Obama's Private Army now law. Hidden in health care bill

[NeoRio1]

Quote from Mav88:

Politics is about choices, not absolutes, of course there is arbitrariness in the Constitution and bill of rights. What is not included in the foundation is a right to any economic resources or commodities, there is a delineation between positive and negative rights. Rights to economic commodities are full of flaws and contradictions. Government funded healthcare was never intended because as Franklin said, as soon as people can vote themselves money, that will signal the end of the republic.

What is the definition and purpose of healthcare? What exactly is good health if that is the goal?

Canadians hoot about an insignificant stat on longevity (even though they count infant mortality differently), but let's say longevity is the national goal of the healthcare system. Then the natural and logical consequence of that would be loss of personal freedom so that the goal of longevity can be achieved. For starters:
1) you must outlaw smoking
2) there must be punative measures for obesity and diets must be controlled by government
3) drinking alcohol must be enforced to moderate amounts

we could go on with a very large list, but obviously national healthcare and freedom are not compatible and not just for the reason that the government takes your money and forces you to share risk with fat lazy smokers.

Gov't healthcare will be at odds with individual rights, you can trash the foundation of the USA or you can trash socialism, but you can't have both.

In other words, you value the original Republic. Franklin was right about voting but a bit naive to not realize that simply giving citizens the right to vote almost guarantees the destruction of the Republic.

By the way, if you have this problem with the arbitrary creation of values then do you think slavery should not have been abolished? Do you think women should not have the right to vote?

 

[Index piker]

Quote from NeoRio1:

Do you think women should not have the right to vote? [/B]

Well things sure have been in the crapper ever since with respect to progressives/liberals and ignoring the Constitution.

Is that coincidence or causation.

 

[NeoRio1]

Quote from Index piker:

I guess you never heard of the NSA.

It was formed exclusively due to laws curbing behavior of the CIA.

In 2006 63% of Americans said they found the NSA program acceptable. As that number falls what do you think will happen to the NSA? They will lose their powers. Why will that number fall? The less fear of terrorism the less need for agencies with increased powers. When citizens have the right to vote and freedom of speech citizens have the ability to vote in politicians who advocate the destruction of agencies they no longer value. Therefore it is impossible to call the NSA a gestapo like force.

 

[NeoRio1]

Quote from Index piker:

Well things sure have been in the crapper ever since with respect to progressives/liberals and ignoring the Constitution.

Is that coincidence or causation.

The quality of life on average has risen dramatically over the last 100 years so you are shooting yourself in the foot here.

 

[rcaldwell]

Quote from NeoRio1:

I disagree. The country may collapse under debt and the constitution may be torn to pieces but with freedom of speech I don't think it would be possible for a politician to conduct illegal activities with a military force on his own people for an extended period of time. Throughout history every gestapo like force that has gained legitimate power has done so because freedom of speech was denied.

Look at what happened to Nixon in the watergate scandal. Now imagine a politician attempting to create a gestapo (military to conduct illegal activities).

I follow your point. However, this is not the same nation as in 1974. Just ask any oldtimer and he will tell you overall the erosion of rights since that time has been ongoing.

 

[NeoRio1]

Quote from rcaldwell:

I follow your point. However, this is not the same nation as in 1974. Just ask any oldtimer and he will tell you the erosion of rights since that time has been ongoing.

If you look at the NSA example you can see that the rights that have eroded between 1974 and now have been warranted and supported by the majority of citizens.

The war on drugs is another example where rights have eroded but only because the majority of citizens support it.

Which event where the erosion of rights occurred has there not been a majority of citizens advocating the erosion of those rights?

 

[Mav88]

In other words, you value the original Republic. Franklin was right about voting but a bit naive to not realize that simply giving citizens the right to vote almost guarantees the destruction of the Republic.

By the way, if you have this problem with the arbitrary creation of values then do you think slavery should not have been abolished? Do you think women should not have the right to vote?

Again the delineation is between rights to freedom from other people's desire to abuse yours, and rights to resources. Obviously slavery should be abolished since it stands in contradiction to freedom.

Women voting- no problem. Franklin didn't say voting was the problem per se, but voting yourself money is the problem. The founding fathers saw this and said only white male landowners could vote. The modern version of that is only people who actually pay a net sum of money to the government should be allowed to vote, which I agree with. Only producers should be allowed to vote, in the spirit of what the founding fathers wanted.
You might say that things change and evolve, but remember these people were a collection of extraordinary guys who had a few thousand years of human history to draw upon. They happened to create one of the most properous and free societies ever, not perffect, just damned good. Along comes socialism and uses the politics of envy to leech off the fruits of capitalism- very destructive, has a poor track record.

 

[Ricter]

So in theory, from what you said, any measure of envy should be quite high in the more socialistic societies, is that right?

 

[Mav88]

The quality of life on average has risen dramatically over the last 100 years so you are shooting yourself in the foot here.

Bad choice of time frame. The great society and globalism started full force in the late 60's.

 

[Mav88]

So in theory, from what you said, any measure of envy should be quite high in the more socialistic societies, is that right?

no, redistribution is from the politics of envy. You can get rid of envy if everyone is miserable equally. The Soviet Union was like that and for a long time the ideal in Sweden was a flat income distribution until they realized they were on the path of economic suicide.

Look around the socialist world, you'll see nothing but capitalist reforms. It just doesn't work, especially in a highly inhomogeneous society.