rdmdontdie wrote:
The peace safety and good of the people from invasion and inroads,.....
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.
Quote:
currently there is a big division in america the poor get poorer and the rich richer, now.... i think that qualifies as an inroad.....
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.
Quote:
At present, the insurance companies are making quite a profit off those who they deny, because those who are denied are an insurance risk. Therefore under the old form of healthcare the insurance companies were violating the liberties of those they denied, by disallowing them at their expense.
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.
Quote:
Society did say they wanted it, when they elected their representitives. Whom voted and passed legislation that was signed in by the person the MAJORITY of the population chose to represent them.
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.
Quote:
THEREFORE your good buddy johns expectations of the government providing what the society wishes within their liberties and with their support has come to pass. Elected officials represent the majority of the societies in which they belong, and THEREFORE the majority of the societies in the USA have gotten what they wanted in accordance with their rights and liberties.
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.
Quote:
Sec. 138. Thirdly, The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent: for the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires, that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that, by entering into society, which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own.
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