Results 81 to 90 of 103
Thread: The purpose of government
-
02-02-2008, 06:18 PM #81
-
02-02-2008, 08:03 PM #82
-
02-02-2008, 10:16 PM #83
But, of course - I am not contesting the need for a federally governed army. My point was that on some level it is pretty much in the same spirit of providing national health insurance, i.e. things not explicitly authorized in the constitution are not automatically excluded.
Lastly, earlier you said that there isn't a Libertarian with a chance to win. That is obvious. The comment about twisting the Constitution to say that it does is silly.
I am not sure I am twisting anything here. The original post is about interpretation of the Constitution as libertarian - at least as far as my understanding of what is libertarian goes (which is individual liberties/freedom above all and infringed by the government to as little degree as possible).
If you hadn't noticed, I am saying that we should have principled government; Not government that does what they FEEL at the moment because the people FEEL like something. The fact is that the Founders very much feared Mob Rule and wrote the Constitution to provide lawful recognition of the things the Federal government can and cannot do. Believing otherwise is factually incorrect. Also, to both of our points, most Americans don't even know this and the politicians don't care to remind us because it gives them great power to be a Nanny state.
My point has been only that the government essentially reflects the way voters want to be governed and that's the main goal the constitution tries to provide. Choosing representative vs. direct democracy is important to secure robustness, but it does not protect the rights of any minority, just minority over certain size.
-
02-02-2008, 11:25 PM #84
Which part isn't true... the streets and back alleys, or the all over America?
I believe people are dying all over America (regardless of venue) because they can't afford healthcare at all or they can't afford sufficient healthcare.
Hardly a day goes by that there isn't a story in the news about someone who can't get treatment because they're uninsured, because their insurance won't cover the procedures, becasue they can't afford the drugs they need to treat the illness, because their insurance has reached a "lifetime limit", etc.
I agree that if you have a broken arm and no insurance you can go to a hospital and they most likely will treat you pro bono. But if you go needing an organ transplant, cancer treatment, a major operation, some costly medication, etc. I don't think you're likely to get the treatments you need. YMMV
-
02-02-2008, 11:33 PM #85
I assume you mean the media thats in the back pocket of the liberals ? The same media that you just recently complained so bitterly about? The same media that depends on the worst stories to get an audience? The same media that every other story is " Hot breaking news"? Or is there another news media that I am unaware of?
-
02-03-2008, 02:01 AM #86
I know I am opening a gigantic can of worms but I guess I will. This is a question that will ultimately face all of us on either side of the Socialized Medicine dilemma.
The question is: Is Free (Tax Supported) Medical Care a Natural Right of Citizenship (God help us ensure that it's for citizens!!! But that is another story. And no, I absolutely do not hate immigrants - I embrace immigration as a natural right.) If medical care is a natural right, is there a limit to the time or money that will be spent on treatment using taxpayers' money? Does rarity of ailment preclude some from be treated at all? If one would rather seek private treatment instead of waiting in line for the public clinic, is it legal to do so?
As we know, many countries have answered those questions by saying it is illegal to receive private treatment - forcing their own citizens to wait or leave the country (if they are financially able) to buy their treatment in another country. If it's a natural right, how can it be limited by mere cost.
If it is provided by the state for free (presumably not for profit) where do the drug companies and doctors find incentives to produce new and top notch technology to continue to offer the best treatments and services?
Finally, haven't we already seen this concept fail miserably everywhere it has been tried? (Right now, I believe that the Socialized Medicine countries are benefitting from the ingenuity of free-er market countries' technology - but I could be wrong.)
Thoughts?
-
02-03-2008, 02:15 AM #87
A couple of people have stated our country is in trouble. They're right. This is the best, most succint, way I've seen it put as to why. Thanks to Traveller for forwarding this to me.
How Long Do We Have? About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government." "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury"
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years"
"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacen cy to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage
We live in the worst country, under the worst government on earth...except for all the other ones.
-
02-03-2008, 02:40 AM #88
-
02-03-2008, 01:27 PM #89
-
02-03-2008, 04:33 PM #90
Mark,
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and experiences. I appreciate the dialog.
First, I have to address the Scandinavians. We all know they're so damn good looking and happy (and that 65% of their money goes right back to the government!) that their healthcare system was bound to work!
I have seen all of the other Michael Moore films (I am a small government advocate, but I do study the other side, too) but have yet to see Sicko. Of course, I saw reviews and behind the scenes stuff on the news magazine TV shows. Can't comment too much on that one except to say that Mr. Moore is obviously an America hater (in its present state at the very least) and free market basher. He does believe in Internationalism and a very intrusive state.
Costa Rica is considered quite a success as an example of a Libertarian-style government in action. I have read some ads and seen some shows about their healthcare and also have a relative by marriage that has retired to Costa Rica and medical care and low cost of living were cited as reasons for the move.
I have to admit that I was quite surprised to see that UK allows the public tax money to exit stage southeast and go to France for medical treatments. Very interesting.