Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Originally Posted by gugi

OK, so what specific ""progressive" rejection of universal and unalienable human rights" are you referring to, and what specific indications can you point towards "return to that kind of thinking", the "same age old dangerous type of thinking practiced by tyrants, dictators and thugs that have enslaved and violated humans for thousands of years".

You wrote: "I don't think they were so arrogant as to think that their 18th century ideas would be appropriate or wanted by the people living in the 19th, 20th, 21st, and so on centuries."

This reads, to me, consistent with the progressive era concept of "progressing" or moving beyond the principals of the American founding which includes a rejection of the founding principles, including "Natural Rights."

Woodrow Wilson, famous as 28th president of the United States, and early progressive era thinker, is quoted:

“If you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface.”

“The question is not whether all men are born free and equal or not. Suppose they were

born so, you know they are not.”


“But such sentences do not afford a general theory of government to formulate policies upon.
No doubt we are meant to have liberty; but each generation must form its own conception of
what liberty is.”

“We are not bound to adhere to the doctrines held by the signers of the Declaration of

Independence: we are as free as they were to make and unmake governments. We are

not here to worship men or a document. [...] Every Fourth of July should be a time for
examining our standards, our purposes, for determining afresh what principles, what
forms of power we think most likely to effect our safety and happiness. That and that alone
is the obligation the Declaration lays upon us."

Wilson is but one example, but other progressive era thinkers are consistent with Wilson's thoughts which, to me, sound arbitrary. These ideas remind me of someone who wants to change laws and principals as they see fit, and not based on any consistent standard, but only consistent with "the times." Further reading reveals that progressives believe the appropriate vehicle for changing policy per the times, or as the will of the people sway, is via the state. Sounds like a tyrants dream to me.

Originally Posted by honedright

Since about the time just before 1920, the federal government started imposing taxes that violate the Constitutions original intent in giving Congress the power to tax. This is what I think most people are, or should be, upset about. It is one thing for taxpayers to pay a tax for a common service of which they all benefit. It's completely another issue when taxpayers are forced under fear of penalty, to pay a tax for a service that is delivered to others who may have paid little to nothing.

If you don't mind I'd like to ask a couple of questions. They have nothing to do with the legitimacy or not of the current taxes paid but more to do with "services that are currently being delivered to others" that you think should be stopped. Just a couple of examples would suffice. Also how would you propose determining the common service of which we all benefit?

perhaps some of this needs to be split off into a "crazy constitution thread" .... the 3/5 clause was included as a political expediency to get the rest of the thing passed. the hope was that with the end of importation of slaves in 1803 slavery would "wither away" that being said, most of my ancestors where lining in Europe until 1912, and rural peasants in Europe were living in a utopian society back then, most were for all intents bound to the land and the landlord with no provision for their needs, in many ways slavery was better than that.

but that is not the purpose of this thread or so I thought.

in my perfect world one would be free to do other exactly whatever you chose, knowing also that others have the right to do that to you. each then is fully respocible for their actions and the reprisals others may take, my thought is after a couple of years the bloodshed would end and society would be better off for it.

enjoy,
jim

Originally Posted by Brenngun

If you don't mind I'd like to ask a couple of questions. They have nothing to do with the legitimacy or not of the current taxes paid but more to do with "services that are currently being delivered to others" that you think should be stopped. Just a couple of examples would suffice. Also how would you propose determining the common service of which we all benefit?

Affordable Care Act requires medical insurance policies to include the "Essential Health Benefits." From www.healthcare.gov:

"The Affordable Care Act ensures health plans offered in the individual and small group markets, both inside and outside of the Health Insurance Marketplace, offer a comprehensive package of items and services, known as essential health benefits. Essential health benefits must include items and services within at least the following 10 categories: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

Insurance policies must cover these benefits in order to be certified and offered in the Health Insurance Marketplace. States expanding their Medicaid programs must provide these benefits to people newly eligible for Medicaid."

Say you are a single man without children. You are old enough that you know you will never have children, don't want children, or are incapable of ever having children, and you purchase an individual policy. Why should you have to pay, as a required part of your policy, for maternity and newborn care, as well as pediatric oral and vision care? Certainly not for yourself. So where do your premium payments for those services go? Into the the insurance pool for others to use. I'd prefer to choose a policy tailored and priced just for my specific health care needs (since I'm the one paying), and not for the specific needs of others in the pool who may be be paying less, or nothing at all. But the current law has removed that choice from me. Remember, one reason the ACA was created was to cover the needs of the poor who could not afford health insurance on their own. If you consider that your money is your property, then this is an example of property being taken from you (the law now requires individuals to purchase medical insurance or pay a penalty) and provided for others to pay for their specific needed services for which you may have no need of at all. This is no different than requiring that same man to purchase baby food along with his groceries, and then requiring him to give the baby food to mothers waiting just outside the grocery store.

A common service we all use: Police and Fire services - we could all be individually responsible for our own policing and fire, but we as a society have agreed that such a system would be chaotic and inefficient, therefore we gladly pay a tax to government in order to provide those services for us. True that there will be those that benefit from those same services and have not paid into the system, but at least those who have paid get exactly what they paid for. And in this system, no one is forced to buy anything.

The problem is if you as an individual went to a health care corp. and had a custom plan made up just for you to suit your needs and it was a real plan not one of those swiss cheese plans you would pay more than if you were a member of a group and had all these services you don't think you need.

Plan prices are based on the size of the population and the use history of the plan so you may not need certain things but because of the history and size the price will be lower. if it's just you well...a trip to the M.D for a hangnail removal can mean your prices double next year.

Was it an illuminating experience?

Originally Posted by Phrank

I ate a red candle.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

The problem is if you as an individual went to a health care corp. and had a custom plan made up just for you to suit your needs and it was a real plan not one of those swiss cheese plans you would pay more than if you were a member of a group and had all these services you don't think you need.

Plan prices are based on the size of the population and the use history of the plan so you may not need certain things but because of the history and size the price will be lower. if it's just you well...a trip to the M.D for a hangnail removal can mean your prices double next year.

Im a self employed barber...so true.

Originally Posted by honedright

Affordable Care Act requires medical insurance policies to include the "Essential Health Benefits." From www.healthcare.gov:

"The Affordable Care Act ensures health plans offered in the individual and small group markets, both inside and outside of the Health Insurance Marketplace, offer a comprehensive package of items and services, known as essential health benefits. Essential health benefits must include items and services within at least the following 10 categories: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

Insurance policies must cover these benefits in order to be certified and offered in the Health Insurance Marketplace. States expanding their Medicaid programs must provide these benefits to people newly eligible for Medicaid."

Thanks for your response. I wouldn't presume to speak for you but, should I assume you feel these services are still actually needed by some people but you shouldn't have to contribute to covering the costs? If not please correct me. If so then how would you propose covering the cost? Should it be the sole responsibility of the individual, parent or guardian? I'm sure you're aware of the rising health care costs in the US. What if they can't meet the burden? Should the care providers be forced to reduce their billings? What about the hospitals, insurance, drug or medical equipment companies? Should they have to reduce their prices to make it more affordable? If this requirement is not publically funded and no one steps up to provide it for free or at vastly reduced costs, look ahead and tell me what you think the likely result would be. Could it become "chaotic" and have a negative impact on your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? If there's even a slight chance of that, wouldn't you consider it money well spent?

Originally Posted by honedright

A common service we all use: Police and Fire services - we could all be individually responsible for our own policing and fire, but we as a society have agreed that such a system would be chaotic and inefficient, therefore we gladly pay a tax to government in order to provide those services for us. True that there will be those that benefit from those same services and have not paid into the system, but at least those who have paid get exactly what they paid for. And in this system, no one is forced to buy anything.

But what if some people don't agree with you. What if they don't gladly pay for them? What if they feel they can easy do it themselves and are also convinced that it will not be chaotic or inefficient. Should they be allowed to opt out because of this? Some people who currently pay taxes will tell you they don't receive the same level of service that others receive. They don't get "exactly what they paid for". Is that fair for them? Although you may feel you aren't being "forced to buy anything" I'd submit to you that in fact you are. The very fact that your taxes pay for these services means you've bought them. Granted you don't hand the police officer standing outside the grocery store a $20 bill as you leave with your newly acquired baby food but make no mistake the above transaction is the very definition per Webster of a purchase: "to get (something) by paying money for it". If you don't think you're being forced then try an experiment. Stop filing and paying your taxes.

Originally Posted by Brenngun

Thanks for your response. I wouldn't presume to speak for you but, should I assume you feel these services are still actually needed by some people but you shouldn't have to contribute to covering the costs? If not please correct me. If so then how would you propose covering the cost? Should it be the sole responsibility of the individual, parent or guardian? I'm sure you're aware of the rising health care costs in the US. What if they can't meet the burden? Should the care providers be forced to reduce their billings? What about the hospitals, insurance, drug or medical equipment companies? Should they have to reduce their prices to make it more affordable? If this requirement is not publically funded and no one steps up to provide it for free or at vastly reduced costs, look ahead and tell me what you think the likely result would be. Could it become "chaotic" and have a negative impact on your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? If there's even a slight chance of that, wouldn't you consider it money well spent?

Good questions all, but I don't necessarily have answers. It's apparent to me though that the current solutions are compromising the original intent of the law, if you agree that the purpose of law is to protect property. Forcibly taking property from one without fair compensation, in order to give to another, is usually called theft, and seems to me to be a betrayal of the purpose of the law. Unless you believe the purpose of laws are to inflict harm upon those who elect legislators who make the laws. To me, that makes no sense, unless the purpose is to make laws that are expedient to any solution regardless of effect on the people. But once again, that also seems to go against the purpose of laws assuming you believe laws are there to protect and not harm. I suppose it also depends on your definition of harm. If you don't mind having your property taken from you, in other words you feel that your property is going to a good cause, then you might not feel harmed by the taking. But then why the need for a law forcing the taking of property when you can voluntarily give your property to the cause without coercion? In other words charity. And just because no one will voluntarily pony up and give to the cause, is that justification to steal? In your mind is there ever a justification to steal? Just because something is called a "tax" does that fool you into believing the "tax" is not really a theft? Do you know the difference? Do you believe solutions should avoid harming at all cost? Or do you believe that the ends always justify the means regardless of harm or burden. Consider the rule in medicine of "First do no harm." Should legislators be held to the same standard?

Originally Posted by Brenngun

But what if some people don't agree with you. What if they don't gladly pay for them? What if they feel they can easy do it themselves and are also convinced that it will not be chaotic or inefficient. Should they be allowed to opt out because of this? Some people who currently pay taxes will tell you they don't receive the same level of service that others receive. They don't get "exactly what they paid for". Is that fair for them? Although you may feel you aren't being "forced to buy anything" I'd submit to you that in fact you are. The very fact that your taxes pay for these services means you've bought them. Granted you don't hand the police officer standing outside the grocery store a $20 bill as you leave with your newly acquired baby food but make no mistake the above transaction is the very definition per Webster of a purchase: "to get (something) by paying money for it". If you don't think you're being forced then try an experiment. Stop filing and paying your taxes.

Who wouldn't gladly pay their share for national defense, police and fire services, roads maintenance, etc. all the things that the Federal and State Constitutions authorize? Anyone who thinks these things could be done privately needs to seriously rethink the issue. In fact, prior to the federal constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, the states were attempting to do many of these things individually, and it wasn't working too well. Therefore creating a strong case for federalism which a majority of states eventually agreed to and ratified.

As to your last sentence, if you stopped paying your taxes you'd be in trouble, of course. But not all of your taxes paid are returned to you as a service. Some of that money pays for things having nothing to do with you. I make too much money to qualify for EBT, food stamps, Affordable Care Act subsidization, Medicaid, etc. But I certainly contribute as a tax payer to those programs. It's still theft no matter how you cut it. Social Security? Am I getting the ROI I would have gotten had I invested on my own? Probably not even close. The loss in returns, not due to risk but due to government intervention, is probably an SEC violation at least, under any other circumstance. Placing government in between you and those who benefit from your money, or causing you to loose money makes it no less of a theft or violation. Rationalizing it however you want changes nothing.

Originally Posted by honedright

Good questions all, but I don't necessarily have answers. It's apparent to me though that the current solutions are compromising the original intent of the law, if you agree that the purpose of law is to protect property. Forcibly taking property from one without fair compensation, in order to give to another, is usually called theft, and seems to me to be a betrayal of the purpose of the law.

May be when talking about original intent we ought to go to the origins.
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

The affected also thought it was theft and unfair, even went so far to take up arms but that didn't matter much.

You may not like everything that taxes are spent on, but that's true about every single person (e.g. I know a number of people who do not pay gladly for what they consider out of control military spending). The only valid way to determine what is OK and what isn't is the supreme court and they have already spoken on the issues you keep bringing up.
Like it or not this is the process, and the people who make the determination are there as a result of how the american people have voted.