Blunt Amendment DefeatedFollow

It's a bit more than that though. It's about not being under another's authority. You were more correct with your earlier statement about being part of a political organization (and yes, you got the use correct there). But if you actually read Locke instead of just the cliff notes, or having someone give you a brief half section explanation, you'll understand that there are interactions in the state of nature. The state of nature is opposed by the state of war in Locke's definition. In nature, you're not being imposed upon. In war, you are.


He proposes men would naturally prefer to be in the state of nature, but that the threat of the state of war (where someone might force him into slavery) causes him to form those political organizations (most often referred to as commonwealths by Locke, but he uses some other labels as well). He says that by entering into that state men can choose which laws to be bound by and can choose those which give them liberty closest to that in the state of nature, with less risk of those things being lost ("war" doesn't just mean major conflicts obviously. One man beating another and taking his stuff is the "state of war" according to Locke).


This is why he says that the only reason to join such a society is for that protection. We give up some of the liberty we have in the state of nature so as to protect as much as possible from the state of war. The state of war being arbitrary loss of liberty/property.


But there's no point to this if the society you form does not value those liberties. To Locke, that civil society ceases to be civil but becomes a state of war or tyranny.




It's not important whether the state exists or can exist, or should exist. As I said earlier, the whole point of him talking about the state of nature and the state of war is to illustrate the concept of liberty so he can argue for why societies should hold most important the preservation of those liberties. When someone argues that since we've agreed to be bound by societies laws that we can't oppose or complain about any infringement of liberty, or even more absurdly that laws passed by a representative government can't infringe your rights, that person simply does not understand the principles of rights and liberties our nation was founded on. Those statements are completely counter to those principles and were both made (more or less) by people in this thread.


Call me crazy, but when someone says that laws don't infringe rights as long as the laws are passed by my own government, I'm going to disagree. Not just a little bit, but a hell of a lot. Because once you adopt that position, you've abandoned any belief in rights or limited government at all.




He's saying that just because you formed into a society and passed laws, you don't get to do more with that than you had in the state of nature. That state did not justify you to take from someone to give to yourself (or a third party), so neither does the government you form have that authority (that's the state of war btw). And no, "public good" does not cover things like health care. Not in the direct form that Obamacare takes. You could argue that it does cover the CDC, or research, and whatnot. But the second you start taking money from people unequally in order to provide direct benefits (also unequally), the government has overstepped its bounds.


This is the same argument against any such directed social programs btw. This is hardly limited to the health care law. There are lots of examples of violations of this. That fact does not and should not be used as a justification for more such infringement though. It should be used as a reason why we need to go in the other direction.

Edited, Mar 7th 2012 6:59pm by gbaji

FFXI Is a waste of time, yet I still pay them to let me waste that time each month. I am Canadian and they say I am slow eh.

Ah, the classic, "it's not for me, it's for my friend!" defense. Thiefx, you are the pinnacle of creative thinking.

Maybe once he gets to high school he'll come up with higher quality thoughts. I kind of doubt it, but we have to hope for the best for the future generations.

No shock at all you run to this security blanket style comment as often as you do.

Interesting defense mechanism. When you know you're wrong, you fall back on "laughing" at the other guy. I'm quoting Locke and then providing my interpretation of his words. You're free to argue for a different interpretation, but to just laugh it away suggests you are unable to.



Yeah. Definite defense mechanism.



Favorite why? You're equating what he said to a public policy today, but with zero rationale behind it. Just declaring something so isn't terribly persuasive.



No, I don't. Why should I? I thought I pretty clearly explained myself on this point.



You're simplifying (and double negating) the question. I already provided a very clear answer, so why ask the question again?



If you want to argue that legislative power, as defined by Locke, includes taking money from people unequally in order to provide direct unequal benefits, then do so. Just repeating the question as though in shock that I disagree doesn't really accomplish anything. Tell me why you think I'm wrong. Don't just express your assumption again.

Edited, Mar 8th 2012 4:39pm by gbaji

FTFY

BUT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE FORCING HIM TO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE FOR OTHER PEOPLE TOO AND THAT'S WRONG AND AWFUL AND BAD AND OMGWTF HOW CAN YOU NOT GET THAT!?*




*The fact that he already spends that money and that it would likely be cheaper too is irrelevant.

But not equal cost. Also, by the very definition. Why is one thing lauded, while the other ignored?

If two people go into a store to buy the same shirt, but it costs one guy $5 and the other guy $20, wouldn't you say that the store owner was being unfair and treating his customers unequally? Jumping up and down and insisting it was fine because they both got the same result (the same shirt) ignores half of the issue. It's an important half.




I do understand it. It's not a lack of understanding on my part that is the issue here. It's a refusal on your part to acknowledge that there are other aspects of the issue itself that is.




False. Mathematically impossible in fact.




False. Of course I'm losing something. I'm losing a hell of a lot. Everything else being equal, if I pay more taxes than someone else for the exact same benefit, then I'm losing out and he's gaining. The only way a case for universal health care being less expensive (or even the same cost) is by playing tricks with averaging across the whole population. Of course the "average" is going to be the same. The question is who's paying more and who's paying less?

The reality is that those who could afford to pay for their own health care absent some sort of socialized system will always pay more under said socialized system. It's a mathematical impossibility for it to work any other way. Either that, or the value for their health care dollars is decreased. Something has to give. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

You need a cite for math? Really!?

Read the quote and think about it. If the average price is X, and anyone pays less than the average price (which is an assumption in any sort of universal health care system), then someone... wait for it... must pay more than X. It's axiomatic to the concept of an "average". The only way for no one to pay more than the average is if no one pays less than the average.

It's been my experience that the only people that argue they're anywhere near being average are the people that are clearly below that particular bar.