Thread: Are We Incrementally Losing Our Freedom?

All good points, but, in starting this thread, the intention wasn't to focus on health care...I would hope to re-direct to the issue of individual rights as related to a seemingly large and growing federal government and used the issues above to see what you thought...but, as you please

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

I think when it comes to things like health care, it is just another facet of why we prefer to live in civilized societies.

The government monitors the safety of our water, food, our electricity, our baseline education, etc etc etc...

They do this so that we don't have to spend all of our time worrying about basic survival, and we can instead dedicate our lives to pursuing what we desire to do, which not only serves to advance human discovery at a faster rate, but generally leads to a happier population.

There are those that would prefer to not live in, what you've been referring to as, 'civilized society'.(From reading what you've written I take your meaning of civilized society as; one in which physiological & safety needs have been met. If I have misinterpreted what you said I apologize.) Who may only want VERY minimal interference in their lives, and don't need, again your words, anyone monitoring/providing for their "survival needs". Their happiness comes from providing from themselves.

I cite Libertarians, while they may not be exactly as described above. As I understand it, they seek maximal freedom and very little if any government.

My point being, there two sides to every coin and plenty of middle ground; and the supposition "WE" probably isn't accurate vis-a-vis humanities view on any given topic. There are so many view points about what freedom is, I would think there is always going to be someone who feels their freedom is being infringed upon. For instance:

Personally I feel cheated by the fact I have to pay for public schools. My wife and I don't have children, we don't want any. I see myself having to pay for the -tongue in cheek humor- mistakes ( ok, most of them were probably planned) made by others. I realize I'm in the minority here, and disliking children probably earns me a seat on the wackjob bus. Even though I hate the little buggers, I wouldn't try and make anyone stop having children; that would infringe on your freedoms.

Could government work A la carte, that way everyone can participate in and reap the benefits of, only what they have paid into?

Originally Posted by hardblues

All good points, but, in starting this thread, the intention wasn't to focus on health care...I would hope to re-direct to the issue of individual rights as related to a seemingly large and growing federal government and used the issues above to see what you thought...but, as you please

I'll try -

Part of the problem is in the understanding of "rights" and what rights are protected by our founding documents.

The Declaration only mentions "certain" rights that are "inalienable" in that they were "endowed" to us by our "Creator."

And among these rights are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

The Declaration then says that the purpose of governments is to "secure" those rights. I doubt it was ever intended that we should come up with an endless list of rights to be secured, because at some point those rights may be conflicting.

I think the one thing to consider about a right is the impact it might have on another. If the free exercise of "your" right has any impact on the rights of another, does it truly fit the definition of a right as meant in the Declaration?

For instance, using health care as an example - if health care is a "right", then can one freely exercise that right all of the time without infringing on the "rights" of a health-care provider? In other words - you have a service I can benefit from. I have a right to that service therefore I can/ will take it from you with or without your consent. Either overtly by force, or covertly through legislation. In this example, one person exercises their "right" at the expense of another. Which seems to me to invalidate it as a right by definition. To further define this, I think there is a difference between a right to "seek out" a service, and a "right" to a service.

Hope that was all clear.

Originally Posted by honedright

I think the one thing to consider about a right is the impact it might have on another. If the free exercise of "your" right has any impact on the rights of another, does it truly fit the definition of a right as meant in the Declaration?

Beautifully said! To me, if have to impinge on your rights, to exercise one of mine... mine probably isn't a right.

Originally Posted by Spect

Beautifully said! To me, if have to impinge on your rights, to exercise one of mine... mine probably isn't a right.

Or perhpas mine isn't? Or perhaps neither is a specific "right" as considered unter the constitution. I think of Health Care, to use the curretn big example as a moral obligation of a government, as opposed to an individualiozed RIGHT of a citizen qua citizen. Perhaps a "human right." though of course, define all of these terms consistently, and we'd all likely have one less thing to argue about...whjere is the fun in that?
Thank you all for the fascinating discussion.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Funny, when Bush passed policy to really curtail our liberties the party in power thought that was a good thing but now they think the health care bill will do that and are upset.

You bring up a good point, almost, it was not only the R's but the D's that voted for the patriot act. Both R's and D's have done things to curtail our freedoms and as long as the only measure we use is the last administration we will continue to get what we have always gotten.
You are exactly right that Bush did the same kinds of things that most R's allowed to slide because it was pushed by a man with an R behind his name. One problem I see is that there are supporters of big government, small liberties, in both parties. The american progressive party was a movement that officially started around the turn of the last century, with the book, the promise of american life by herbert crowley(teddy and wilson were his heroes). It actually started before the revolutionary war IMO, under the name of loyalist. Those that believed in the british model have been trying to undo every advancement made by our founders new take on government, a constitutional republic, where all just power comes from the consent of the governed and not the consent of a king or parliment, which is given to the government through a document that lists every thing that they CAN do and everything that isnt listed is left to the states or to the people. Alexander Hamilton is one example, Lincoln is another, then there was Teddy, Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan(to a small degree), Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and finally Obama. As you can see they alternate pretty well and the argument is always, how can you be against what I am doing when I am just continuing what was started by the previous administration, who was of your party. Personally, I cant believe they get away with that argument, I tried to use that same argument growing up and it never worked, the response was always the same, "if everyone else jumped off a cliff would you?". IMO we need to quit allowing politicians to weigh their actions by comparing to other administrations, and make them weigh their actions against the constitution, since that is where they get their just power. The way the constitution is written, it matters not how big of a majority agree, unless that super majority ammends it, to allow it. Ammending is too hard though, so politicians have settled for evolving the meaning of the words and clauses in the constitution to allow their pet causes to pass. I would add though that the evolution started pretty quickly, by 1823, there had been so many perversions that John Taylor of Caroline wrote a book called, New views of the constitution. The title is kind of misleading though, since it was a look back at the votes and bills of the constitutional convention and shortly thereafter, to give a better look at what the founders intended and not what later generations thought they meant. He wrote it when the notes of the convention were released to the public for the first time. When Jefferson was asked if he would ever write a book explaining his view of the constitution he said there was no need since he couldnt think of any differences between his and John Taylors views.
If I were to make a list of the biggest mistakes former administrations have made it would look a little like this:

Adams and his Sedition Law
Jackson and his refusing to accept a supreme court ruling, saying what he was doing was unconstitutional(exterminating indians).
The congress of the 1840's and 50's, up till that time corporations were very limited in their scope. When the federal congress started trying to be more lenient towards corps, many, if not all the states wrote new legislation reaffirming there mistrust of corporations, making the federal legislation null and void.
The 1860's saw a tyrannical majority, try to impose their will on the minority. And said that states didnt have the right to succeed even though every state listed emphatically in their ratification of the federal constitution that they retained that right.
1863 saw the start of the tyrannical war of subjugation
The rest of the sixties and 70's was spent keeping southern voters out of the voting booth by military invasion, unless of course they agreed with the administration. IMO any bill or ammendment passed during the time that the south left congress, and the end of the 70's is null and void, since government gets its just power at the consent of the goverened. If the governed are not allowed to vote, when did they give their consent?
Lincolns admin, started the income tax, a tool that has been used since to grow the government without our input. Up until then there were no internal taxes. However it did go away for a bit, until wilson brought it back.
From the 70's till early 20th century, the national government, continually removed restrictions on corporations, giving them unprecedented power, atleast unprecedented on these shores since titles and corporations were two things curtailed on these shores with the revolutionary war.
The twenties saw the biggest advancement in standard of living ever witnessed, unfortunately the praise was put onto corporations instead of the individuals that were inventing the advancements. So corps were given even more power.
Everything was going so good, nobody could see the downside so Hoover started doing what progressives do, raised spending, dropped interest rates to prop up a falling economy, and started a recession which quickly became a depression because according to them we had to spend money to get out of debt. Doesnt that sound familiar? Then FDR came in and continued the social programs his predecessor started, and said how can you be against my programs when they got there start under the previous "conservative" president, sounds familiar also doesnt it?

We have had the SEC since then, it was instituted to stave of corruption. Thank god it works so good, we havent had a corrupt corporation since.
Welfare was instituted as a way to end poverty, and since then the number of poor people has continually been in decline, right?
Social Security was started as a voluntary thing that would not go higher than 1% of your pay, and the money will be there when you decide to retire. I am glad it has worked so well, and that I dont have to participate if I dont want too, and it has remained at the promised 1%, and it went into a fund that couldnt be used for other purposes, right?


Sorry for the rant, I will get off my now.

Originally Posted by Spect

There are those that would prefer to not live in, what you've been referring to as, 'civilized society'.(From reading what you've written I take your meaning of civilized society as; one in which physiological & safety needs have been met. If I have misinterpreted what you said I apologize.) Who may only want VERY minimal interference in their lives, and don't need, again your words, anyone monitoring/providing for their "survival needs". Their happiness comes from providing from themselves.

I cite Libertarians, while they may not be exactly as described above. As I understand it, they seek maximal freedom and very little if any government.

My point being, there two sides to every coin and plenty of middle ground; and the supposition "WE" probably isn't accurate vis-a-vis humanities view on any given topic. There are so many view points about what freedom is, I would think there is always going to be someone who feels their freedom is being infringed upon. For instance:

Personally I feel cheated by the fact I have to pay for public schools. My wife and I don't have children, we don't want any. I see myself having to pay for the -tongue in cheek humor- mistakes ( ok, most of them were probably planned) made by others. I realize I'm in the minority here, and disliking children probably earns me a seat on the wackjob bus. Even though I hate the little buggers, I wouldn't try and make anyone stop having children; that would infringe on your freedoms.

Could government work A la carte, that way everyone can participate in and reap the benefits of, only what they have paid into?

I am child-free as well. I don't like kids, and I will never have any. I'm probably the least maternal and most tocophobic individual on the face of the planet.

However, I do not begrudge having to pay for public education. My disliking of children doesn't stop them from being brought into the world (rightly or wrongly), and as long as they're here, I don't want them deprived of an education just because of the possibility that their parents weren't bright enough to figure out their way around a condom. That isn't the kid's fault. And the kid has a better chance of not growing up to be like that if they're educated.

I'm glad we have a variety of opinions out there. I'm not trying to silence anyway, and I actually used to identify as a libertarian at one point in time.

Until I started reading a little more. One of the things that a fairly large group of libertarians support is pretty much getting rid of the FDA.

How long do a think a country with no food or medicinal oversight at all would stay on the developed nation list?

I personally don't think that a highly motivated, highly advanced society can continue to function or progress if these things are not taken care of.

In a libertarian system, who is it that dies of food poisoning? The poor people, and probably a good chunk of the middle class. All the rich people have their own farms, or buy from extremely expensive markets.

Apart from the idea of dog-eat-dog being at odds with the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, it also doesn't really serve to advance a society.

Not all rich people are necessarily the hardest working (some have never worked at all, if they inherited their wealth). Not all rich people are the highly intelligent, or highly creative.

One of the cool things about America, is that it aspires to be a meritocracy (to varying degrees of success). That means if you're good at what you do, you win.

But if you die as a child from taking medication spiked with heroine, you never get a fair shot. There must be a compromise between providing and expectation.

How long do you think it would be before the country was, once again, royalty vs peasantry?

I just don't think running a modern civilization like that is in any way practical. If they wanted to go off on their own and build a new society, they're more than welcome. But there's a reason they aren't a terribly big party.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

One of the cool things about America, is that it aspires to be a meritocracy (to varying degrees of success). That means if you're good at what you do, you win.

I agree that this country offers incentive to creative, improve and grow,but, with that said, I would be interested in what you think things like Cap and Trade might result in with business, (employers/creators)> As well, if there are stipulations within health care about corporations having under 50 employees or it is cheaper to pay the fines than it is to offer individual insurance programs to employees because of the way a law is written...I think I read something about Catepillar saying that the bill would cost them an additional $100,000,000.00 annually...what do things like this do to employment, growth, or even keeping industry within the United States...

I agree with everything everybody has said about everything on this thread.....

Originally Posted by hardblues

I agree that this country offers incentive to creative, improve and grow,but, with that said, I would be interested in what you think things like Cap and Trade might result in with business, (employers/creators)> As well, if there are stipulations within health care about corporations having under 50 employees or it is cheaper to pay the fines than it is to offer individual insurance programs to employees because of the way a law is written...I think I read something about Catepillar saying that the bill would cost them an additional $100,000,000.00 annually...what do things like this do to employment, growth, or even keeping industry within the United States...

Depends on what about Cap and Trade you're talking about, specifically. I think the concept is sound. Not all of the implementation is. But just as we ban smoking indoors because of the potential health risk it possess to unconsenting parties, we have to take measures to keep industry from completely wrecking the planet. No matter what you think of global warming, it's undeniable that in the past (and still today, but to a lesser degree) unchecked industry has rendered entire bodies of water basically poisonous, and destroyed untold acres of previously fertile land.

So what, in specific, about Cap and Trade are you referring to?

Like I've said, I actually don't think this health care bill is the answer. In the short term, it may help stop people from pre-existing conditions from simply dying off in the heat of the depression, and *maybe* it will help restore some order to our ER's (but that could kinda go either way), but really, I don't have any long-term hope for it.

I see it as hopefully being a spring-board into something more sustainable. The fact is that now we've done it, which means we've overcome all the inertia that was holding up health care reform in the first place. So from here out, it should be easier to make further reforms as we inevitably find things about this bill that don't work.

In order to *truly* reform health care, we also have to reform everything from the court system to social security. The system is broken all the way down to the bottom floor. And that's going to take time to fix.

I'm not hoping for a quick fix, and this bill certainly confirmed that I shouldn't. Baby steps.