patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,210,967 comments by 14,394 users - AD, DemocratsAreTotallyFucked, goofus, Patrick online now
Why are there medical care reform links on patrick.net?
invite response
2009 Aug 11, 7:48am 64,286 views 423 comments
« First « Previous Comments 421 - 423 of 423 Search these comments
PeopleUnited
2009 Sep 17, 11:02am
SCOTUS is not always right.
How so? The constitution says that they’re the final word, so how are they not “rightâ€? Just because you disagree with their rulings doesn’t make their rulings less “rightâ€.
*Whether you or I agree with them is irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence stated it correctly that humans are given certain rights, and governments have no right to alienate them. The Constitution is an attempt to prevent government from alienating those rights. It may have failed to do that (or our ancestors failed to enforce it) but right is still right. SCOTUS is not the final authority. Declaration of Independence elegantly describes the fact that all rights are given to humans. It also says it is up to us to force government to NOT infringe on these rights.
Other than threats of violence or imprisonment for opposition of government, perhaps the biggest way governments alienate citizens rights is by forced taxation, forced spending (such as forcing people to buy insurance, smoke detectors or anything for that matter), and currency devaluation (inflation through printing money or lending money that doesn't exist). Our government and its authorized agent the FED are alienating our rights. Just because they have been doing it for over 100 years or SCOTUS says its OK does not make it right. Right is right regardless of who agrees or doesn't agree.
For many years everyone understood the US Congress could not spend money except on few specific circumstances. Did you read what Grover Cleveland wrote?
Since day one the opinion was pretty firmly divided between those who wanted a strong, large federal government (i.e. federalists) and those who wanted the states to do more. There has never been a time in history where separation of powers wasn’t a major concern.
The simple fact of the matter is that when everyone lived on self-sustaining farms, there wasn’t much need for a government to do much of anything. Trying to compare what was necessary in Cleveland’s time to what is necessary today is absurd.*What is absurd is trying to say that a more diversified economy must be taxed and controlled by a stronger central government. In fact it would stand to reason that a less diversified economy would be more vulnerable to deviant behaviors and people with scarce resources taking advantage of others. What is also absurd is the idea that in Grover Clevelands time "EVERYONE" lived on self-sustaining farms. Yeah right, New York city didnt exist. Fisherman didn't exist, railroads didn't exist, international trade didn't exist. Oh wait. IT DID! Grover was right then and if he were here now his position would be just a relevant today.
2ndClassCitizen saysWe already have laws that allow individuals, companies and states to sue others for damages such as those caused by pollution. If they were taken to court and forced to pay everyone would take notice.
Well, no, because that was exactly what was tried and it failed. Proving that some individual company is responsible for river pollution is damned near impossible, which makes winning a court case damned near impossible, and even if it did work all you would have is a reactive system, and reactive systems have been proven time and time again to not be effective deterrents.
*I didn't know it failed. So if my neighbor spills diesel fuel in my back yard and all my trees die I can't sue for damages or go the nice route and work with him to go about restitution?
Reactive system? So instead we should ban the ownership of diesel so no one can spill it? Is that the kind of government you want? I'll take my chances with my neighbor, he is easier to work with than the government.
One of the biggest problems with big government is that if the government is corrupt or not working the best interest of the people there is no recourse for the citizens except revolution.
2ndClassCitizen saysThis is the country we have and I like it. Perhaps the people who like big government should try living in China?
The United States has had “big government†since well before you were born — unless possibly if you’re over 100 years of age. I like our country too, for the most part, but I also don’t have an irrational attachment to it.
I’m all for letting people “choose†what kind of government they want by giving much more power to the states, but to do that you really need to break up the union. It’s simply not possible for states to self-govern when they can’t have their own military, their own currency, or the freedom to negotiate international treaties.
50 separate countries (that is “statesâ€, in the original sense of the term) sounds like a damned good idea, actually.
*Whether you or I agree with them is irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence stated it correctly that humans are given certain rights, and governments have no right to alienate them. The Constitution is an attempt to prevent government from alienating those rights. It may have failed to do that (or our ancestors failed to enforce it) but right is still right. SCOTUS is not the final authority. Declaration of Independence elegantly describes the fact that all rights are given to humans. It also says it is up to us to force government to NOT infringe on these rights.
So this is getting pretty esoteric. You're arguing for the moral "right" and I'm arguing for the legal. Yes, of course "the people" have the final say on anything (as they do in EVERY society -- history is full of revolutions), but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the federal government under our current constitution has the authority to create new programs.
What is absurd is trying to say that a more diversified economy must be taxed and controlled by a stronger central government. In fact it would stand to reason that a less diversified economy would be more vulnerable to deviant behaviors and people with scarce resources taking advantage of others. What is also absurd is the idea that in Grover Clevelands time “EVERYONE†lived on self-sustaining farms. Yeah right, New York city didnt exist. Fisherman didn’t exist, railroads didn’t exist, international trade didn’t exist. Oh wait. IT DID! Grover was right then and if he were here now his position would be just a relevant today.
Not even close. Cleveland died in 1908 -- before we all had automobiles, before we had machine guns, before we had electricity in most of our homes (hell, in many places before we even had indoor plumbing), before women could vote. We only had 88M people living in this country and, while not "everyone" lived on farms, 65% of us did, whereas today less than 10% do.
You simply can not compare society today with society of 100+ years ago.
To use your own argument against you, all that matters is what's "right", not idealism. Things do change, and no human ideology has been right at all times in history.
I didn’t know it failed. So if my neighbor spills diesel fuel in my back yard and all my trees die I can’t sue for damages or go the nice route and work with him to go about restitution?
Oh, your neighbor you could probably sue -- but good luck proving that it was the paper mill and not the coal mine that ruined your drinking water. Do you understand why the EPA was created? It wasn't because Nixon hated the free market.
PeopleUnited
2009 Sep 17, 8:16pm
Kevin,
Oh well, if it is "legal" then OK :)
But: Legal or illegal is used by the powers that be to justify or condemn according to their agenda. For example, it was illegal to transport a slave to freedom, but it was the right thing to do. It is legal to sell mortgage or take a mortgage on a grossly overpriced house that could never truly be paid back but it is not the right thing to do. Legal means little when men decide what is and isn't legal.
Modern society doesn't justify the tyranny of taxation any more than pre-civil war era economy justifies slavery. When people are not free to work and keep the fruits of their labor their right to life and liberty has been alienated. Grover Cleveland understood this, not because they didn't have machine guns and automobiles but because he was taught it. Sadly people today are more likely interested in the latest sporting event or celebrity gossip than in understanding and preserving freedom.
The EPA? Yeah, a great track record there. They've done one heck of a job. Red tape so thick superman strains at it and yet our lakes, rivers etc... are worse than ever. But I'm sure if we just gave them more funding they would solve everything. Maybe we need a pollution Czar!
« First « Previous Comments 421 - 423 of 423 Search these comments
My reply to a reader who called me an "Obama zombie" for supporting medical care reform that would save her ass along with the rest of us.
Hi Kerri,
it is off-topic, but I watched both my parents die last year, and I know for a fact that our insurance system sucks. My parents were bankrupted by the current system while they died, though Medicare did provide them good quality care. (They incurred big expenses before getting on Medicare, and even when on Medicare, drugs and other costs were beyond their ability to pay. Ultimately they had no money left, at which point Medicaid paid for my mother.)
I don't like excessive government, but Obama's plan is just to give the OPTION to carry government insurance to compete with the private bloated bureaucracy that is already worse than any government plan. Private insurers make more money if they deny you care and let you die. Talk to anyone who's been through a serious illness in the US, then compare that to anyone from the rest of the industrialized world. Hell, Americans fly to India to get treatment because that's better than dealing with our current system!
Obama's plan leaves all private doctors and hospitals private like before. Maybe it does partly socialize insurance, but police, firemen, elementary school teachers are all socialized and all work pretty well. Medical insurance could be like that. Right now, we pay more and get worse medical care per dollar than in any other industrialized country, because people protecting the insurance and drug companies poked the right nerve in your lizard brain.
Here's a perfectly true quote from some guy on my site:
"Asshole republicans don't even know what they're protesting against - a threat to their right to be anally raped by big insurance companies? Just puppets dancing around, with the good ole boys of the GOP pulling the strings, who are then off to pick up their big fat check from Blue Cross and Kaiser... You are being PLAYED, sucker."
Patrick
#politics