The Dems Give Up On RepublicansFollow

That line is the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard from another human being. Its existence, there on the screen in front of me, is firm proof in my mind that you are a computer program designed by a genius liberal programmer to make conservatives look fucking retarded.

Your argument for the ***** being socialists is that they called themselves socialists. The fact that it's readily demonstrated by taking your head out of your *** and looking at history that the names of political parties do not always accurately represent that party's ideology automatically cuts the balls off that argument.

I'll skip the retarded arguments about why the Democrats and the same as the *****, since only a madman or an incredible hypocrite could seriously make those.

Instead, I'll take you up on the "liberty point". Personal liberty and government "power" are not axiomatic. They don't exist in a vaccum. There are few reasons for this:

In a democracy, Government represents the "people". Officials are voted in, and can be voted out. The powers government has are only temporary, and can be removed or reduced at any time. Anyone is free to run for elections. Lots of states have individual-sponsored referendums. It follows that an increase in the "power" of government is simply an extension of the areas in which individuals can have a democratic say in the matter.

In most cases, the areas where government doesn't have power are supplanted by private companies. The choice is rarely between "government" and "nothing at all", it's between "government" and "private sector". The health care debate is a perfect exemple. If there is no "public option", the reality is not that individals are free to set their own premium and coverage. They are instead subject to the whims of the private sector operating in this area. The loss of "personal liberty" is arguably higher when private companies are solely responsible for providing services, since there is no democratic mechanism for controlling them.

Furthermore, liberty implies "freedom of action". When you are ill, you have very little "freedom of action". When you are extremely poor, you have very little "freedom of action". When you have no health coverage and are at the mercy of nature sadistic's side, you do not possess "more liberty" than someone who can get healthcare.

Fundamentally, your ideal of "personal liberty" is being alone on a desert island. I completely disagree. Being alone on a desert island is not "liberty". It's almost the opposite. "liberty", for me, is about having the means to fullfill your potential/dreams/aspirations. Any lever that increases those means is a net "liberty" gain. Anything that provides you with more "freedom of action" is a net "liberty gain".

To put in societal examples: A kid born in poverty Somalia does not have "more liberty" than a kid born in poverty in Sweden. A poor kid born in Somalia will have the "liberty" to do one thing: survive. Whether that be through piracy, selling kat, working on a market, his options will be severely limited... A kid born in Sweden will have the choice to become a doctor, lawyer, pop star, CEO, pole vault jumper, heroin addict, whatever floats his boat. Because the government has provided him with means to realise his potential. He will get free education. If he's good academically, he will get a scholarship. If his University is far away, he will have good public transportation to get him there. If he gets seriously ill, he will be cared for. If he goes off the rail and becomes a drug addict, he will have a chance to go to rehab. In other words, he will have, at his disposal, the means to lead his life in the most fullfilling manner.

To me, that is "liberty".

Private companies of course do provide a measure of control. I can choose to take my business elsewhere and there will often be a set of choices that I can take that will let us as a society control companies. The thing about companies is not that they are inherently evil, but they do always seek to maximize profits.

This method of operating leads to natural growth and contraction of the market. At some points we will have lots of companies, all competing, and as a result get very good service. However this will swing over to massive companies that have monopolies or that are so big, they might as well be monopolies. They no longer truly have to compete, and the consumer suffers. This is of course not a permanent situation and the pendulum will swing back.

For the most part this is fine, and not a terribly bad thing, however personally I wouldn't want my health care subject to these market whims. This is why I would choose the government route for health care. I see this, and completely agree with Red that this is simply another avenue to get personal freedom of action. I would even go as far to say that I agree that people will have more with the government route in this case, because it is so important. Government action can reduce personal freedom of action sure, but it can also increase it, and I would say this does.

This doesn't even address the fact that I firmly believe that my society should provide health care to those who can't afford it, and that no one should be unable to get health care because they have a "preexisting condition" that they mostly have no control over anyway. It's barbaric. Given that government programs work best when they are fully embraced and properly implemented rather then using halfway measures like the US is right now, I strengthen my views in this matter.

Goggy,

What could ever make me think that way? Couldn't be govn motors, govn mtg, govn banks, govn healthcare. Next they'll be telling me how much I can make; oh wait they're already doing that.

I hear there's some good profiteering in Somalia these days.

OMG why do you hate the US Constitution you dirty communist.

Same reason as why any other break-away can't secede. You lack the army for it.

It would be a fun experiment to let them secede. Then watch how fast they go bankrupt without any U.S. money coming their way.



Wow, TN took in 58 billion plus from the federal govt in 2008...
Have fun w/o that money.



Edited, Aug 21st 2009 11:52am by Technogeek

If Texas secedes, then Mexico will probably take it over.

If Tennessee secedes, then Georgia will happily declare war over that 1 mile strip of the northern border of our state so that we can access the Tennessee River. It's a feud that's been festering for 150 years beneath the surface.

You're confusing might makes right with might is might. It's an easy thing to confuse though.

This is why Lincoln was such a smart cookie. There was a possibility of the South gaining some support from various European nations (in exchange for getting better access to the cotton and tobacco exports) when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The wording of the Proclamation was very cleverly constructed to paint the South as a truant child (it didn't call them the Confederacy, it called them "states in rebellion") and by freeing slaves in only those "states in rebellion" he basically established that the union still had the power to make laws in those states. It was a brilliant political strategy that had virtually nothing to do with ideology. Its intended effect was to discourage foreign support for the South and it succeeded.

Would it be bad if they seceded? Let's be honest, they can't financially afford to but it would probably benefit the rest of us--Tennessee more so than Texas, I think (Texas is a richer state).

Edited, Aug 22nd 2009 1:49am by Annabella