Obama Kills the Health Care Bill

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, you're either FOR individual liberty, or you're not. There's not a whole lot of grey area. I have a right to be totally selfish or totally altruistic. It's for no one to decide but me.

You're joking, right? Every government on the planet trades individual liberty and societal benefit to various degrees, and most people are perfectly happy with that. The only alternative is 100% anarchy (with a lot of really well armed people). Are you an anarchist?

No, I'm not joking. Just because "every nation on earth" trades individual freedom for "societal benefit" doesn't make it right. Anarchy is the state of lawlessness, no "government" at all. In my America, and that of the founding fathers, government and laws still exist, as they must, but with a very limited scope - to do only that necessary to secure the rights of individuals. They saw what European "societal benefit" had become and they wanted something different. But then government gets a little drunk on the power they can wield by use of force, and they sell further intrusions in your liberty by selling it as compassion. The masses buy it, many resist it. After a while, another revolution will ensue to once again restore individual liberty. I hope we/they adopt a constitution exactly like the one we have now with one addition - The Separation of Economy and State.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

It's funny how I think you missed the point as well.

How can I miss my own point? Maybe I didn't communicate it well, but I surely know what it is. Ya see, there are sooooo many out there who think BHO is SUCH a great orator, leader, and saavy politician. My point was to illustrate that at least in this one instance, he was a buffoon. To intend on selling an efficient government program by pointing to one that is inefficient, laden with loss, floating the idea of cutting output to 5 or maybe 4 days, and has the benefit of laws restricting the competition - is political buffoonery at its finest. In his own words, "its the Post Office that's always having problems!" Believe me, I'm happy with his incompetence in this realm.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, you're either FOR individual liberty, or you're not. There's not a whole lot of grey area. I have a right to be totally selfish or totally altruistic. It's for no one to decide but me.

You're joking, right? Every government on the planet trades individual liberty and societal benefit to various degrees, and most people are perfectly happy with that. The only alternative is 100% anarchy (with a lot of really well armed people). Are you an anarchist?

Quote

So I guess you think how China and the former USSR handled their issues by just killing or locking up the people that spoke out against them is ok by you? they did stop political unrest that could have caused social problems.

[rushmc 23]

billwon is correct. this debate is about what "idiots" read and/or comprehen or, what "idiots" believe when they listen to the government and in this case Obama

and Palin was not making anything up either Quade

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,452]

That document is another way of looking at end of life. It doesn't paint as specific a picture of what it can look like, which is OK for some people, and not OK for others.

I'd prefer the cards to be on the table. But providing a variety of questions for people to think about how it might be when they're old is not invalid.

My father often complained when he was old that he wasn't useful any more. He was, but just not in ways that he valued. It's not wrong to think about how that might make one feel.

People who don't want to face that have the option of not having end-of-life counseling. Remember it wasn't mandatory.

Let's not get started on all the "counseling" that's being "offered" (forced on) women who are considering having an abortion.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[riddler 0]

Quote

So I guess you think how China and the former USSR handled their issues by just killing or locking up the people that spoke out against them is ok by you? they did stop political unrest that could have caused social problems.

Saying that governments balance individual freedom with restrictions of freedom for society's benefit is not condoning communism. It is a fact of government.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[riddler 0]

Quote

In my America, and that of the founding fathers, government and laws still exist, as they must, but with a very limited scope - to do only that necessary to secure the rights of individuals.

Right - so they restrict your freedoms for the benefit of others (i.e. society). You do not have the freedom to murder, rape or pillage. You may *want* to do those things, and a truly free person would be able to do those things without the repercussion of the government. But you can't, because the government has restricted your freedom, in favor of what's best for society.

Some governments do this more than others, and all of them restrict your freedoms in their own (the government's) self-interest.

If you do not agree with any amount of imposition on personal freedom from the government, then I would define you as an anarchist.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

In my America, and that of the founding fathers, government and laws still exist, as they must, but with a very limited scope - to do only that necessary to secure the rights of individuals.

Right - so they restrict your freedoms for the benefit of others (i.e. society). You do not have the freedom to murder, rape or pillage. You may *want* to do those things, and a truly free person would be able to do those things without the repercussion of the government. But you can't, because the government has restricted your freedom, in favor of what's best for society.

Some governments do this more than others, and all of them restrict your freedoms in their own (the government's) self-interest.

If you do not agree with any amount of imposition on personal freedom from the government, then I would define you as an anarchist.

This is, again, striking. A person who doesn't give up something for another person is the equivalent of murder, raping and pillaging.

In a robbery, somebody wants something he thinks the victim has, and the victim just wants to keep it. You are comparing the person who just wants to keep it with the robbery/rapist, simply because there is a large enough group of people who want to split up the booty.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[riddler 0]

Quote

In a robbery, somebody wants something he thinks the victim has, and the victim just wants to keep it. You are comparing the person who just wants to keep it with the robbery/rapist, simply because there is a large enough group of people who want to split up the booty.

No, I'm saying that individual liberty is at complete and total opposition with government. Replace "murder, rape and pillage" with "jaywalking, prostitution and cheating on your taxes", and the argument is the same. Governments, by their very definition, impose restrictions on our individual liberty. Anyone that says they are for individual liberty and there is no grey area, is, by my definition an anarchist.

However, if you say that you are a proponent of individual liberty, but you are willing to sacrifice some of your personal freedoms for the benefit of society, then you can fit into any government model. It's just a matter of how much you are willing to sacrifice.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[lawrocket 3]

Of course. Government's proponency of freedom and order (and equality) create an irreconcilable tension. A totally free society lacks order. A totally orderly society lacks freedom.

The disagreements come based upon where in that spectrum we want to be. I prefer the "freedom" side.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Governments, by their very definition, impose restrictions on our individual liberty. Anyone that says they are for individual liberty and there is no grey area, is, by my definition an anarchist.

Well, then color me anarchist, but your definition is flawed. Your definition of government is flawed as well. Most limitations on my liberty can be agreed upon without any form of government. Those of us without criminal minds understand that we can't rape, steal, etc. I can't let my cattle graze on your land without some compensation. When those things do occur, then its a legitimate function of government to bring remedy to the situation, because it is an encroachment on individual liberty and/or property rights. Why do you, Riddler, need government to impose income and property redistribution to avoid anarchy?

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

I hope we/they adopt a constitution exactly like the one we have now with one addition - The Separation of Economy and State.

The constitution we have now compels the Federal government to promote (or "provide for") the general welfare. It's hard to see how that could be done without any involvement in the economy. I disagree with the notion that "freedom" and "government" are mutually exclusive; sometimes judiciously applied regulation can result in more freedom. For example, the natural outcome of unfettered competition will often be the emergence of monopolies, as happened in the US in the early 20th century (Standard Oil being one example). Once a corporation has achieved monopolistic control over some product, they can charge whatever they wish for the product, and the only "freedom" people have is to pay that price or do without entirely. For some products (gas, for example), that would essentially give the corporation control over the entire economy, as they could shut everything down by restricting supply. In the absence of any government involvement in the economy, they could also prevent any competitors from starting up by selling the product below the cost of production until the start-up goes bankrupt, and recover their losses by jacking up the price even higher afterwards. Government regulation that promotes competition increases the freedom of everybody by ensuring that you have a choice of who to buy from, and at what price as there will be competition between corporations to offer the best product for the lowest price. Similarly, in the absence of any regulation of dumping toxic waste generated by the production of products, those corporations that avoid the costs of cleaning up their waste will be able to sell for a lower price, so they will pretty much always win in the marketplace. However my "freedom" will be negatively impacted by the lack of safe air to breath or water to drink. Requiring industry to clean up the waste they generate does not put them at a relative disadvantage if the same regulations apply to every corporation, and it provides me with the freedom to go about my business without having to breath bottled oxygen (as is common in some places).

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Bolas 5]

Quote

You do not have the freedom to murder, rape or pillage. You may *want* to do those things, and a truly free person would be able to do those things without the repercussion of the government. But you can't, because the government has restricted your freedom, in favor of what's best for society.

One could also argue that without any government you could not do that either as people would attempt tob defend themselves, or their friends and family would attempt to avenge as they too did not have any fear of government reprecussion.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

The constitution we have now compels the Federal government to promote (or "provide for") the general welfare

Absolutely false. The "provide for" is no where to be found in that document. The writers understood that promoting the general welfare of the nation was best accomplished by not restricting the rights of the individual. Otherwise, why would they have not initiated the welfare state as we now have it? They could have easily written in the Bill of Rights that we all have the right to expect government to "provide for" us, but they didn't. There were beggars and legitimate needy around then, but they left charity up to the individual.

Anti-Trust laws have their place, but should be very limited in scope.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[riddler 0]

Quote

One could also argue that without any government you could not do that either as people would attempt tob defend themselves, or their friends and family would attempt to avenge as they too did not have any fear of government reprecussion.

And this would be the result of an anarchistic state - one in which the powerful abuse the weak. Whether or not it's considered defense or retribution, it amounts to not much more than a tribal community, and results in gang warfare.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

One could also argue that without any government you could not do that either as people would attempt to defend themselves, or their friends and family would attempt to avenge as they too did not have any fear of government reprecussion.

And this would be the result of an anarchistic state - one in which the powerful abuse the weak. Whether or not it's considered defense or retribution, it amounts to not much more than a tribal community, and results in gang warfare.

Until the weak majority unites to fight an overwhelm the powerful minority. At that point they either lose and/or die and try again later or win and become the new powerful minority to start the cycle again.

It's the same process but like everything else with government involved it's just much slower.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Well, then color me anarchist, but your definition is flawed. Your definition of government is flawed as well. Most limitations on my liberty can be agreed upon without any form of government.

If everyone agrees on the limitations, then they must impose sanctions on those that disobey those agreements. That's called government. And of course, it takes money to do that, which implies taxes will be collected. Or you could choose to believe that everyone will stand up and take responsibility every time one person exceeds the boundaries, but I don't have that much faith in people.

Running a society according to a vague moral code only gets you to a certain point, then it becomes apparent that those morals don't apply to everyone, and most people deviate from their own morals, anyway, when it's convenient for them.

As far as "my definition" of anarchy, here's the very top of the page from Wikipedia:

Quote

Anarchy (from Greek: anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:
"No rulership or enforced authority."
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[riddler 0]

Quote

Until the weak majority unites to fight an overwhelm the powerful minority.

That worked pretty well in the American Revolution, and many right-wing fundamentalists are quick to point it out. But I would argue, with modern warfare technology, it could not happen today. It barely happened then, and only because we had a lot of help from the French.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Running a society according to a vague moral code only gets you to a certain point, then it becomes apparent that those morals don't apply to everyone, and most people deviate from their own morals, anyway, when it's convenient for them.

Ironically, social medicine is being propounded as the morally right thing to do. it's the right thing. The just thing. Anything else is evil, uncaring, corporate and otherwise terrible horrible no good very bad.

I say it is subjectively right and wrong. Nothing objective. It's why I credit guys like Andy who say that he feels it's the right thing. There's a difference between his subjective feelings and provable right and wrong. He doesn't cross that line, meaning that I cannot disagree with the guy.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, then color me anarchist, but your definition is flawed. Your definition of government is flawed as well. Most limitations on my liberty can be agreed upon without any form of government.

If everyone agrees on the limitations, then they must impose sanctions on those that disobey those agreements. That's called government. And of course, it takes money to do that, which implies taxes will be collected. Or you could choose to believe that everyone will stand up and take responsibility every time one person exceeds the boundaries, but I don't have that much faith in people.

Running a society according to a vague moral code only gets you to a certain point, then it becomes apparent that those morals don't apply to everyone, and most people deviate from their own morals, anyway, when it's convenient for them.

As far as "my definition" of anarchy, here's the very top of the page from Wikipedia:

Quote

Anarchy (from Greek: anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:
"No rulership or enforced authority."
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."

We agree. Read my earlier posts. Some government is necessary, but only to the extent necessary to protect individual liberty. Taxes are necessary, but only to that extent. Judicial system, military, yes. Welfare, endowment for the arts, money to protect the san francisco field mice, no.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Until the weak majority unites to fight an overwhelm the powerful minority.

That worked pretty well in the American Revolution, and many right-wing fundamentalists are quick to point it out. But I would argue, with modern warfare technology, it could not happen today. It barely happened then, and only because we had a lot of help from the French.

I think the opposite. Should just a few of the "wrong" people get control of some modern warfare technology...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

Absolutely false.

Well that settles it I guess. I bow to your superior constitutional scholarship. Well, actually not. The writers could easily have written in the Bill of Rights: "with regard to the general welfare, the government shall do fuck all", but that probably wouldn't have garnered a lot of popular support. I recall another thread where the meaning of the word "promote" was debated, and I recall your position there was basically that it meant nothing more than "send positive vibes", but historically the dominant view has been that to "promote" means to actually do something, to take action. I think it's a rather perverse view of government to say that in the event of a military threat it can mobilize the military, but in the event of an epidemic it shouldn't do anything to help people (which follows from your "military and judicial system OK, everything else no way" comment up thread).

Quote

Anti-Trust laws have their place, but should be very limited in scope.

Cool, so you've already conceded that the government has to have some role in the economy. The only question then is how much, but the principle "no role at all" is recognized as unworkable.

Quote

Otherwise, why would they have not initiated the welfare state as we now have it?

Well, although the founders were remarkably prescient, and produced a constitution and bill of rights that has proved to be remarkably adaptible to changing circumstances, it is asking a bit much to expect them to have anticipated every future change to the country. In 1790 the population (excluding Native Americans) of the country was about 4 million, essentially all living East of the Appalacians. Anyone who didn't "fit in" was free to head West and steal land from the indigenous people, and many did. The economy was almost entirely centered on agriculture; as this was pre-industrial revolution issues of industrial pollution and widespread environment degradation had yet to arise (except perhaps in a few very localized situations). Medicine was still at the level of mustard packs and leeching, and was probably more adept at hastening people's demise that providing relief. The recognition of the "germ theory" of infectious disease was still a century in the future. How could the founders possibly have anticipated the need to protect the population from industrial pollution? Why would they have had anything to say about access to life-saving technologies that were beyond the realm of anyone's imagination at the time? Yet, they did provide for these circumstanses, by empowering the Federal Government to "promote the general welfare". Our country is vastly different today: there is no "relief valve" of sending people further and further West, and with almost 100 times the population (now 307 million) almost anything anyone does has some impact on other people. Just the sheer number of people provide significant problems, for example how do we dispose of all their waste? Do we leave it up to every person to make sure every bowel movement is properly disinfected and disposed of? The Constitution doesn't say anything about sewage treatment. While there no doubt were mentally ill people at the time to Constitution was being written, they were few in number (as the population overall was small) and assuming they escaped burning as witches they were likely to end up in prison. Now they populate the streets of our towns and cities, begging and sometimes threating people (there have been 5 murders and 1 near-murder in my town of 120,000 people in the last 2 years because there are no mental health facilities that have any room in North Georgia). Obviously just saying they should take care of their own treatment isn't cutting it, as mentally ill people as a rule 1) don't have the resources to pay for their own treatment, and 2) they almost never recognize that they are ill. Somehow charities don't seem to be up to the job either. Powerful technologies (transportation, communications for example) can enrich our lives in ways not dreamt of in the 19th century, but to work efficiently they require regulation and sometimes public investment. Like it or not, the country has changed vastly since the 18th century, and attention has to be paid to a lot of things that could be ignored without consequence back then. The Constitution is flexible enough to accomodate that. A system of "I'll do whatever I want, I don't have to consider anybody else" probably isn't.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Until the weak majority unites to fight an overwhelm the powerful minority.

That worked pretty well in the American Revolution, and many right-wing fundamentalists are quick to point it out. But I would argue, with modern warfare technology, it could not happen today. It barely happened then, and only because we had a lot of help from the French.

I don't know, the Vietnamese did a pretty good job against a powerful minority armed with modern warfare technology.

[TankBuster 0]

My "separation" clause is a bit of a stretch. Anti trust laws and some environmental laws are legitimate if they protect the rights of the individual. Sure, they impact the economy but in a minimal way. Requiring banks to lend to those who can't afford it? No. Bank bailouts? No. Keynesian stimulus? No. Welfare? No. Social Security? Hell no.

What's "compassionate" about the floating of all this debt knowing that the yet unborn are going to have to deal with the consequences? Its the ultimate selfishness.

Again, why must you have your morality forced on you? Why must you be forced to give charitably? Especially by the likes of say, William Jefferson, Teddy the lifeguard, and Karl Rove? You must be so proud.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[TankBuster 0]

You're right, they founders didn't forsee the need to create a welfare state. That's why they didn't. They felt it more necessary to restrict the power of the federal government. Look up the tenth amemdment, the one that gets trampled on most.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.