- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
... as far as welfare programs go, mandatory health insurance isn't 1/100 of what Social Security or Medicare are. It exists for the same reason and under the same logic car insurance does, because uninsured persons pose a prohibitively expensive risk to the public good.
As a solution to the 20% of Americans with no coverage and skyrocketing premiums, it is centrism at its most bland and uncontroversial. The only reason it became controversial was because Republicans needed a new program to be their whipping boy because it became increasingly obvious their welfare dependent constituents were reacting badly to their posturing on Social Security and Medicare.
Opinion noted, rejected as being contrary to known reality
none of those programs should have survived honest supreme court review. sadly, the supreme court circa 1934-1950 was hardly honest and the courts after that were more interested in sustaining precedent than doing the right thing
If all you can say is that "You're wrong" then you might as well not have bothered to respond at all. The resemblence between ObamaCare and car insurance is so fundamental and so obvious that any comparisons of either to Medicare or Social Security are as hollow as any assertion can be.
its idiotic a comparison. Driving on public roads is not a right. You don't need car insurance to own a car or drive it on private property. Medicare and social security violate the tenth amendment
Constitutional debates are a language game that I don't care about. Ritualized political practice is the only thing that has any relevance. And it ritualized political practice, the 10th Amendment and federalism have been mostly superseded.
Whether or not Social Security or Medicare are constitutionally justified doesn't matter to me, but ObamaCare is nothing like them.
Because the crazy elements of the GOP turns off both the unaffiliated elements of the electorate and the more moderate republicans
... as far as welfare programs go, mandatory health insurance isn't 1/100 of what Social Security or Medicare are. It exists for the same reason and under the same logic car insurance does, because uninsured persons pose a prohibitively expensive risk to the public good.
As a solution to the 20% of Americans with no coverage and skyrocketing premiums, it is centrism at its most bland and uncontroversial. The only reason it became controversial was because Republicans needed a new program to be their whipping boy because it became increasingly obvious their welfare dependent constituents were reacting badly to their posturing on Social Security and Medicare.
I would think it would be pretty easy to attack forced commerce be that car insurance or health insurance. It's a bit depressing that so many people care so little for their own liberty that they don't respond much at all when they lose it. Then again, most people don't have a problem using their neighbor for their own personal gain. Hell, just look at Social Security and Medicare for proof of that.
Most parents would give up any number of personal freedoms to save their children. So long as that remains the case, liberty will always be a lower priority concern to opportunities and economic security in this country, and every other civilization that has ever existed. At least in the United States it is a second-tier concern, unlike China where it is much lower.
Liberty is a young man's cause. That's why young men die for it while old men make decisions from behind desks.
Anyway, the problem is that it is "not" easy. Liberty was easier to justify when the United States was a frontier society because most families and communities weren't that interdependent, so nobody had much claim on anyone else's resources or loyalty. Our comparatively high performance society makes many demands on the population as a whole, and if a significant margin fails (like if young people fail to supply Social Security with additional funds) then the entire organism begins to decline.
And those crazy elements as you call it aren't going to come out and vote for a Romney or a McCain that is basically just a democrat in denial.
Times have changed and those people the party was pretending to represent have put out candidates that actually represent them and I highly doubt you will pull them back under the illusion moderate republicans represent them anytime soon. Without those crazy elements as you call it the majority of the moderates will vote democrat and you will lose.
I'm not willing to give up my liberty for the community and to perfectly blunt I find the demand on me to do so by the community unsettling and unjustified. You don't demand that you fellow citizens give up their rights because you might benefit from it. That is an unacceptable demand that no one should willingly accept. It honestly doesn't matter to me when talking about government that people need certain things in their life be that money when they retire, an education, healthcare, a living wage, housing, food, clothing, any of it. To demand someone to provide for peoples needs is an unacceptable demand to put on someone else. I will help people that i see fit to help in ways that I see fit to help them or I will do nothing about it and let it be how it is. It is only my concern when I make it my concern and no one gets to tell me otherwise. It doesn't matter to me what people think. Liberty is a human right and I will not accept it's violation, ever.
I was raised to help people, but I was not raised to take from people what is not mine nor was I raised to order people around to do my bidding and ignore their protest. That is what government is doing with these welfare programs, wage controls(minimum wage), public accommodation laws, subsidies, mandates, etc and I have no stomach for it. It flat out pisses me off when I see my money going to Social Security and I had no say in it. Apparently, I'm supposed to be grateful for the government for looking out for me, but I never asked them to look out for me. I can take care of myself and I sure as hell don't need the government taking my income to pay the elderly against my will.
What really gets to me most of all is that the supporters of these policies tells me that I'm immoral. I'm the guy that is telling them to leave people alone and deal with people on a voluntary level, while they are the party ordering people into commerce, telling business owners they must accept everyone on their property and hire people not on the owners terms, but on their terms, and most importantly for the topic, forcing everyone into charity, and yet somehow I'm the guy that is immoral.
The issue is not that straightforward. The left wants less liberty because they need the government to protect people from abusive corporate power structures who themselves infest the government with special interests that engineer the economy against the working man, and the right colludes with those power structures to overcome the left and achieve their goal -- which also constitutes an imposition on liberty.
At the same time, the left has to work with those abusive power structures because attacking them head on would cause society to plummet, and the right has to work with the left because taking away social safety nets and regulations would similarly cause society to plummet.
And those crazy elements as you call it aren't going to come out and vote for a Romney or a McCain that is basically just a democrat in denial.
Before you lean too far libertarian, here is something to consider: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/145001-libertarian-abnormal-psychology.html#post1061216315.MMM... I don't think I made up the definition for the word "dynamic", and I didn't use it as a descriptor; you did that.
No I wouldn't consider myself libertarian. I consider myself a Moralist, which has me firmly leaning toward libertarian ism, but without the dope and such.
She is under pressure to retire while Obama is in the White House. She doesn't want to retire. She has one of the most interesting jobs in the world. And - whatever you think about Scalia or Kennedy "ideologically" - chatting with them over lunch should be a little more intellectually rewarding than playing bingo (or whatever it is retired upper class Jewish ladies do). Of course she "predicts another Democrat".
I'm not willing to give up my liberty for the community and to perfectly blunt I find the demand on me to do so by the community unsettling and unjustified. You don't demand that you fellow citizens give up their rights because you might benefit from it. That is an unacceptable demand that no one should willingly accept. It honestly doesn't matter to me when talking about government that people need certain things in their life be that money when they retire, an education, healthcare, a living wage, housing, food, clothing, any of it. To demand someone to provide for peoples needs is an unacceptable demand to put on someone else. I will help people that i see fit to help in ways that I see fit to help them or I will do nothing about it and let it be how it is. It is only my concern when I make it my concern and no one gets to tell me otherwise. It doesn't matter to me what people think. Liberty is a human right and I will not accept it's violation, ever.
I was raised to help people, but I was not raised to take from people what is not mine nor was I raised to order people around to do my bidding and ignore their protest. That is what government is doing with these welfare programs, wage controls(minimum wage), public accommodation laws, subsidies, mandates, etc and I have no stomach for it. It flat out pisses me off when I see my money going to Social Security and I had no say in it. Apparently, I'm supposed to be grateful for the government for looking out for me, but I never asked them to look out for me. I can take care of myself and I sure as hell don't need the government taking my income to pay the elderly against my will.
What really gets to me most of all is that the supporters of these policies tells me that I'm immoral. I'm the guy that is telling them to leave people alone and deal with people on a voluntary level, while they are the party ordering people into commerce, telling business owners they must accept everyone on their property and hire people not on the owners terms, but on their terms, and most importantly for the topic, forcing everyone into charity, and yet somehow I'm the guy that is immoral.
Before you lean too far libertarian, here is something to consider: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/145001-libertarian-abnormal-psychology.html#post1061216315.
Finally, I do not consider myself a libertarian, as I said before, I consider myself a moralist. I lean libertarian to the extant that I believe in individual liberty. No other person does or should have a claim on another's ability to make individual choices apart from the objective harm that one might cause.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?