I support Ron Paul's billFollow

The GOP had majorities in both chambers of congress at the time and there's no filibusters to stop an investigation by the House. So what exactly is their excuse for getting steamrolled by the minority party about this Super Important Pressing Issue We Must Investigate? It wasn't important enough to move forward with against the scary risk of being called "racists, bigots, and haters of the poor"?

Once again, the argument seems to be "The GOP is made up of pussies who can't fight the scary Democrats even when they're the majority party".

Edited, Apr 20th 2010 4:15pm by Jophiel

Um... The media? Was that a trick question?

It also says that one must do everything one can to preserve said like, liberty, health, limb, or goods of another. In other words, medical care....

The 24 hour networks have the time of day to set the agenda, and with Fox News being the most watched of the 24 hour networks the GOP still couldn't get it done?

Well, it says that in reference to "the rest of mankind". Given that this is followed by a list of things he should not do, one should infer that he assumes that one should not violate the list of things not to do in order to comply with the more broadly stated goal of preserving mankind.

You also have to read the entire treatise to understand more than just one of the first chapters. The one I linked is about the natural state of man. It's not yet talking about what governments should do. The quoted statement is best described as him advocating charitable works, not a system of government which taxes the people in order to provide said benefits to the rest.

Chapter 9 speaks more clearly on the limits of government and its purpose:



Emphasis mine. Note, that Locke does not find lacking in the state of nature man's charitable nature. What he finds lacking is that man's liberties are fleeting. His protection from other men infringing upon him is dependent on being strong enough to prevent it. This requires banding together into a society. At no point does he stated that the purpose is to protect one from natural forces, but rather to create protections from the actions of man which may remove from one the liberty present in said natural state.

He even goes further and clarifies the three things which are lacking from the natural state:



I'll point out that "isn't protected from natural harm to health and life" is absent from his list. Locke assumes that man may choose to help his neighbor as he wishes. He's talking about why we would form a government and give it power over us. This is particularly relevant to a discussion of the charitable nature of government funded services. Locke absolutely did not believe that government should at all be involved in charity. That is the nature of man to do and decide. Man does not give up his own liberties just to have some authority decide what charities he should engage in.


Whether you agree with this or not, this *was* the primary philosophical influence on the founding fathers of the US. It was this understanding of liberty and the purpose of government which prompted them to form this nation in the way that they did. A government program to provide subsidized health care is a clear violation of those principles. Charity is for man to do, not government. When we choose to do charitable work, it is an exercise in freedom *and* it reflects upon our own good nature. When we sit back and allow the government to do it for us, we remove our own goodness *and* our own freedom in the process.


It's the wrong way to do this.

Well, that's how insurance works. You spread the risk over a large pool. The more healthy people in the pool, the less money you have to pay into it per person. Do you even understand what you're talking about?

You really need to read more. Locke repeatedly states that government cannot give to man that which he did not give up to join society. You don't give up "free health care" when joining society. You didn't have someone else to provide you with health care before joining society. Thus, society cannot and should not provide it for you afterwards.

You don't understand at all.



First off, as I stated above, "equality, liberty, and executive power" doesn't equal "someone paying for me to get health care". I'm not sure how you can keep making the same mistake over and over.

Secondly, you kinda left off the rest of the sentence:



Remember the three failings of the natural state which I quoted earlier? This is what he's referring to. The only thing that government is obligated to do is correct for those failings. And it is to do so in a manner which protects and preserves each members property. That's not to say that the society cannot choose to provide free health care. I do not say that, and neither does Locke. However, it's incorrect to say that by doing so, we're somehow providing people with liberty that they didn't have before.

We can choose to do something for the common good, and we can choose to give up some portion of our liberty to do it. However, we should do so knowing the costs and what we're getting, not because someone has lied to us and convinced us that we're just trading one small amount of liberty for a greater amount gained. I'm not saying that we can't choose to do this, but we should do so for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.


When you make an argument that failing to provide health care for someone is an infringement of their rights or liberties, you are presenting a false argument. If the case for health care is so strong, then why lie about it? Why not simply present to the people the choice to give up their rights to some of their property in exchange for the good done in the form of free health care? Why go through the charade of convincing people that they aren't losing any rights at all, and are actually somehow gaining them instead?


That's my problem here. If you want to argue for such things, do so honestly.



Er? This sentence doesn't make any sense at all.


I'll give you a hint though. The more you involve government in health care, the more expensive it'll get. Take away the subsidies and whatnot, and the health care system can't charge more than the people can afford to pay. It should dawn on you that the government isn't really helping here.

Edited, Apr 20th 2010 4:46pm by gbaji

Lol. I suppose you have to do some pretty amazing word twisting to try to argue that Locke was proposing a system of government in which free health care should be provided to the people. It's funny to see you try, but even the relatively hard core liberal regulars aren't joining you in this for a reason.

Argue that we should do it anyway and you have a legitimate position. Arguing that it's always been that way and that liberty always included being provided with free health care and you're pretty much arguing from the loony bin.



Actually, the trend has been that standard of living has steadily increased over time regardless of whether we label someone "rich" or "poor". You're using subjective relative concepts while ignoring the objective reality. Of course, none of this touches on the absurdity of arguing that not providing someone with free health care is a violation of their liberty, but I'm sure that by now you're desperate to get yourself out of the corner you've argued into, so I can't blame you for trying to change the subject.



No one was required to purchase health insurance! Do you see how you are missing the one and most important piece of the puzzle? If the local pizza joint decides to charge me double the cost for the same pizza, I can go to some other place for pizza. If all the pizza places conspire to raise the cost, then I still have the choice to not buy pizza at all. There's no infringement of my liberty as long as I'm free to not buy the product.

The recent health care bill is the equivalent of the government deciding that since too many people are unable to afford to buy pizza as a result of the price increases, that they'll simply pass a law requiring everyone to buy pizza. And they'll require that the pizza joints must all provide free delivery no matter how far outside their normal area the customer is or how much it costs them to deliver. And for some bizarre reason, some people think that this will make the price of pizza go down? Um... No. It wont.




If this were even remotely true, we would not have polls saying that over 50% of the population opposes the health care they passed. The majority of the people did not want that health care bill. They voted their representatives into office for other reasons, not health care. The closest you can come is that they were lied to, tricked into voting for the Dems for one set of reasons, and then once the Dems got power they did something completely different.




No. Locke would call what the Dems did Tyranny. They took from the governed more than the governed agreed to give when they placed them into power. Again, if this was not true, we would not have polls showing majority opposition to the health care they just passed.



No where are we supposed to accept that having merely elected representatives that we agree to be bound by whatever arbitrary rules they decide to pass after that point. The rules of not taking property without consent still apply. This means that each and every legislative act must not violate the desires of the population. In the case of the health care bill, they exceeded that authority.


You can read for yourself what Locke says about Tyranny and what can be done about it. The point is that the Dems did not have a mandate to pass health care. Our system does not work that way, and should never be interpreted to work that way. Say what you will about the GOP during Bush's administration, but at no point did they pass a law that was remotely as bi-partisan and unpopular as the health care bill. It should give one pause when they're arguing from a position of presumed popular support when what they're doing doesn't actually have it. This is doubly strange since it's usually the folks on the left who eschew concepts of objective interpretation of rights and liberties (as we've seen in this thread) in favor of an argument that the people should determine them as they go along. But their actions here violate even their own principles since "the people" didn't want this health care bill.


Makes you wonder what will they are serving. It's not the will of the people, that's for sure...


Edited, Apr 20th 2010 6:41pm by gbaji

Comparing universal health care to slavery, interesting choice.