine…..I am not going to stop you…
We do not live in a vacuum. You eliminate “government”….something else will fill its place and more than likely it will be the strongest, most ruthless, richest, rabid dog. No homey….we need government to protect people from the real dogs.
@UTRow1 - In a pure democracy, if 51% of people want something, then what the remaining 49% want is irrelevant. If the 51% want to confiscate someone’s land, they can do it. If the 51% want to regulate who the 49% want to marry they can do that. If the 51% want to send the 49% to “work camps” they can do that. That’s unbridled democracy.
Your objections about the Bill of Rights notwithstanding, the fact remains that the ink hadn’t dried on the Constitution before they were passed. Whether you want to admit it or not, these amendments do put limits upon the scope and power of our democratically elected officials, and they have been the cornerstone of American law almost since the very inception of American law itself. @tendollar4ways - Alright, I’ll humor you.
Abortion is murder because you are exterminating an innocent human life. Trevon Martin, by all accounts, Assaulted Mr. Gonzales; thus Mr. Gonzales acted in self defense. Whether or not we can “agree” about this is not relevant. These are the facts. And no one is talking about “eliminating government.” I am advocating reasonable limitations on government; which you would know if you’d actually taken the time to read what I wrote.
@suicide_king23 - You completely missed the point. I had no intention of arguing for or against abortion or the guilt or innocence ofTrevon Martin and could have easily argued either side of either of these arguements. The FACT that you did demonstrates utter flaws of your arguement.
@tendollar4ways - “You completely missed the point. I had no intention of arguing for or against abortion or the guilt or innocence ofTrevon Martin and could have easily argued either side of either of these arguements.”
And you missed my point — which is that murder and assault are not ambiguous. “The FACT that you did demonstrates utter flaws of your arguement.” The statement preceding this does not logically necessitate this statement, and is null in any case. I don’t know what it is you have done that you feel that you have to make excuses for murder and assault, but your dirty conscience is not my problem. That’s a personal issue, and I can’t help you with that.
@suicide_king23 - And you missed my point — which is that murder and assault are not ambiguous.
The abortion issue proves your statement incorrect. It is up for debate. As is the whole Trevon Martin issue. The world isn’t black and white.
Now dirty conscience….I figure that is what all your Objectivist BS is all about, somehow justifying your anti-social behavior….It is psychopathic and a utter contradiction. But I guess that describes you very well. A Christian, follower of Jesus who proudly states your creed is Fuck thy neighbor and you think this is rational?
I couldn’t let someone simply bleed to death if I could help it. You on the other hand advocate it and more than likely would get some sick pleasure out of it.
You and your philo is demented and sick…..and not rational either….simply psychopathic. I have read it described as soulless and I think that hits the nail on the head.
@tendollar4ways - Yeah, except you’re not helping people. You’re stealing from people. Stealing from the productive to give to the useless. Helping people is great. Coercing others to pour their money into the bottomless pit of sub-human worthlessness is not. I don’t apologize for saying so. You should apologize for every vote you have cast for political thieves, and for every penny you have stolen at gunpoint via the government.
@suicide_king23 - A man walks into an ER with a gunshot wound and you stop the bleeding, sew him up and he lives. That is what is called helping. I know for the Psychopath mind this is not helping because the only thing that matters to a psychopath is whats in it for me.
A man walks into an ER with a gunshot wound, you run his credit, it is no good so you turn him away and he dies….THAT is not helping.
You are a friggin lunatic.
Your whole philosophy is a just one big irrational contradiction. The highest morality is selfishness and self interest yet at the same time you need to unselfishly allow others to do the same? To be rationally selfish you need to be unselfish?
Taxes are not stealing.
JFK gave a lot of lip service to Liberals. But his actions showed him to be more of a Centrist, which is why I liked him. Don’t much care for either Liberals or Conservatives.
@tendollar4ways - “A man walks into an ER with a gunshot wound, you run his credit, it is no good so you turn him away and he dies….THAT is not helping.”
Context dropping. How about this: a man who has managed to get away with not working his entire life comes into the ER with no intent to pay for treatment. He is treated. Because he refuses to pay, the cost of his treatment is passed onto someone working 60 hours per week, who must now forgo eating decent food (which, thanks to food stamps, the other person can readily “afford” [also, at the expense of the latter individual]) in order to pay off his medical bills and keep his family in doors and in clothes. Your example is maudlin theater. Mine is every day reality. “You are a friggin lunatic.” No, it just looks that way to people who are clueless. “Your whole philosophy is a just one big irrational contradiction. The highest morality is selfishness and self interest yet at the same time you need to unselfishly allow others to do the same? To be rationally selfish you need to be unselfish?” You’re projecting. I haven’t brought up the altruist-egoist distinction in this discussion at all (and, in fact, I believe that distinction to be philosophically obsolete — separate subject).
@suicide_king23 - Everyday reality is most people on foodstamps work. The wealthiest (victims I think you call them) in this country have gotten exponentially wealthier since the tax cuts and many many people work yet don’t have insurance…..you have the nerve to sell your utter psychopathic horseshit?
Oh yea….psychopaths lie just as they breath…….sick homey…ya is sick. All this so the rich get richer?
@suicide_king23 - Just wanted to add a little more reality….I have a buddy who use to work with who had his own rep firm. 50K revenue a month. Many employees. 60K Caddy (back in mid 90′s). Semiconductors were hot…then they were not as everything went to China. He didn’t save as much as he should have and he gave 10% to the Church because he is real real devout. Now he is struggling but still work probably close to 60 and no insurance because he cannot afford it. Got a staph infection and was treated. Homeboy would be dead if it was up to you. He is still a rabid conservative and I makes little sense to me to associate with people who would leave ya to die but….thats real reality. Not your made up BS. Let him die so some asshole can make 25 million a year cuz he cornered the medical market?
The foundation of Psychopathy is a complete lack of empathy.
@UTRow1 - In a world without government reputation would go a good deal further than it does now. People can engage in trade without a 3rd party looking over their shoulder, and it has happened plenty of times in the past. If someone or some group has a reputation for crooked behavior and for not upholding their contract then they will lose business. Take the Gypsies for example. They engaged in near perpetual hucksterism, and tried to move from place to place, but their negative reputation preceded them.
Also you are forgetting international trade and multinational corporations. There is no governing body to regulate trade between nations.
In any case, you’re right about one thing, not everyone can handle freedom, or the same level of freedom. So anarchy would not be for everyone, just as limited government is not for everyone. What I suggest is breaking people up based on nations rather than governments or empires, and those of us who can handle freedom will, and those who cannot will not have to. You can have your countries and we can have ours.
You’re not a troll. You’re a dog. You think like a dog. You act like a dog. You bark like a dog. Is it any wonder that you think people should be treated like dogs? I fundamentally see human beings and morality in a different way than you do. And you can’t handle that. I think we have exhausted the usefulness of this conversation.
@suicide_king23 - Perhaps we are getting somewhere. You get that We SEE morality very different. Morality and everything isn’t an absolute. BTW…did you see Zimmerman on Hannity? I see a psychopath , you see an innocent man. As far as Dogs go…..I disagree on our views there too. I would say you see other people as Dogs. An innocent child of a poor irresponsible parent who doesn’t have inssurence gets hit by a car should be put down (turned away from the ER) like a Dog….I think they should be treated like humans.
I think Everything is relative.
@suicide_king23 - i never said that the government doesn’t use force. but liberalism doesn’t have a monopoly on that.
The lineament of your articles and listing is large. living social
Comments (84)
HE DIED THO
wtf, people? 45 views and I’m the first to ‘rec.
It’s important to look behind sometimes though. If you don’t learn from history you’re doomed to repeat it.
@firetyger - The Edmund Burke argument for conservatism is that our traditions and practices reflects the collective wisdom and experience of all those who went before us. There is great value to this and it would be foolhardy to cast it aside for the next new thing or the next new idea.
@ShimmerBodyCream - He lives on, eternal, as an airport.
@firetyger - @Celestial_Teapot - Ultimately nothing is “right” or “wrong” by virtue of its longevity or recency alone. I’m sure that’s not a revelation to any of us. The virtue is in being able to discern what from our past, and in our future, is relevant, reasonable and worthy of retention/adoption rather than being bound by the equally fallacious ideas that something that is new/something that has been around for a long time is “good” just because.
@Celestial_Teapot - LOL TEAPOT, YOU SO FUNNAY.
You’re such a Godless Liberal. We’ve been over this, Krisko.
@moss_icon - No it’s not. Rather than age, ideas and positions stand on their merits– evidence and arguments. As individuals, we can only assess political, religious, and social positions through a lens with personal biases and a limited scope of personal experiences and education.
That is why in science and history, professional consensus matters so much. It matters when many minds, independently converge to a common consensus.
Conservatism (in the Burkian sense) recognizes the value of historical consensus. They believe that our forebears have had the arguments on the important issues, and through a long and continuous process, have winnowed down to what works and what seems true. The ideas given to us, through history, was borne through a consensus of the generations. Conservatives don’t believe that ideas are right just because they’re old– rather, because they’re so valuable, we must be conservative, careful, in the acceptance and adoption of untested, newfangled ideas.
@Celestial_Teapot - Well said. As per Conservatives, I believe that (the Burkian Sense) is how a Conservative of integrity would act, in that it’s a non-absolute position born of reason, trial and error. I don’t disagree with their position at all.
I think the modern Conservative, however, is largely reactionary and has little integrity in the way of consistent political/social philosophy. Rather than letting reason inform their prejudices, they let prejudice inform their reasoning.
@Celestial_Teapot - I mean, there’s also the problem of whether the collective wisdom of previous generations was indeed “wisdom” at all, and not merely prejudice. It’s a bit of a generalisation but when some major upheaval occurs, history generally shows that very rarely does “keeping things the way they were” win out or work. I’d like to think that, in those instances, it’s because people were able to do as all people should, regardless of political alignment – evaluate the issue reasonably and intelligently. A Liberal should be able to evaluate a bad “new-fangled idea” and reject it, just as a Conservative should be able to identify when The Old isn’t working and change and progress are needed.
I’m proud to say it too, much to the chagrin of my conservative parents.
@firetyger - I don’t think any liberal would advocate for change just for the sake of change.
@moss_icon - @Celestial_Teapot - what defines modern conservativism is drastic change, though. Take abortion, for example. Modern abortion law is the product of a long, painful historical realization by our society that abortion is a necessary part of a functional, first-world society. Many conservatives want to simply abandon decades of case law and outlaw/restrict abortion at a federal level that is unparalleled in American history. The same thing for the growing number of anarcho-capitalist libertarian/Tea Party conservatives that want to completely disband all/most federal agencies, outlaw taxation, or disband social programs like Social Security. Then, there are all the closeted racists who want to overturn the Civil Rights Act, affirmative action programs, etc., which have been around for decades. Again, there are all things that have existed for a long time and were created in the measured judgment of several generations of Americans because the society modern conservatives want to create simply wasn’t working.
When it comes down to it, what many conservatives want to “conserve” are aspects of a society that either never existed (e.g., abortions have always been prevalent in America, and their frequency has been declining since Roe v. Wade) or conserve aspects of our society that were failed and/or undesirable.
I always like to add social to it. I am a social liberal. If you never heard it in the typical ‘American’ context you could think of someone who defends a ‘liberal market’ aka a hardcore capitalist.
i just attempted to dialogue with a conservative. it’s become obvious to me that they haven’t the slightest idea what liberalism really stands for. i told her to continue seeing me as the scum of the earth, because the feeling is probably politically mutual.
I love this.
“if that is what they mean by a liberal…”
who’s “they”?
That definition does not match the majority of practitioners.
@flapper_femme_fatale - I don’t think it’s possible for us to find common ground. The best thing to do is split up the country and go our separate ways. Much like what the English did with India, when they created Pakistan and India as separate states, except that our split needs to be more thorough than that.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - i’d be all for it. my mother and i both agree that we should have just let the South secede. to quote an upcoming film, what’s the point of having civilization if no one wants to be civilized?
@flapper_femme_fatale - Now that is one thing we can agree on. There is no point in forcing people who are disparately different to live together. Of course, it doesn’t have to be a straight north/south split, it could be that every state goes it’s own way, or maybe different communities within each state. There is nothing wrong with having city states even.
@UTRow1 - I think splitting the country up is the best thing to do. Then you liberals could have your socialism and your huge invasive government, and we could have our borderline anarchy and family oriented societies. It’s the perfect solution which would make everyone happy, or at least us, and niether of us would have to deal with eachother any more.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - That might make sense in a world with no externalities, geographic proximity, a south with industrial capacity, no contracts between interstate parties, national corporations, etc. Unfortunately for us both, we don’t live in that world.
One can look to the future and care about people without being a liberal. The definitive feature of a liberal (in the modern, not classical, sense) is that he/she is willing to forcibly compel others to accept their vision of the future via taxation and government mandate.
@suicide_king23 - acceptance is a thought process. unless we’re actively hypnotizing you, i don’t see how we can control what you do and do not accept. just because certain policies are instituted, doesn’t mean you have to agree with them. i don’t agree with most conservative policies, but i’d never argue that conservatives were attempting to force my acceptance by managing to get those policies passed.
@flapper_femme_fatale - Well, I am not going to vouch for conservatives (I am not one). But if you do not understand how government policies involve the implementation of force, then allow me to walk you through it. Take Social Security, for example. Here is a government program (i.e., a kind of government policy). The idea is that people should set money aside so that they can retire. Nothing wrong with that idea. The problem I have is that a liberal politician (FDR) decided that the government should implement this idea on behalf of the American people by force. I do not have any choice with regards to whether or not I want to participate in this program. If I work, then money will be taken from my earnings without my consent in order to fund this program. Take the medical bill as another example. The idea is that people should buy medical insurance so that, should something catastrophic happen to them, medically, there will be a financial safety net to ensure that they get the treatment they need. It’s a great idea. Again, the problem is that a liberal politician (Obama) decided that the government should implement this on a national scale and force everyone to participate. Now, if I don’t buy health insurance, the government will fine me (the SC calls it a tax, but that’s BS; it’s a fine). It doesn’t help that the government has a track record of dishonesty, inefficiency, and fraudulent behavior with regards to these programs, which is why SS has become such a financial liability, and why government health care will be as well (if you don’t believe me, then just look at the Massachusetts health care system; our new system was designed off of that system).
@suicide_king23 - AS OPPOSED TO FORCING PEOPLE TO ACCEPTCOMPLETELY LOGICAL SOCIAL RULES, PARTICULARLY INVOLVING FAMILY PLANNING. NOW, “THOSE PEOPLE” SHOULD BE PERFECTLY WILLING TO ACCEPT THOSE.
@DEISENBERG - Type. Then read over, and make sure that what you have typed is intelligible. Then make any necessary corrections. Then stop typing in ALL CAPS.
…
Only then should you click on the “Submit” button.
The part of that that speaks to me is that a liberal is someone who cares about the welfare of people. You may call me a liberal as well.
@suicide_king23 - (1) If you don’t want to live in a society where popularly elected representatives enacted legislation that creates legal obligations for you, I’m sorry, but that’s just tough. That’s how our government has always worked in this country, and it’s not a “problem” for most people. Most of us understand that that’s how living in a society with a government works. Find yourself a nice cave on a deserted island and create your “Libertopia” if you want to have absolute control over every aspect of your life. But it’s not reasonable (or desirable) to hope for a “forceless” world when you are living in a large democratic republic.
Furthermore, you seem to be hung up on government “force”. Are you not equally concerned with private acts of “force”? I don’t consent to irresponsible individuals choosing to forego health insurance, getting, sick, and driving up costs, hospital waiting times, my premiums, etc. which have direct impacts on my life. Why is government force any more inherently wrong than private force? Why is one more desirable than the other? Whose perspective matters on the “force” issue, and whose values prevail when there are conflicting opinions? Why? The standard is arbitrary. Anyone can make it mean whatever they please.
Also, according to your logic, every federal, state, and local law, regulation, ordinance, etc. would be a wrongful use of “force” because they all create legal obligations or requirements for you in certain situations. If I park my car in front of a meter and don’t put in a coin, I get a ticket; I can’t drink water without fluoride in it; I have to paint my house one of 10 colors in my neighborhood, or I face a fine; my kids have to go to the public school of the district we reside in; etc. If we adopt your standard, and struck down all laws that were not passed with unanimous, direct consent, we would have 0 laws, regulation, codes, etc. That’s completely insane. Your standard is unworkable.
(2) There’s no evidence that non-federal forces can handle large, interstate issues (like health care reform) as well as the federal government. In fact, there are numerous historical examples indicating that the federal government and only the federal government can effectively tackle certain issues, such as interstate pollution control and, ironically, health care reform. Regardless, only someone who has never worked within a major company could believe that they are not hilariously bureaucratic and inefficient.
At the very best, this qualm is based on an unproven assumption that non-centralized, non-governmental forces can be as effective or more effective than the federal government at everything or, at the very least, reforming healthcare. If the later was true, it seems we would have never needed government interference to begin with, or that doctors would not have overwhelmingly supported heatlh care reform in 2008.
(3) The Health Care law was not a uniform decision by Obama. It was drafted, created, and or accepted by Congress, major players in the health care services industry, major players in the insurance industry, etc.
(4) Lastly, by virtually every measure, Massachusetts has one of the best health care policies in the country. Most of the conservative talking points about it are factually wrong.
let’s drink to that!
@UTRow1 - “When it comes down to it, what many
conservatives want to “conserve” are aspects of a society that either
never existed (e.g., abortions have always been prevalent in America,
and their frequency has been declining since Roe v. Wade) or conserve
aspects of our society that were failed and/or undesirable.”
This! This is what I’ve long suspected. Especially the “never existed” part.
@UTRow1 - “(1) If you don’t want to live in a society where popularly elected representatives enacted legislation that creates legal obligations for you, I’m sorry, but that’s just tough. That’s how our government has always worked in this country, and it’s not a “problem” for most people. Most of us understand that that’s how living in a society with a government works. Find yourself a nice cave on a deserted island and create your “Libertopia” if you want to have absolute control over every aspect of your life. But it’s not reasonable (or desirable) to hope for a “forceless” world when you are living in a large democratic republic.”
Actually, originally, this was a constitutional republic in which democratic forces were very limited. There was, and is, a very good reason for this: pure democracy is simply the tyranny of the 51%. That’s not to say that things were ever perfect, but we did have the more or less the right idea up until about the time of Woodrow Wilson.
“Furthermore, you seem to be hung up on government “force”. Are you not equally concerned with private acts of “force”? I don’t consent to irresponsible individuals choosing to forego health insurance, getting, sick, and driving up costs, hospital waiting times, my premiums, etc. which have direct impacts on my life. Why is government force any more inherently wrong than private force? Why is one more desirable than the other? Whose perspective matters on the “force” issue, and whose values prevail when there are conflicting opinions? Why? The standard is arbitrary. Anyone can make it mean whatever they please.”
My argument is far broader than that. You see, you are correct: individuals who accept medical care without any intention of paying it are guilty of initiating force. That is just as wrong. ERs should not be forced to accept deadbeat patients. Yes. I know how harsh that sounds. That’s life. If we didn’t treat healthcare like a it’s some kind of divine birthright, then non-deadbeats wouldn’t have to be dragging the deadbeats around. And it would be more affordable; meaning more people would be in a position to choose not to be deadbeats.
“Also, according to your logic, every federal, state, and local law, regulation, ordinance, etc. would be a wrongful use of “force” because they all create legal obligations or requirements for you in certain situations. If I park my car in front of a meter and don’t put in a coin, I get a ticket; I can’t drink water without fluoride in it; I have to paint my house one of 10 colors in my neighborhood, or I face a fine; my kids have to go to the public school of the district we reside in; etc. If we adopt your standard, and struck down all laws that were not passed with unanimous, direct consent, we would have 0 laws, regulation, codes, etc. That’s completely insane. Your standard is unworkable.”
Again, you do not appreciate the scope of my argument. I believe in the legal principle of “self-ownership,” and I believe that all just laws are such that they directly support that principle (e.g., laws against theft, murder, rape, trespassing, etc.); and all just taxation is such that it is necessary to fund such government activities which are indispensable to the protection of that principle (such as a military, police force, etc.). I fail to see how being able to choose what color to paint my house, or being able to choose how to raise my child is “insane” and “unworkable.”
“(2) There’s no evidence that non-federal forces can handle large, interstate issues (like health care reform) as well as the federal government. In fact, there are numerous historical examples indicating that the federal government and only the federal government can effectively tackle certain issues, such as interstate pollution control and, ironically, health care reform. Regardless, only someone who has never worked within a major company could believe that they are not hilariously bureaucratic and inefficient.”
Pollution is an interesting case from the context of the self-ownership principle, because self-ownership entails property rights. When someone pollutes, they, generally, end up polluting other peoples’ properties. Thus, the government is well within its rights to fine individuals and businesses that pollute in order to compensate (or ameliorate) the damages incurred to other individuals and their properties. As for health care reform, the problem is not the private sector, per se, but rather a combination of laws forcing hospitals to provide care to deadbeats, the FDA driving up the costs of producing drugs, an aging population, a civil court system which vastly increases the risk (and therefore insurance cost) of practicing medicine, the need to squeeze ever dollar out of the insured in order to remain solvent while treating deadbeats, and the artificial shortage of medical professionals created by government requirements that must be met in order to practice medicine.
“At the very best, this qualm is based on an unproven assumption that non-centralized, non-governmental forces can be as effective or more effective than the federal government at everything or, at the very least, reforming healthcare. If the later was true, it seems we would have never needed government interference to begin with, or that doctors would not have overwhelmingly supported heatlh care reform in 2008.”
The problem is government. Is the solution more government?
“(3) The Health Care law was not a uniform decision by Obama. It was drafted, created, and or accepted by Congress, major players in the health care services industry, major players in the insurance industry, etc.”
And? Congress is at least as screwed up as the executive branch; probably more. And is it really any comfort to you that the insurance companies are so comfy with our government officials?
“(4) Lastly, by virtually every measure, Massachusetts has one of the best health care policies in the country. Most of the conservative talking points about it are factually wrong. “
Your first source was a little heavy on the propaganda, and a little light on facts.Your second source admits to a number of substantial faults, including:1. Small businesses are disenfranchised.2. As many as 48% of physicians claim that wait times have increased.3. In spite of the fact that Mass is one of the most liberal states in the country, fully 1/3 of the people disapprove of the law, and approval has dropped since its inception.4. The state underestimated the cost of the project.
Also, it alluded to (but failed to fully disclose) that you cannot run a business in Mass with more than 10 employees unless you offer health insurance, and if you fail to do so, you incur a fine. Furthermore, it failed to mention that the Mass uninsured rate wasn’t actually that high to begin with; so as expensive as it was, it will not even begin to compare with the same bill being applied on a national level (as the national uninsured percentage is much higher than Mass was in 2006). Additionally, copays max out at $7500 per family — the people that this bill will cover will almost certainly continue to stiff the system. What’s more, researchers have found that the Mass health reform has failed to decrease the number of medical bankruptcies. Your sources also fail to mention how people in Mass are gaming the system by being insured a few months out of the year in order to avoid paying the fine — essentially remaining uninsured. Also, the Blue Cross Blue Shield has estimated the actual cost of the Mass health care system to currently cost 2 billion a year, once you account for federal grants and waivers.
The healthcare system has been problematic in Mass; it will be disastrous on the national scale because of the greater percentage of uninsured, as well as the various logistical and administrative problems that come with creating a national program, as opposed to a state program.
@suicide_king23 - (1a) I’m not disputing the country used to be a nation of competing city-states. But we have had a democratic republic for several hundred years now, way before Woodrow Wilson. Wishing to go back to a model of government that was rejected and replaced specifically because it didn’t work doesn’t seem like a great idea. At the very least, it’s a claim that requires significant evidence to support, which you don’t seem interested on providing.
And no, I understand your argument just fine. As I explained, it’s self-defeating and unworkable. The problem is that it’s arbitrary, subjective, and self-defeating, largely because it is too broad and nebulous to act as any sort of meaningful standard. For example, you believe in “self-ownership,” which allegedly supports laws against rape, theft, murder, etc. To a murderer, rapist, or thief, those laws are anti-self-ownership. They prevent those people, by force, from doing what they please. What this standard leaves us with is people picking and choosing, subjectively, what laws they feel are acceptable/not acceptable based on entirely subjective inclinations. That’s not workable in a society because it is a standard-less standard with no meaningful substance. To reiterate, every single law, regulation, ordinance, etc. is a violation of self-ownership.
And last, just to reiterate, there is no historical or legal basis for ever adopting this governance philosophy in this country. Not even if we really favorably interpret the early colonial, laissez-faire era America. Even if it would work (it wouldn’t) it’s analogous to advocating for policies that will require buxom elves to feed you grapes and fan you seductively on hot summer days. Yeah, it sounds great, but it’s just a fantasy.
(1b) Just so we are clear, you are advocating that we have a system where people who cannot pay for their care are turned away, correct?
The world is a much more complicated place than you seem to believe. There are more to these issues than your visceral, gut reactions and moral philosophies. Having a population of 43 million uninsured people sick people would have a tremendously expensive, negative impact on society. Property values would go down with large populations of unsightly sick people; diseases would proliferate throughout the population, including the insured population; the workforce would decrease, affecting businesses; etc. You have to demonstrate that the cost-benefit analysis of your approach outweighs the cost-benefit analysis of what has been proposed. And that’s not even broaching the subject of how morally reprehensible this proposal is.
(2) How does self-ownership entail property rights? Property rights are created and enforced by society based on a legal rationale that is completely antithetical to what you propose. Property rights of individuals frequently conflict. How do you resolve, for example, a dispute between an owner of a parcel of land and an adverse possessor who has made beneficial use of that land under your property rights rationale? Any resolution necessarily requires a use of force that deprives someone of a reasonable expectation to use or own property. That’s the issue. Your system isn’t really about “self-government”. It’s about “self-preservation.” You want to have everything, free of influence from anyone else. But, again, that’s not workable in the real world because there are other people with competing interests who would have conflicting rights with you.
You haven’t proven that government is “the problem”. You have asserted that the government is responsible for a bunch of health-care related issues, as if that’s a foregone conclusion, but it’s not. Furthermore, most doctors don’t agree with your point of view on these matters. If government was the problem with health care, generally, why did a significant majority of physicians want a single payer or universal health care in 2008? What is the basis for your belief? I am just curious because, as someone who worked in the health care industry for a number of years, virtually no physicians, administrators, or health care economists share your views.
(3) The issue is that you gave Obama full credit for Health Care Reform, as if it was his unilateral decision. This is a common tactic among conservatives who try (and fail) to paint Obama as some executive tyrant-king. I was pointing out that is factually incorrect.
More if I have time. But I will say that if you find Factcheck.org to be biased, and then link to a demonstrably less reliable, less substantiated source, it’s unlikely we can have a meaningful conversation about this.
@UTRow1 - “(1a) I’m not disputing the country used to be a nation of competing city-states. But we have had a democratic republic for several hundred years now, way before Woodrow Wilson. Wishing to go back to a model of government that was rejected and replaced specifically because it didn’t work doesn’t seem like a great idea. At the very least, it’s a claim that requires significant evidence to support, which you don’t seem interested on providing.”
What are you talking about? The constitution was written in order to limit what duly elected officials could enact; and it was (more or less) effective in doing so up until the early 20th century. It worked pretty well for over a hundred years, and then we got a progressive, clinically insane (according to Freud) ideologue for a president, and things steadily went downhill from there.
“And no, I understand your argument just fine. As I explained, it’s self-defeating and unworkable. The problem is that it’s arbitrary, subjective, and self-defeating, largely because it is too broad and nebulous to act as any sort of meaningful standard. For example, you believe in “self-ownership,” which allegedly supports laws against rape, theft, murder, etc. To a murderer, rapist, or thief, those laws are anti-self-ownership.”
No. Self ownership means you may not initiate the use of force. Rapists, theives, murderers, etc. initiate the use of force. Do you understand the difference between voluntary cooperation and basic, physical coercion?
That is not subjective in the least.
“And last, just to reiterate, there is no historical or legal basis for ever adopting this governance philosophy in this country. Not even if we really favorably interpret the early colonial, laissez-faire era America. Even if it would work (it wouldn’t) it’s analogous to advocating for policies that will require buxom elves to feed you grapes and fan you seductively on hot summer days. Yeah, it sounds great, but it’s just a fantasy.”
It is true that it has never existed in its purest form. It is false to say that it is fantasy. This country came very close to creating a system of government based on this principle, which is, in large part, the reason why we have, historically, had a very flexible and resilient economy (not so much any more).
“(1b) Just so we are clear, you are advocating that we have a system where people who cannot pay for their care are turned away, correct? “
Correct.
“The world is a much more complicated place than you seem to believe. There are more to these issues than your visceral, gut reactions and moral philosophies. Having a population of 43 million uninsured people sick people would have a tremendously expensive, negative impact on society. Property values would go down; diseases would proliferate throughout the population, including the insured population;”
So instead, we are artificially propping up our economy with debt (to the tune of $15,000,000,000,000) in order to stave off the inevitable demographic correction as long as possible. Make no mistake — the correction is coming, and the longer we stave it off, the worse it will be.
“(1c) I would still like for you to address why private force, which is inevitable, is somehow inherently better than public force. What is your rationale for this.”
I already did address this. What are your questions?
“(2) How does self-ownership entail property rights? Property rights are created and enforced by society, and property rights frequently conflict. How do you resolve, for example, a dispute between an owner of a parcel of land and an adverse possessor who has made beneficial use of that land under your property rights rationale? Any resolution necessarily requires a use of force that deprives someone of a reasonable expectation to use or own property.”
One acquires property through self-exercise (that is, work) and voluntary agreements and relationships. Thus, what follows from the idea that man owns himself, is that anything he has acquired through honest (i.e., sans the initiation of force) effort is rightfully his — regardless of any social recognition or lack thereof.
“You haven’t proven that government is “the problem”. You have asserted that the government is responsible for a bunch of health-care related issues, as if that’s a foregone conclusion, but it’s not. Furthermore, most doctors don’t agree with your point of view on these matters. If government was the problem with health care, generally, why did a significant majority of physicians want a single payer or universal health care in 2008? What is the basis for your belief? I am just curious because, as someone who worked in the health care industry for a number of years, virtually no physicians, administrators, or health care economists share your views.”
I have itemized what I see as the problems with the system, as well as the issues that I think will arise from the system we have chosen to implement. What are your questions?
“(3) The issue is that you gave Obama full credit for Health Care Reform, as if it was his unilateral decision. This is a common tactic among conservatives who try (and fail) to paint Obama as some executive tyrant-king. I was pointing out that is factually incorrect. “
Tangential. I make no such claim here. He may not be a tyrant, but he is our leader, and the health care bill couldn’t have happened without him.
“More if I have time. But I will say that if you find Factcheck.org to be biased, and then link to an unreputable internet source that is demonstrably less credible and less supported (e.g., less citations), I am doubtful I can have a meaningful conversation with you.”
I am not necessarily saying it is biased, but I am saying that the author of that article takes a favorable view of health reform in Mass, and yet finds he must admit to certain faults in the system, while glossing over (or simply not addressing) a number of other issues with the system.
I got most of my claims from Wikipedia; perhaps not the most scientific source there is, but reliable enough for the basic facts.
@suicide_king23 - Just curious what we should do with all the bodies of the Deadbeats?
@suicide_king23 - LOL!!! You just commented we should let people who work 40 hours a week (minimum wage) yet their employer doesn’t provide them insurance who gets hit by a car bleed to death. The definition of a Psychopath is that they lack any sort of empathy. You fit the bill homey.
@UTRow1 - Corporations and businesses don’t need government to exist, in fact, they would probably flourish better without.
@suicide_king23 - You have some solid truth.
@tendollar4ways - Complain louder and steal more. That will fix things.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Thank you, sir.
@suicide_king23 - To say your “morality” is strange to me is an major understatement.
@tendollar4ways - Do you not get that I am mocking your 2-dimensional worldview?
@suicide_king23 - I can see you approve of Stalin’s tactics in dealing with Ukraine back in the day.
@tendollar4ways - Yeah, ’cause not allowing myself to be dismembered by the useless 20% of society is tantamount to genocide.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - You guys are good at making really outrageous assertions with no historical or evidentiary support.
Why don’t you do some preliminary research on anti-trust law, Gilded Age businesses, the reasons behind the rise of the federal administrative state, and then get back to me.
Look, a world without a government would be a world without enforceable contracts. No private replacement could ever arise. It’s not even theoretically possible, and not even the most insanely minimalist libertarian academics deny this. Business literally couldn’t happen on any significant scale without a fairly expansive government (by your standards).
@suicide_king23 - The Constitution was written to create a centralized federal government with expansive powers in particular, delineated spheres. That was its primary purpose, not “limit what duly elected officials could enact.” Point to text in the Constitution that supports this proposition, or case law with such an interpretation. The Constitution grants incredibly broad powers to the legislative branch as to what it can and cannot do.
Furthermore, your insistence on arguing about Wilson has nothing to do with what I have written. The Constitution explicitly created a democratic republic. The general populace has voted political representatives into office ever since. This is not a disputable point, and if your ideology relies on a different understanding of the Constitution, it is wrong. Provide me with an academic source that supports this belief, please.
When we are operating on a solid constitutional basis, I will address the other issues.
@suicide_king23 - You are a hardcore Psychopath homey. 60 million?? Your boy Stalin only did 20. Semantics smantics…..В то же
@UTRow1 - “The Constitution was written to create a centralized federal government with expansive powers in particular, delineated spheres. That was its primary purpose, not “limit what duly elected officials could enact.” Point to text in the Constitution that supports this proposition, or case law with such an interpretation. The Constitution grants incredibly broad powers to the legislative branch as to what it can and cannot do.”
Yes. With emphasis on “particular” and “delineated.”
I am aware that what the founding fathers had in mind was not necessarily a proto-libertarian state (with the exception of Thomas Jefferson); however, that is what came about (more or less) from putting genuine limits on Federal Power — which absolutely was the intent behind the constitution.
“Furthermore, your insistence on arguing about Wilson has nothing to do with what I have written.”
Not so. I cited him as an example of a progressive politician who made exceptionally bad executive and legislative decisions.
“The Constitution explicitly created a democratic republic. The general populace has voted political representatives into office ever since. This is not a disputable point, and if your ideology relies on a different understanding of the Constitution, it is wrong. Provide me with an academic source that supports this belief, please.”
Yes, the constitution provides for electing leaders democratically. Saying that I deny this is a strawman; I haven’t and I don’t. My point is that the constitution is designed to limit the scope of what may be legislated. My academic source? The Bill of Rights (that would be constitutional amendments 1 through 10, to the layman).
Also, if I may, I would like to address the following statement (even though it was not addressed to me, directly):
“Look, a world without a government would be a world without enforceable contracts.”
That statement is a strawman. I think I can safely say that no one here is an anarchist, and that we all believe that the government has a role in adjudicating contracts. I keep on getting the idea that you don’t fully grasp the theoretical-legal principles that we are invoking.
@tendollar4ways - You smell like a troll.
@suicide_king23 - If I had never heard of radical libertarianism…I would think you were one too. But alas, you are an objectivist grouper./cultist.
@suicide_king23 - I’ve known him like 4 years. He’s not a troll. Often an asshole, but not a troll.
@suicide_king23 - Stalin (the epitomy of Government evil) starved the Ukranians to death. He had his selfish reasons. SK23 would have us turn away POOR sick and injured people from ER and let um bleed to death and die the street. Your reasons are also selfish. Result is the same and you are using semantics to justify one immoral act while vilifying the other. Same shit if ya ask me.
@tendollar4ways - I think it’s great that you care so much about people who are broke and/or deadbeats. I highly encourage you to help them. With
your
money. I will thank you to keep your hands out of my pockets.
@suicide_king23 - You sound just like your Boy Jesus!!!
@tendollar4ways - What you do with your money and time is your business. What I do with my money and time is my business. End of story.
@suicide_king23 - Well, not exactly. You cannot say….. wire all your money to Al Qaeda in Yemen for instance to help Bomb the US embassy…….I thought you were soooo 5 dimensional?
@suicide_king23 - Sorry, that still doesn’t support your previous statement. I would like the support I asked for, either in the express language of the Constitution or federal case law, or I would like for you to admit that you misspoke and/or were mistaken.
Your philosophy necessitates a world with no government or law, whether you have come to recognize it or not. As I painfully explained, and you (inartfully) dodged. So no, I have not made a strawman argument. You have expressly and impliedly argued against that assertion multiple times.
@UTRow1 - USA Constitutional Amendment 10:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That seems pretty straightforward to me; it seems to me that the meaning of this statement boils down to: “if we don’t specifically give the Federal Government the right act, then the Federal Government has no right to act.” This, therefore, amounts to a very straightforward limitation upon the powers of our democratically elected representatives to enact legislation.
“Your philosophy necessitates a world with no government or law, whether you have come to recognize it or not.”
That is quite simply not true. My argument boils down to this:
Man owns himself, as well as the products of his actions and non-coercive relationships. A man is in the wrong if he initiates the use of force or commits fraud against another human being. The proper role of government is to prosecute those who initiate the use of force, coercion, and fraud.
How do you extrapolate anarchy from that statement?
@tendollar4ways - When you exercise yourself toward an active initiation of force, then it becomes other peoples’ business. It is kind of sad that I have to go out of my way to point that out.
@suicide_king23 - It is sad I must point out to you that things like fraud, coersion, force as just about everything in life are subjective not objective.
@tendollar4ways - …….WOW.
@suicide_king23 - Stalin deny’s someone food and they die….Evil government. SK23′s ER denies someone medical treatment and they die…Good private business savy.
Subjective homeslice.
@suicide_king23 - Let me refresh your memory of what you said. You said, “Actually, originally, this was a constitutional republic in which democratic forces were very limited.”
The 10th Amendment is irrelevant to this claim. Not only was the 10th Amendment not “originally” a part of the Constitution, it has to do with the balance of powers between the federal/state governments. It has nothing to do with “limiting” democratic forces in any discernible way, as democratic forces can act at the federal, state, and local levels. That is, the sum total “democratic force” is not limited at all by the 10th Amendment; it is only allocated by it.
Also, as a general proposition, the 10th Amendment and most legal doctrines derived from it are virtually dead in constitutional jurisprudence. Some conservatives judges/justices have been trying to revive it as of late, but it really isn’t a sound legal basis to hinge an ideology on in any significant capacity. It’s been interpreted out of existence. I’m not interested in arguing whether that’s a good or bad thing, I am just stating a legal truth.
^^ this also applies to your related claim that the Constitution ”limit[s] what duly elected officials could enact.”
@tendollar4ways - I see human beings as self-motivated individuals who can and should be responsible for themselves. You apparently see human beings as dogs that have to be taken care of.
If you don’t see how murder, theft, rape, etc. are objective and wrong, then I think we’re done here.
@UTRow1 - The constitution was put into effect in 1789. The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) was enacted by 1791. In constitutional terms, that’s a ridiculously small amount of time for 10 amendments to be passed. If you don’t think that the first 10 amendments do not limit the scope of government action, then I think that you either haven’t read them, or you are slightly delusional.
Amendment 1: the government may not restrict freedom of press, religion, assembly, or speech.Amendment 2: the government may not forbid the private ownership of arms, nor forbid the organization of a private militia.Amendment 3: the military may not forcibly occupy private homes.Amendment 4: the government may not conduct unreasonable search or seizure.Amendment 5 through 8: the government may not condemn a man without due process.Amendment 9: The rights of the individual are in no way limited to what is written in the constitution.Amendment 10: The government has no right to take any action that is not specifically authorized by the constitution.
More so than any subsequent amendments, the first 10 must be seen as an integral expression of intent of the government, given the immediacy of their acceptance. The constitution had to be passed first in order to provide the framework for coming to an agreement on the initial amendments, but the Bill of Rights is most certainly the cornerstone of the original American government.
@suicide_king23 - You’re still technically incorrect. I would also point out that the 10 Amendments is not a direct or even proximate representation of the “original” intent of the Framers. The process that led to the adoption of the Constitution and the process that led to the ratification of the Bill of Rights were substantially different procedures with substantially different groups of people participating (i.e., constitutional convention versus bicameralism). The fact they were temporally proximate isn’t controlling, as significantly different people and processes are responsible for each. The Bill of Rights would have been included in the Constitution if it was intended to have been. One of the reasons it wasn’t is that they couldn’t agree what it would entail or whether it should exist at all.
Regardless, these Amendments still don’t adequately support your contention(s), particularly this one: “Actually, originally, this was a constitutional republic in which democratic forces were very limited. There was, and is, a very good reason for this: pure democracy is simply the tyranny of the 51%.”
You have provided no evidence of this. You can’t provide evidence for this because you are simply incorrect. The only question remaining is just how wrong you are. Depending on how you define “democratic forces,” you are either technically and insubstantially wrong, or you are impressively, fundamentally wrong. None of these amendments are directly relevant to “the democratic” process. What exactly where you trying to say? My issue is that you seem to be implying that “Obamacare” and the other progressive legislation you listed are, procedurally, unconstitutional or illegitimate. You may disagree with those policies substantively, or argue that the Founding fathers wouldn’t approve of it, but that’s not you seem to be doing.
@suicide_king23 - You are right…..we can all agree Abortion is Murder or was it a woman’s right to choose? I forget but I am sure we all agree…Trevon Martin was a murderer or was he murdered or was it manslaughter…..or was the other guy ? Damn memory….know the answer is simple but I am getting old and just forget.
If you wish to be done and go back to your black and white, 2 dimensional world without the slightest shade of grey you live in fine…..I am not going to stop you…
We do not live in a vacuum. You eliminate “government”….something else will fill its place and more than likely it will be the strongest, most ruthless, richest, rabid dog. No homey….we need government to protect people from the real dogs.
@UTRow1 - In a pure democracy, if 51% of people want something, then what the remaining 49% want is irrelevant. If the 51% want to confiscate someone’s land, they can do it. If the 51% want to regulate who the 49% want to marry they can do that. If the 51% want to send the 49% to “work camps” they can do that. That’s unbridled democracy.
Your objections about the Bill of Rights notwithstanding, the fact remains that the ink hadn’t dried on the Constitution before they were passed. Whether you want to admit it or not, these amendments do put limits upon the scope and power of our democratically elected officials, and they have been the cornerstone of American law almost since the very inception of American law itself.
@tendollar4ways - Alright, I’ll humor you.
Abortion is murder because you are exterminating an innocent human life.
Trevon Martin, by all accounts, Assaulted Mr. Gonzales; thus Mr. Gonzales acted in self defense.
Whether or not we can “agree” about this is not relevant. These are the facts.
And no one is talking about “eliminating government.” I am advocating reasonable limitations on government; which you would know if you’d actually taken the time to read what I wrote.
@suicide_king23 - You completely missed the point. I had no intention of arguing for or against abortion or the guilt or innocence ofTrevon Martin and could have easily argued either side of either of these arguements. The FACT that you did demonstrates utter flaws of your arguement.
@tendollar4ways - “You completely missed the point. I had no intention of arguing for or against abortion or the guilt or innocence ofTrevon Martin and could have easily argued either side of either of these arguements.”
And you missed my point — which is that murder and assault are not ambiguous.
“The FACT that you did demonstrates utter flaws of your arguement.”
The statement preceding this does not logically necessitate this statement, and is null in any case.
I don’t know what it is you have done that you feel that you have to make excuses for murder and assault, but your dirty conscience is not my problem. That’s a personal issue, and I can’t help you with that.
@suicide_king23 - And you missed my point — which is that murder and assault are not ambiguous.
The abortion issue proves your statement incorrect. It is up for debate. As is the whole Trevon Martin issue. The world isn’t black and white.
Now dirty conscience….I figure that is what all your Objectivist BS is all about, somehow justifying your anti-social behavior….It is psychopathic and a utter contradiction. But I guess that describes you very well. A Christian, follower of Jesus who proudly states your creed is Fuck thy neighbor and you think this is rational?
I couldn’t let someone simply bleed to death if I could help it. You on the other hand advocate it and more than likely would get some sick pleasure out of it.
You and your philo is demented and sick…..and not rational either….simply psychopathic. I have read it described as soulless and I think that hits the nail on the head.
@tendollar4ways - Yeah, except you’re not helping people. You’re stealing from people. Stealing from the productive to give to the useless. Helping people is great. Coercing others to pour their money into the bottomless pit of sub-human worthlessness is not. I don’t apologize for saying so. You should apologize for every vote you have cast for political thieves, and for every penny you have stolen at gunpoint via the government.
@suicide_king23 - A man walks into an ER with a gunshot wound and you stop the bleeding, sew him up and he lives. That is what is called helping. I know for the Psychopath mind this is not helping because the only thing that matters to a psychopath is whats in it for me.
A man walks into an ER with a gunshot wound, you run his credit, it is no good so you turn him away and he dies….THAT is not helping.
You are a friggin lunatic.
Your whole philosophy is a just one big irrational contradiction. The highest morality is selfishness and self interest yet at the same time you need to unselfishly allow others to do the same? To be rationally selfish you need to be unselfish?
Taxes are not stealing.
JFK gave a lot of lip service to Liberals. But his actions showed him to be more of a Centrist, which is why I liked him. Don’t much care for either Liberals or Conservatives.
@tendollar4ways - “A man walks into an ER with a gunshot wound, you run his credit, it is no good so you turn him away and he dies….THAT is not helping.”
Context dropping. How about this: a man who has managed to get away with not working his entire life comes into the ER with no intent to pay for treatment. He is treated. Because he refuses to pay, the cost of his treatment is passed onto someone working 60 hours per week, who must now forgo eating decent food (which, thanks to food stamps, the other person can readily “afford” [also, at the expense of the latter individual]) in order to pay off his medical bills and keep his family in doors and in clothes.
Your example is maudlin theater. Mine is every day reality.
“You are a friggin lunatic.”
No, it just looks that way to people who are clueless.
“Your whole philosophy is a just one big irrational contradiction. The highest morality is selfishness and self interest yet at the same time you need to unselfishly allow others to do the same? To be rationally selfish you need to be unselfish?”
You’re projecting. I haven’t brought up the altruist-egoist distinction in this discussion at all (and, in fact, I believe that distinction to be philosophically obsolete — separate subject).
@suicide_king23 - Everyday reality is most people on foodstamps work. The wealthiest (victims I think you call them) in this country have gotten exponentially wealthier since the tax cuts and many many people work yet don’t have insurance…..you have the nerve to sell your utter psychopathic horseshit?
Oh yea….psychopaths lie just as they breath…….sick homey…ya is sick. All this so the rich get richer?
@suicide_king23 - Just wanted to add a little more reality….I have a buddy who use to work with who had his own rep firm. 50K revenue a month. Many employees. 60K Caddy (back in mid 90′s). Semiconductors were hot…then they were not as everything went to China. He didn’t save as much as he should have and he gave 10% to the Church because he is real real devout. Now he is struggling but still work probably close to 60 and no insurance because he cannot afford it. Got a staph infection and was treated. Homeboy would be dead if it was up to you. He is still a rabid conservative and I makes little sense to me to associate with people who would leave ya to die but….thats real reality. Not your made up BS. Let him die so some asshole can make 25 million a year cuz he cornered the medical market?
The foundation of Psychopathy is a complete lack of empathy.
@UTRow1 - In a world without government reputation would go a good deal further than it does now. People can engage in trade without a 3rd party looking over their shoulder, and it has happened plenty of times in the past. If someone or some group has a reputation for crooked behavior and for not upholding their contract then they will lose business. Take the Gypsies for example. They engaged in near perpetual hucksterism, and tried to move from place to place, but their negative reputation preceded them.
Also you are forgetting international trade and multinational corporations. There is no governing body to regulate trade between nations.
In any case, you’re right about one thing, not everyone can handle freedom, or the same level of freedom. So anarchy would not be for everyone, just as limited government is not for everyone. What I suggest is breaking people up based on nations rather than governments or empires, and those of us who can handle freedom will, and those who cannot will not have to. You can have your countries and we can have ours.
@tendollar4ways - You know, I was wrong.
You’re not a troll.
You’re a dog.
You think like a dog.
You act like a dog.
You bark like a dog.
Is it any wonder that you think people should be treated like dogs?
I fundamentally see human beings and morality in a different way than you do.
And you can’t handle that.
I think we have exhausted the usefulness of this conversation.
@suicide_king23 - Perhaps we are getting somewhere. You get that We SEE morality very different. Morality and everything isn’t an absolute. BTW…did you see Zimmerman on Hannity? I see a psychopath , you see an innocent man. As far as Dogs go…..I disagree on our views there too. I would say you see other people as Dogs. An innocent child of a poor irresponsible parent who doesn’t have inssurence gets hit by a car should be put down (turned away from the ER) like a Dog….I think they should be treated like humans.
I think Everything is relative.
@suicide_king23 - i never said that the government doesn’t use force. but liberalism doesn’t have a monopoly on that.
The lineament of your articles and listing is large.
living social