Democrats' Health Care bill has been passed - SCOTUS ruling update

[Omnis]

Unlike you, I don't believe libertarianism is a workable political philosophy in the modern, highly complex, densely populated world. In practical terms, in a world inevitably corrupted by money & power, individual liberty & responsibility is NOT properly respected.

While I'll let FoolKiller respond because you're addressing him, I have to call this one out. You believe libertarianism isn't workable because individual liberty and responsibility aren't respected. Well of course they're not respected. That's the problem that everyone is complaining about. Libertarianism is the only working philosophy. Anything else is a hindrance. And your justification of complexity-requires-management is backwards. The more complex something is, the more difficult it is to manage. For something as complex at the governance of nearly an entire continent, it becomes a futile exercise.

 

[Public'sTwin]

While it doesn't say we should be capitalist it does specifically limit the abilities of the government from creating a socialized system of any form.

So much for policing!​

Quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Now how does any of that translate to social security, health care, or half the stuff that government uses as justification to tax us?

That you can't you see social security or health care as being in the interests of the general welfare of the United States is not my problem; where this contradicts the Constitution's claim of having power to lay and collect taxes inasmuch as a process of congressional, democratic assessment has occurred with regards to any taxational measure being implemented, I also cannot see.

In any case, your claim of the taxational powers of the U.S. government being "specifically limited" by the cited article of the constitution is patently ludicrous: if so, why would they create such a vague proviso referent to the powers of Congress as being able to provide for the "general welfare" of Americans (keep in mind the term 'welfare' by definition refers frequently to government socialization, then and now: the economic works of many classic liberals - like Ben Franklin - refer to the need for a certain standard of public 'welfare')?

Evidently, the Founding Fathers possessed more foresight than troglodytes who claim that clinging literally to a document which has clearly been written with the intent of encouraging progressive interpretation through it's vagaries - after all, how did the Founding Fathers know a Post Office would be in existence three hundred or six hundred years down the line? The point of constitutions - and their conundrum - is that they have to be appropriately flexible, whilst imposing governmental restrictions which will remain valid in the future. And with a bit of 'general' (as opposed to 'specific') phrasing, the U.S. one achieves this amiably.

You believe libertarianism isn't workable because individual liberty and responsibility aren't respected. Well of course they're not respected. That's the problem that everyone is complaining about. Libertarianism is the only working philosophy. Anything else is a hindrance. And your justification of complexity-requires-management is backwards. The more complex something is, the more difficult it is to manage. For something as complex at the governance of nearly an entire continent, it becomes a futile exercise.

> Libertarianism.


(Incidentally, the reason libertarianism gets no cred is because it's retarded. In many central libertarian writings for example, it's stated that - while public services such as garbage collection or medicare are suggestive of authoritarian governance - there still needs to be a publicly-funded military and police force. And with that, the continuity of many libertarian's beliefs is more or less discarded, since the pretext for publicly funding an army or police force is the exact same as it would be with any other public service - that it's vastly more efficient to provide for the service collectively than economically. This is a significant aspect of the health care debate: Canadians, for example, spend less per person on medicare than Americans if their tax revenues spent on public healthcare are compared to Americans' private expenses, and yet the average lifespan of the nation's residents is higher - implying anecdotally that public medicare may be justifiable on the same grounds libertarians believe in socialized policing. (Conversely, the Constitution also guarantees the rights of America's citizens to bare arms; as such, there is correspondingly little necessity to maintain a socialized police force when the private-market provides the opportunities to obtain the same protection via commissioned private security. And yet, that's ABSURD.)

Other major fallacies of libertarianism include the belief that governments always behave parasitically towards their citizens (when in an accountable political setting the provision of public services can be tantamount to a rational economic arrangement) and the belief that eliminating any means of involuntary redistribution of wealth would improve the economy, when in actuality it could potentially result in a polarization of wealth so immense - consider that every human society in history has possessed a means of redistributing wealth either involuntary or socially obligatory - that an increasingly bereft lower-class would be marginalized (due to the predictable self-perpetration of wealth) to the extent of being unable to become educated or contribute democratically to the economy.

 

[Famine]

That you can't you see social security or health care as being in the interests of the general welfare of the United States is not my problem

That you can't see social security and health care are not covered by the phrase "the general welfare of the United States" - the Constitution clearly demarcating the entities of the US, Congress, the States and the citizenry - might be your problem though.

(Incidentally, the reason libertarianism gets no cred is because it's retarded. In many central libertarian writings for example, it's stated that - while public services such as garbage collection or medicare are suggestive of authoritarian governance - there still needs to be a publicly-funded military and police force. And with that, the continuity of many libertarian's beliefs is more or less discarded, since the pretext for publicly funding an army or police force is the exact same as it would be with any other public service - that it's vastly more efficient to provide for the service collectively than economically.

Central to Libertarian fiscal policies is the concept that choice leads to competition which leads to choice.

The military and police are necessarily controlled and funded by the government and, thus, populace. How would one introduce a choice - or indeed any competition - to the military or police? You don't pick who defends you or arrests the guy trying to break into your home - but you can choose your health, your education, your food, your cars and how much you value each.

 

[Biggles]

I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. Under a purely libertarian arrangement you believe free choice will "just work out". Perhaps your neighbour, in the privacy of his own home, wants to run a brothel, breed rats, manufacture explosives, run his fume-producing truck day & night? Which of these activities should he be free to pursue? Who decides?

In practice, conflicts would arise over a multitude of issues: personal, local, municipal, regional, national, international etc. etc., those conflicts would eventually lead to bye-laws, rules & regulations & we would be back where we started. There is always going to be a difference between your choice & self-interest & your neighbour's. Managing that difference, on an macro level, becomes the task of government.

(And yes, it's possible to have your own "police force", even your own "army". The rich & powerful have often had their own "police force" or "army". There are parts of the were where they still do. Why would you take that "liberty" away from them - the freedom to be responsible for their own security?)

 

[Famine]

Do you believe that Libertarianism equates to no government and no rules? You'd be wrong if you do.

 

[Duke]

(Incidentally, the reason libertarianism gets no cred is because it's retarded. In many central libertarian writings for example, it's stated that - while public services such as garbage collection or medicare are suggestive of authoritarian governance - there still needs to be a publicly-funded military and police force. And with that, the continuity of many libertarian's beliefs is more or less discarded, since the pretext for publicly funding an army or police force is the exact same as it would be with any other public service - that it's vastly more efficient to provide for the service collectively than economically.

Wait, what now?

There needs to be a publicly-funded military and police force because government's ONLY legitimate job is to protect the rights of its citizens. The police exist to protect the rights of individual citizens from harm by other citizens (crime). The military exists to protect the rights of the citizens, individually and as a group, from harm by others outside the country (war).

It's not that it's cheaper to do it that way - it's that that is government's ROLE.

 

[Joey D]

It's not that it's cheaper to do it that way - it's that that is government's ROLE.

In your opinion, many people believe the government's role is to do more.

 

[Danoff]

In your opinion, many people believe the government's role is to do more.

I've noticed. Unfortunately to bestow a greater role on government is to infringe human rights - which is unacceptable in any scenario. There are two facets to this discussion. One is that government-sponsored healthcare is immoral. This argument relies upon the derivation of human rights from reason, and levies those rights against government abuse. Quite simply put, government healthcare violates human rights. This is no way around it, there is no denying it, it simply is.

The second facet of the argument is that government healthcare is not practical. This part of the discussion, of course, can devolve into a very messy discussion of statistics, figures, about what other nations with different everything are doing and how that relates to us. But I can give you a glimpse into the future on this one. I can show you exactly what public healthcare will do to this country.

Are you ready? Let's go.

There is another socialist system, remarkably similar to the healthcare system being proposed, in place right this very moment in the US, and it has been in place for the better part of 100 years. Ask any American about this system and they will tell you "it's broken" "it's terrible" "it's unfair" "it's a disgrace". Similarly they will describe to you just how stuck they are with the system. To go outside of this socialist program is quite difficult and expensive today compared to what it was before the program was instituted. Simply put, the public option, despite offering a far worse product, was able to crowd out the private option by being able to offer services without any charge to the user. This socialist program, much like socialized medicine, is a violation of human rights, a huge and still-growing tax burden, provides terrible services, is an embarrassment to the nation, offset and eventually all-but destroyed a private system, and is at this point damned near impossible to get rid of. What program am I referring to? Public schools of course. And just about everything about the public school discussion applies to the healthcare discussion.

Everything the public thinks about our current public school system today is what they will eventually think about our public healthcare system. Going outside the system is impossible, it needs to grow, it needs more tax dollars, we don't pay its employees enough, we can't live without it because the private option is gone, it's a fundamental right (which is not based on anything btw), the level of service is terrible, it's an embarrassment to the nation.

Our public school system, just like the public healthcare system we most certainly will eventually saddle ourselves with at some point, will never stop growing. It will never have enough money. It will never provide the product that people hope it will. You hate it, but you use it because you have little choice.

There are real alternatives to the public option. Alternatives that would help our system out of the mess it is currently in. But the American public is responding with their tried-and-true knee jerk reaction to any problem "give it to the government". There is absolutely zero thought put into this solution. All it apparently takes is "I don't like our current system" to justify "let's make the government run it". This is the lazy way out. It unnecessarily compromises moral integrity while simultaneously ignoring the root of the problem. But American voters do not seem to be interested in understanding why things are the way they are. They're only interested in applying the only band-aid they seem to know - government.

 

[FoolKiller]

As I have already said: I am well aware of the fact that you are a libertarian & not a neo-con. I have more respect for a truly libertarian point of view as it has a level of intellectual clarity & honesty that moronic "neo-cons" like Glenn Beck & Sarah Palin don't even begin to approach. The fact is, it's not that I don't understand your position, it's that I don't share it.

Then why do you keep making references to how it won't work and attempting to verify them be referring to the corruption of money and power found in corporatism, which is not the capitalistic free market I am talking about? You keep pointing to the current economic system, but that is not the system I am supporting or talking about.

Unlike you, I don't believe libertarianism is a workable political philosophy in the modern, highly complex, densely populated world. In practical terms, in a world inevitably corrupted by money & power, individual liberty & responsibility is NOT properly respected.

I highlighted the only thing I agree with you on. If you truly believe that then why do you think that a philosophy that wants to roll back the system that got us here is a bad one? Why do you fail to think that bringing back the respect for individual liberty and responsibility and removing the corruption is not a good idea, or wouldn't work?

You know that's not true. Many people in Europe (& presumably other parts of the world) longed for freedom from tyranny & autocratic rule.

Every sentient person longs for freedom from tyranny. The fact that many allow themselves to get to that point though (Most dictators and tyrants are elected) and blindly support those systems until it is too late, along with the fact that even the average US citizen thought George Washington should be king, or even president for life (he limited his own terms), tells me that even those who get up the courage to fight for that freedom still believe someone should direct them around.

Thank you for your generous characterization: yes, here in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark etc. etc. we are just a undifferentiated bunch of socialized automatons.

Odd, I never mentioned a country, and in fact the one I was thinking of isn't any that you listed. I wonder if it means anything that you jumped to that conclusion though.

It may seem anathema to you, but the fact is that generations of working men & women actively fought to achieve "socialized" government programs. Yes, many people who are not "automatons" actually believe in the concept of "collective responsibility" - actively promoting the well-being of the community as a whole. (In Canada, there was recently a national poll to vote for the "Greatest Canadian". The winner was the politician Tommy Douglas credited as the driving force from the 1940s, 50s & 60's in establishing universal healthcare.)

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.

That you can't you see social security or health care as being in the interests of the general welfare of the United States is not my problem; where this contradicts the Constitution's claim of having power to lay and collect taxes inasmuch as a process of congressional, democratic assessment has occurred with regards to any taxational measure being implemented, I also cannot see.

First, let's start with your definition(s) of welfare. You forgot one.

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

Yeah, the meanings of words change over time in common usage. For an example of this see Ironic post Alanis Morrissette.

But hey, we can argue linguistics all day. Perhaps we should finish looking at the legal jargon:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Explain to me how that allows for a progressive tax, or on topic, a tax increase for the rich to provide health care for the poor?

In any case, your claim of the taxational powers of the U.S. government being "specifically limited" by the cited article of the constitution is patently ludicrous: if so, why would they create such a vague proviso referent to the powers of Congress as being able to provide for the "general welfare" of Americans (keep in mind the term 'welfare' by definition refers frequently to government socialization, then and now: the economic works of many classic liberals - like Ben Franklin - refer to the need for a certain standard of public 'welfare')?

Funny that you ask: It has been addressed by some of the founding fathers.

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. – Thomas Jefferson

Sounds like we should look at the rest of Section 8.

But you know, Jefferson wasn't in the US at the time the Constitution was created, so perhaps he isn't the best guy to lean on.

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

And he was there. In fact, many consider him to be the father of the Constitution he was so involved, being the principle author and all.

But hey, since you brought up Franklin:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. - Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

I believe that you misunderstood what Franklin was supporting when he spoke about public welfare (perhaps because the definition has changed in over 200 years?). I believe that today we call it charity.

Evidently, the Founding Fathers possessed more foresight than troglodytes who claim that clinging literally to a document which has clearly been written with the intent of encouraging progressive interpretation through it's vagaries

Are you calling me a troglodyte? Well, if you are defining that as being, what I am now showing to be, like the founding fathers I guess I won't take offense.

after all, how did the Founding Fathers know a Post Office would be in existence three hundred or six hundred years down the line?

Are you serious? There was already a postal service in effect since 1692. As it needed to be replaced, they gave Congress the power (but not directive) to create a new one.

The point of constitutions - and their conundrum - is that they have to be appropriately flexible, whilst imposing governmental restrictions which will remain valid in the future. And with a bit of 'general' (as opposed to 'specific') phrasing, the U.S. one achieves this amiably.

Actually, it does it via the amendment process.

(Incidentally, the reason libertarianism gets no cred is because it's retarded. In many central libertarian writings for example, it's stated that - while public services such as garbage collection or medicare are suggestive of authoritarian governance - there still needs to be a publicly-funded military and police force. And with that, the continuity of many libertarian's beliefs is more or less discarded, since the pretext for publicly funding an army or police force is the exact same as it would be with any other public service - that it's vastly more efficient to provide for the service collectively than economically. This is a significant aspect of the health care debate: Canadians, for example, spend less per person on medicare than Americans if their tax revenues spent on public healthcare are compared to Americans' private expenses, and yet the average lifespan of the nation's residents is higher - implying anecdotally that public medicare may be justifiable on the same grounds libertarians believe in socialized policing. (Conversely, the Constitution also guarantees the rights of America's citizens to bare arms; as such, there is correspondingly little necessity to maintain a socialized police force when the private-market provides the opportunities to obtain the same protection via commissioned private security. And yet, that's ABSURD.)

Other major fallacies of libertarianism include the belief that governments always behave parasitically towards their citizens (when in an accountable political setting the provision of public services can be tantamount to a rational economic arrangement) and the belief that eliminating any means of involuntary redistribution of wealth would improve the economy, when in actuality it could potentially result in a polarization of wealth so immense - consider that every human society in history has possessed a means of redistributing wealth either involuntary or socially obligatory - that an increasingly bereft lower-class would be marginalized (due to the predictable self-perpetration of wealth) to the extent of being unable to become educated or contribute democratically to the economy.

I could waste a ton of time going through each individual point you made in a very large set of parentheses, but really this sums most of it up:

 

[Azure Flare]

****

 

[Biggles]

There needs to be a publicly-funded military and police force because government's ONLY legitimate job is to protect the rights of its citizens. The police exist to protect the rights of individual citizens from harm by other citizens (crime). The military exists to protect the rights of the citizens, individually and as a group, from harm by others outside the country (war).

It's easy to state that baldly, but in practice what does it mean? What exactly constitutes harm? Who decides? The idea that there is some simple set of libertarian principles that can be objectively applied to resolve every dispute that arises between people about their respective "rights", whether on an individual level, or on a national scale, is just naive.

 

[Danoff]

It's easy to state that baldly, but in practice what does it mean? What exactly constitutes harm? Who decides? The idea that there is some simple set of libertarian principles that can be objectively applied to resolve every dispute that arises between people about their respective "rights", whether on an individual level, or on a national scale, is just naive.

The function of the government is to protect human rights - all of them (because there is no other system that will). Human rights are derived directly from logic (like math).

 

[Jump_Ace]

I am for this bill not because I'm a democrat, but simply because I have a deep belief that everyone deserves to be healthy. If America is 'the best country, blah blah blah' then why is it we don't protect the people? Without a healthy workforce, there would be a less stronger economy and many people go into debt because of medical bills. But if you look beyond the OBVIOUS 'it will cost us money now' and sit back and think about some ramifications, it can (and will imo) have a positive return (how much did we spend on the 'war' with Bush anyway?). But hey, I guess I'm in the minority here in the US that would be willing to pay a little more in taxes each month to support my 'fellow American's' but that is just crazy talk, right? My two cents

Jerome

 

[Famine]

If America is 'the best country, blah blah blah' then why is it we don't protect the people?

Because you can't do it without breaking the Constitution or basic human rights.

People have a right to choose how much their health is worth to them. No-one has the right - and nor should they have the responsibility - to choose how much my health is worth to them.

 

[Omnis]

(Incidentally, the reason libertarianism gets no cred is because it's retarded. In many central libertarian writings for example, it's stated that - while public services such as garbage collection or medicare are suggestive of authoritarian governance - there still needs to be a publicly-funded military and police force.

Shows me that you haven't read anything. Here, let me introduce you to this guy:



Also, garbage collection here is not a public service. It used to be, but Huizenga's WM company became-- surprise!-- a cheaper alternative.

 

[Danoff]

I am for this bill not because I'm a democrat, but simply because I have a deep belief that everyone deserves to be healthy.

Also, everyone deserves to be rich, everyone deserves to have smart children, everyone deserves a good job, everyone deserves to eat, everyone deserves to have free internet, everyone deserves to be smart, everyone deserves to look good in their new clothes...

Nobody deserves any of these things. They have them to then extent that they provide for themselves. To say otherwise is to condemn someone else to be a slave to provide these things - which is a violation of that person's rights.

You're advocating the violation of rights that exist for rights that do not (and can not).

 

[Shadow Wulf 2k]

The unfortunate reality is that this will crush middle-class earners and cripple small businesses while in the midst of a recession.

Could the existing private healthcare system use a fix? Of course. But now is not the time.

Obama's statement of "If we don't pass this now, it will never pass." reminds me of Bush's "We have to invade Iraq because they're linked to Al Qaida."
Sure...

What is happening is the government is recieving less funding via income tax due to people losing jobs and businesses going under. They need to take the money from somewhere else. This "health care bill" is nothing more than another way to squeeze more funds from the American taxpayer while giving a healthcare handout to people who will continually vote the Dem's into power.

It's naive to think the government actually cares about your health.

 

[Danoff]

Could the existing private healthcare system use a fix? Of course. But now is not the time.

I disagree. Now is exactly the time to fix our healthcare system. But the fix involves a net decrease in government expense. It mostly involves legislation that levels market playing fields rather than creating a new bureaucracy.

 

[Biggles]

Biggles
As I have already said: I am well aware of the fact that you are a libertarian & not a neo-con. I have more respect for a truly libertarian point of view as it has a level of intellectual clarity & honesty that moronic "neo-cons" like Glenn Beck & Sarah Palin don't even begin to approach. The fact is, it's not that I don't understand your position, it's that I don't share it.
Then why do you keep making references to how it won't work and attempting to verify them be referring to the corruption of money and power found in corporatism, which is not the capitalistic free market I am talking about? You keep pointing to the current economic system, but that is not the system I am supporting or talking about.

Quote:
Unlike you, I don't believe libertarianism is a workable political philosophy in the modern, highly complex, densely populated world. In practical terms, in a world inevitably corrupted by money & power, individual liberty & responsibility is NOT properly respected.
I highlighted the only thing I agree with you on. If you truly believe that then why do you think that a philosophy that wants to roll back the system that got us here is a bad one? Why do you fail to think that bringing back the respect for individual liberty and responsibility and removing the corruption is not a good idea, or wouldn't work?

Quote:
You know that's not true. Many people in Europe (& presumably other parts of the world) longed for freedom from tyranny & autocratic rule.
Every sentient person longs for freedom from tyranny. The fact that many allow themselves to get to that point though (Most dictators and tyrants are elected) and blindly support those systems until it is too late, along with the fact that even the average US citizen thought George Washington should be king, or even president for life (he limited his own terms), tells me that even those who get up the courage to fight for that freedom still believe someone should direct them around.

Quote:
Thank you for your generous characterization: yes, here in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark etc. etc. we are just a undifferentiated bunch of socialized automatons.
Odd, I never mentioned a country, and in fact the one I was thinking of isn't any that you listed. I wonder if it means anything that you jumped to that conclusion though.

Quote:
It may seem anathema to you, but the fact is that generations of working men & women actively fought to achieve "socialized" government programs. Yes, many people who are not "automatons" actually believe in the concept of "collective responsibility" - actively promoting the well-being of the community as a whole. (In Canada, there was recently a national poll to vote for the "Greatest Canadian". The winner was the politician Tommy Douglas credited as the driving force from the 1940s, 50s & 60's in establishing universal healthcare.)
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.

Public'sTwin
That you can't you see social security or health care as being in the interests of the general welfare of the United States is not my problem; where this contradicts the Constitution's claim of having power to lay and collect taxes inasmuch as a process of congressional, democratic assessment has occurred with regards to any taxational measure being implemented, I also cannot see.
First, let's start with your definition(s) of welfare. You forgot one.
Quote:
Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.
Yeah, the meanings of words change over time in common usage. For an example of this see Ironic post Alanis Morrissette.

But hey, we can argue linguistics all day. Perhaps we should finish looking at the legal jargon:
Quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Explain to me how that allows for a progressive tax, or on topic, a tax increase for the rich to provide health care for the poor?

Quote:
In any case, your claim of the taxational powers of the U.S. government being "specifically limited" by the cited article of the constitution is patently ludicrous: if so, why would they create such a vague proviso referent to the powers of Congress as being able to provide for the "general welfare" of Americans (keep in mind the term 'welfare' by definition refers frequently to government socialization, then and now: the economic works of many classic liberals - like Ben Franklin - refer to the need for a certain standard of public 'welfare')?
Funny that you ask: It has been addressed by some of the founding fathers.

Quote:
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. – Thomas Jefferson
Sounds like we should look at the rest of Section 8.

But you know, Jefferson wasn't in the US at the time the Constitution was created, so perhaps he isn't the best guy to lean on.

Quote:
With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison
And he was there. In fact, many consider him to be the father of the Constitution he was so involved, being the principle author and all.

But hey, since you brought up Franklin:
Quote:
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. - Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766
I believe that you misunderstood what Franklin was supporting when he spoke about public welfare (perhaps because the definition has changed in over 200 years?). I believe that today we call it charity.

Quote:
Evidently, the Founding Fathers possessed more foresight than troglodytes who claim that clinging literally to a document which has clearly been written with the intent of encouraging progressive interpretation through it's vagaries
Are you calling me a troglodyte? Well, if you are defining that as being, what I am now showing to be, like the founding fathers I guess I won't take offense.

Quote:
after all, how did the Founding Fathers know a Post Office would be in existence three hundred or six hundred years down the line?
Are you serious? There was already a postal service in effect since 1692. As it needed to be replaced, they gave Congress the power (but not directive) to create a new one.

Quote:
The point of constitutions - and their conundrum - is that they have to be appropriately flexible, whilst imposing governmental restrictions which will remain valid in the future. And with a bit of 'general' (as opposed to 'specific') phrasing, the U.S. one achieves this amiably.
Actually, it does it via the amendment process.

Quote:
(Incidentally, the reason libertarianism gets no cred is because it's retarded. In many central libertarian writings for example, it's stated that - while public services such as garbage collection or medicare are suggestive of authoritarian governance - there still needs to be a publicly-funded military and police force. And with that, the continuity of many libertarian's beliefs is more or less discarded, since the pretext for publicly funding an army or police force is the exact same as it would be with any other public service - that it's vastly more efficient to provide for the service collectively than economically. This is a significant aspect of the health care debate: Canadians, for example, spend less per person on medicare than Americans if their tax revenues spent on public healthcare are compared to Americans' private expenses, and yet the average lifespan of the nation's residents is higher - implying anecdotally that public medicare may be justifiable on the same grounds libertarians believe in socialized policing. (Conversely, the Constitution also guarantees the rights of America's citizens to bare arms; as such, there is correspondingly little necessity to maintain a socialized police force when the private-market provides the opportunities to obtain the same protection via commissioned private security. And yet, that's ABSURD.)

Other major fallacies of libertarianism include the belief that governments always behave parasitically towards their citizens (when in an accountable political setting the provision of public services can be tantamount to a rational economic arrangement) and the belief that eliminating any means of involuntary redistribution of wealth would improve the economy, when in actuality it could potentially result in a polarization of wealth so immense - consider that every human society in history has possessed a means of redistributing wealth either involuntary or socially obligatory - that an increasingly bereft lower-class would be marginalized (due to the predictable self-perpetration of wealth) to the extent of being unable to become educated or contribute democratically to the economy.
I could waste a ton of time going through each individual point you made in a very large set of parentheses, but really this sums most of it up:

You really are the most incurable Romantic.

I am not accusing you of supporting any of the nasty corporatist things, I am fascinated to know how you think these outcomes are to be avoided? Because, even if it were possible to start afresh with a Utopian Libertarian world (which it clearly is not), IMO, every kind of human nastiness & folly would inevitably creep back into existence in short order.

Just as one concrete example, I would like to know how you believe the recent financial crisis was arrived at, how (if at all) it could have been "fixed", & how (if at all) it could be prevented from re-occurring?

 

[Biggles]

The function of the government is to protect human rights - all of them (because there is no other system that will). Human rights are derived directly from logic (like math).

I would also like some concrete examples from you.

Your neighbour uses his house to build munitions. He doesn't bother you on a day-to-day basis. Is he infringing on your rights by doing this? Or are you infringing on his rights if you try to prevent him?

 

[Shadow Wulf 2k]

I disagree. Now is exactly the time to fix our healthcare system. But the fix involves a net decrease in government expense. It mostly involves legislation that levels market playing fields rather than creating a new bureaucracy.

Democrat's? Decreasing government spending? C'mon now...

 

[Danoff]

I would also like some concrete examples from you.

Your neighbour uses his house to build munitions. He doesn't bother you on a day-to-day basis. Is he infringing on your rights by doing this? Or are you infringing on his rights if you try to prevent him?

Provided that he is not bothering me in any way, how does that violate my rights? If I were to attempt to stop him, how would that not be a violation of his rights? Practically speaking I don't think that it's possible for someone to build munitions right next to me without violating my property rights, but I'll stick to your hypothetical.

Just as one concrete example, I would like to know how you believe the recent financial crisis was arrived at, how (if at all) it could have been "fixed", & how (if at all) it could be prevented from re-occurring?

Don't we have a thread on that? I would propose that you take that topic to either a dedicated thread or to a libertarian discussion thread. I love to talk about the housing bubble, what caused it, and how it could have been avoided - but this is not the thread.

 

[Famine]

If you're going to demand answers, it seems rather rude to ignore questions posed to you.

Do you believe that Libertarianism equates to no government and no rules? You'd be wrong if you do.

I'd also wager that the artificially low interest rates set in the UK by the Bank of England (government) and the US by the Federal Reserve (government), combined with governmental overspending in both countries led to a period of artificially high economic growth which was unsustainable. Many commentators in the UK as far back as 2003 said that Gordon Brown - then Chancellor - was setting the economic foundations for a collapse that could be blamed on the Conservative government which would win the next election as the arse fell out of it. Amusingly, the Conservatives didn't win it and the arse did indeed fall out of the economy. Some in the US blamed 9/11 - the Federal Reserve sought to ameliorate the effects by dropping interest rates to stave off deflation.


Though you'll probably want to blame the banks for lending money to those less able to pay it back (everyone deserves a house though, right), the conditions that meant that they were able to - easy credit - were set back at the turn of the century by governmental mismanagement of interest rates.

 

[Omnis]

Just as one concrete example, I would like to know how you believe the recent financial crisis was arrived at, how (if at all) it could have been "fixed", & how (if at all) it could be prevented from re-occurring?

Ok guys. I think he's officially trolling.

(There's a thread for that.)

 

[Shadow Wulf 2k]

I would also like some concrete examples from you.

Your neighbour uses his house to build munitions. He doesn't bother you on a day-to-day basis. Is he infringing on your rights by doing this? Or are you infringing on his rights if you try to prevent him?

Invade his house and knock it down using equipement payed for using your kid's college fund. Then hire your buddy to rebuild his house for him while recieving a kickback from your buddy.

 

[Jump_Ace]

People have a right to choose how much their health is worth to them.

I see your point and no denying its a good one 👍 I just see the bill as a way of helping people stay healthy. If an accident happens, I hate to see people have to sell their house or claim bankruptcy just to pay off the medical bills

Jerome

 

[Famine]

I see your point and no denying its a good one 👍 I just see the bill as a way of helping people stay healthy. If an accident happens, I hate to see people have to sell their house or claim bankruptcy just to pay off the medical bills

Jerome

And for that there exist charities. If the cause is one you support, then give that "little extra" you'd be willing to pay in taxes instead to a charity dedicated to the cause. Then everyone's happy.

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, it's too bad the state killed off a lot of good charities with their false-philantrophy programs.

 

[Danoff]

I see your point and no denying its a good one 👍 I just see the bill as a way of helping people stay healthy. If an accident happens, I hate to see people have to sell their house or claim bankruptcy just to pay off the medical bills

That's what insurance is for - like car insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, earthquake insurance, flood insurance, fire insurance, theft insurance. There are all kinds of insurance companies ready to charge you a regular fee in exchange for providing ooldes of cash if something unlikely-but-major happens to you.

What we have right now is not insurance. What we have is the equivalent of assuming that car insurance will pay for your gas, your oil changes, new tires, everything you can imagine. And then we wonder why people use more gas and the price of gas goes up.

Hint: The solution is not to have the government provide gas.

 

[Joey D]

And for that there exist charities. If the cause is one you support, then give that "little extra" you'd be willing to pay in taxes instead to a charity dedicated to the cause. Then everyone's happy.

Charities sort of work, you have to get connected with a good one and one that is willing to give you enough to off set the costs. A lot of times that's not going to happen because they just don't have enough money, especially now when charitable contributions are low due to the economy.

My mom works at a non-profit hospital in the fund raising department though and I do hear the stories about how much charity care they give out. It's ridiculous and you know there are a lot of people taking advantage of that. One day it will catch up to them and people who really need it won't get it.

In my opinion charities aren't the way to go.