Does this mean you are against contracting government services and government outsourcing, just curious. I am.
- no, that's not the point.
I am saying that government shouldn't be in business even trying to provide any of the services that it provides today. In the system that it this deeply corrupt (and I am talking about government corruption, with it doing things it is not authorized to do), any outsourcing is likely to result in even worse consequences because it will be done for reasons of personal gain.
WHO is going to profit from outsourcing of that MONOPOLY service?
--
No no, the real fix is in getting government OUT of providing any services and letting real market provide the services and have competition.
Having a government provide some service, and then outsourcing it, is just taking a monopoly that government had and handing it over to a private entity, which will use the unfair advantage of that monopoly and I am pretty sure it will end up costing more, not less.
Government needs to stop doing things and this means it must get out of business of dealing with businesses and individuals as if it is a business.
Government is not a business, it's not there to take care of your broken car or your broken rib. It's there so that you know what occupies the space of ultimate power over you, so you can establish the rules (rights) that you have against that force. Government is there to provide certain services at the cost of giving up certain amount of CONSUMPTION by the individuals. Note, I said consumption - because government is an ultimate CONSUMPTION system, not a production system.
So government cannot be allowed to feed itself based on your production, only based on your consumption so it is proportionate to what you are SPENDING, not to what you are earning, saving and investing, because that gives gov't force over the economy and allows it to grow where otherwise the economy would grow.
I think the thousands of people sued for violating civil rights would disagree with your definition of rights.
- they are given entitlements, not rights. There are no 'civil rights'. It's a ruse. There are entitlements and obligations.
Rights are only about your relationship with the government.
"Civil rights" are about government imposing itself upon individuals and taking away their individual rights to liberty and property and pursuit of happiness in order to give entitlements to some other individuals. The reasons for government doing anything is to gain political power, that's all.
People suing OTHER PEOPLE over 'civil rights', are not people suing over rights. That's people suing other people over entitlements that they believe they ought to be provided by those, who are then forced into obligations of providing something. The government is basically using this to gain votes, as majority are employees, while employers are a minority.
Now, if we look at the Civil Rights act of 1964, we will find that there are rules there to ensure that government treats people equally regardless of their race/skin color, but the government was supposed to treat all people equally.
In reality that particular "rights act" has nothing to do with government, it had to do with the rest of the act, which imposed obligations upon the minority - employers, to hire people in exactly the manner that the government prescribed at that point.
The reason was political, to get more votes (and politicians get many more votes from employees than employers) and at the same time it became possible to collect more REVENUE by issuing fines and having law suits, this helped the lawyers mostly, but if you look at the unemployment rate for blacks in USA, prior to 1964 and now, you will find that blacks had many more opportunities BEFORE the act than after it.
That combined with another obligation and entitlement - minimum wage, created a situation where employment for young blacks went down from 85% prior to 1964 all the way to 50% today.
The reason is too obvious not to understand it - making employing people more expensive, decreases the demand for employment. By instilling obligations upon employers to provide a minimum wage (especially if the benefit from the job does not outweigh the obligation of paying 7.25/hour), and having special entitlements given to a specific group of people made it very expensive to hire those individuals, because now they could sue the employer.
This is a LOSS of rights for the employers and this is a NET LOSS for the ECONOMY.
Anything that government does in pursuit of 'good' that it is not authorized to do, ends up creating the consequences that are the exact opposite of the expected effect.
Outcome of any government action can be understood only by examining the way that the government action will MODIFY HUMAN BEHAVIOR and eventually the economy.
All of that text, and still it says absolutely nothing that has to do with the topic.
The RIGHTS of individuals are about relationship between individual and the State, it's not about relationship between two individuals or relationship between an individual and a business or business and a business. That's what criminal and contract laws are for.
Also if your point is about the specific things that Constitution authorizes federal government to do, they are irrelevant to the thread at hand. We were discussing health care here if I didn't misunderstand the story.
With all that text, you have not a single actual thought.
again and again, those things have nothing to do with 'inalienable rights', those are obligations and entitlements. You may not like the fact that something is not an inalienable right, but it's not. Call it what it is. In fact that specific clause is about CIRCUMVENTING a right. That's a way to take away a right from somebody by writing a clause into the law, that allows such thing to happen. It's basically a way to go around private property rights.
Metal is good for making big knives and hammers for killing, it's especially good when the other side doesn't have metal.
Time and time and time again, however, it has been shown to be horrible as a food or as a pet. It just doesn't have the same functionality as a tomato.
It doesn't matter what kind of a very hard material we consider, they are all rife with the same problems: they are too hard to chew, they don't taste good, the teeth break all the time. Metal, rock, hard wood, sea shells, diamonds and quartz have all suffered from numerous problems when used as part of meals.
If you need to cook something, just kill a chicken!
Metals are not food sources. They are good at being used to make killing tools in a very specific manner. They can be used as heavy hard objects to hit with or as sharp objects to cut with. Even after THOUSANDS of years of trying, they still aren't as suitable to be eaten as simple banana. It's looking like they never will be, either.
Actually I think it would put a stake into Mozilla based browsers, because if they block Java plug in today, how do you know what they will do to the browser tomorrow?
AFAIC if they go this road, they are dead as a browser.
Oh, and by the way, while just arguing about the definition of what a right is, I also would like to note that any obligations and entitlements that the system enforces upon an economy eventually ends up destroying that economy. I am against all entitlements and obligations obviously, be it for corporations or individuals.
If the economy dies we can't afford to have police or an army, so people can kill us freely violating our right to life. Does that mean life is an entitlement?
- you are again, completely oblivious to the meaning of the word 'right'. Your rights are only meaningful in relationship to your government - the force that can come and destroy you, kill you, because it is a collective force (supposedly based on some form of Democracy in case of US or EU, but even that's questionable.)
You cannot ARGUE with another INDIVIDUAL over your right. You don't fully understand what I am talking about, are you? When a thief and a murderer comes to your house, he is NOT concerned with your so called 'rights', because you and he do not have the same relationship that you have with the government.
He is not your government, he is an individual. As an individual, when he kills you he is not 'denying your a right', he just kills you. There is no 'right violation' there. Now, when you protect yourself against an individual, you may want to get private security and you may want to establish a local police service (that won't help you likely if somebody is after you.)
You cannot argue about rights with individuals, because it's not the concept that is in any shape or form meaningful there.
Will a tiger argue with a lamb about the right to live? Well - both want to survive. The lamb wants to live and so does the tiger. If tiger doesn't eat - he dies. If lamb becomes tiger's food, it doesn't eat.
Same with people. However when people establish government - the most powerful entity within the borders of the State, then the concept of rights must be created and upheld, otherwise any individual within the State is just property of the State's government system. It will oppress the individuals for the purpose of governing body feeding on them.
Come to that we sometimes decide to revoke a person's right to life, e.g. in war.
- and I said that in a different reply in this thread. You can lose your right to life to the state, so that's why you want a very strict process and then you are entitled to this process.
Rights are not these abstract things you seem to think they are.
- no no no no no, I am being the most specific here, the most precise. You are talking about entitlements as if those are real rights, and you don't understand that the meaning of the word does not define your relationship with other individuals or businesses.
There you have criminal and contract laws.
For the government however, rights are very specific things, and the procedures to deprive you of these rights must be very specific too.
A right is something that everyone has a duty to attempt to uphold
- NO.
No. As an example: freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is a right, but it defines the relationship between you and the government. So government cannot prevent you from speaking. On the other hand an individual does not have to provide you with anything that helps you to speak. Individual does not have to listen to you speak. Individual can deny you access to their property so you cannot express your 'freedom of speech' there on his property.
You are wrong, and you misunderstand the concept of rights and entitlements.
For for example the right to an education means that the state must off all children schooling, children must attend school and parents cannot decide their children will remain ignorant.
- those are obligations and entitlements, they are not rights at all.
The kids are given this entitlement to so called 'free' education, which is also an obligation, they are forced into schools. This also puts obligations on tax paying base to provide this. The parents are forced into an obligation as well, where they are forced by law to send their children to schools, so that the government system can indoctrin
- they are not rights because once the economy dies, nobody can provide you with those, so get your terminology straight, those are entitlements, not rights. Those impose obligations on people to provide you with something, they are not rights.
A right is not to have somebody provide you with stuff. A right is about relationship between an individual and the government (collective), in order to limit the government from depriving you of your sovereign (unalienable) rights.
You can call it whatever you like, but as long as somebody must GIVE you something in order for you to have that, that's an entitlement and an obligation. You believe that somebody must give you something and the State forces them to give it up.
So somebody gains a benefit and somebody loses a benefit by force of the State. That goes against the concept of individual rights, and that's why Europe is also going to have an economic collapse, though the US economic collapse is going to be more dramatic because of the amount of spending that US is doing and the dependency that it built upon other nations to cover the production for all that counterfeiting and borrowing.
However, once USA economy collapses it will have a choice - return to the Constitution and then quickly rebuild the real economy or go all the way to totalitarianism and become a poor, institutional, welfare state, where people are FORCED to give up their labor to feed the mob, but the wealth is not really increased or produced, it's basically a starvation based system.
That's what EU has, it just doesn't spend as much as USA. What's funny is all the people that say: rich are stealing from us, that's why they are rich.
No, rich people (majority, those who are not feeding at the public trough but those who produce the wealth people consume) are actually building the economy and the wealth that the government confiscates in order to 'spread' to gain political power, since majority are employees and not employers.
But what is funny is that Germany (where I am right now, and going to Switzerland tomorrow), is the place that can called 'rich' compared to those other European countries. So is it that Germany STEALS from those other countries? No. Those other countries made themselves dependent by not working and thus by having Germans supply them with stuff. But basically any WORKER in Germany can be considered 'rich' now compared to a Greek resident for example. So I find this funny and tragic.
USSR destroyed millions of people in the fit of socialist/communist agenda throughout thirties, forties and fifties, when the information started coming out about all of the collectivization and murder, the European countries (especially France and Germany) hid these facts from their population, because Communism was basically winning in Europe. I mean, hell, France had basically a Communist government come to power at the time, so they were scared to let people know what REAL socialism and communism LEADS to, when taken to the max - destruction of people.
I hope USA doesn't destroy itself and chooses the right path, and Ron Paul is elected and then the people are allowed to have competition in what money is and then income taxes are abolished, SS and Medicare and welfare and EI and minimum wage and all so called "civil rights" (which are again, obligations on some and entitlements to others, which destroy jobs), and all of the wars - drug war, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Pakistan, all of this is stopped and abolished.
All government involvement into business needs to go away the way of the Dodo bird. I will be able to do business in USA again, because now it's all monopolies and public trough feeders and currency destroyers and gamblers and there is no production.
USA imports 90% of its seafood from Asia. It's SURROUNDED with oceans. It has lakes and rivers and it imports 90% of its seafood. It has 53Billion USD/month trade deficit. It has over 100 Tri
What you get with the system you have is a vast twisty apparatus designed not to provide as much healthcare as possible for the money it is given, but to provide as little healthcare as possible, and extract as much money as possible.
One of the many reasons the UK NHS, is suffering is because technology tends to make the costs of healthcare increase, not decrease.
- nonsense.
With GOVERNMENT in charge the costs are going up, it's NOT because of new technology, it's because any new technology can be sold to government at a huge premium and costs will go up. In private free market the costs with new technologies and efficiencies always go down while quality goes up.
Thus you are on the Internet with a computer that is that much better than the first computers and that much cheaper than the first computers, with miniaturization in it that is made possible by very very expensive factories that are built all the time by processor makers.
The cars are a good example as well, the quality and features go up but prices stay the same (which is great given how much inflation governments creates with money printing). Imagine for a second that government was NOT allowed to print money and inflation didn't exist - prices would be falling rapidly for cars and for computers I don't even know where the prices would be. 10 dollars per new laptop? Maybe.
So there is no argument that new technology creates new efficiencies even if the technology itself is hard. It's because of real competition and COMPARATIVE LACK OF GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND MONEY in those fields.
New technology means that you save more lives that need more care.
- no. New technology means that you can find the problem quicker, fix it easier without surgery, with pills likely, you can process more people, and you do NOT allow the disease to get worse before it is found (with all of the new tech the diseases are found much before they show themselves with much more serious symptoms).
People are getting the treatment faster with new tech, because their problems are identified sooner, this makes the process LESS expensive, because they need LESS treatment.
People don't need exploratory surgeries with all the scanning and imaging.
Doctors share information quicker and in more efficient ways with the new information technologies, so mistakes are rarer.
. New technology costs more, because it's patented.
- everything is patented (I am against all patents by the way.) Computer tech, TV tech, car tech, phone tech, it's all patented.
much driven by the corporate side of the equation ; drug companies are not adverse to lobbying to get existing generic treatments off the market,
- THAT'S WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.
There should NOT be any government involvement into this, government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with normal market forces and competition, it causes prices to go up and resources to be mis-allocated while moral hazards are created and money is printed.
Quite aside from the ethics of making profits from healthcare
- I WELCOME profits from health care.
I WANT THEM TO MAKE PROFITS from health care.
Profits are the ONLY REAL GOOD MOTIVATOR FOR GOOD RESULTS in real COMPETING markets.
Government destroys competition, so profits are concentrated in few hands and they can keep prices high because there is government money all over it, government protections, government contracts, regulations that destroy competition.
There should be no government involvement into any product or s
So shouldn't it be protecting Americans against the HMOs?
- no. As I said - rights are not about you and your private dealings, it's about your rights not to be destroyed by your government.
Rights are very specific - it's between you and your government, not between you and your physician. What you have between you and your physician is a contract (and there is always criminal law, if he kills you or hurts you on purpose).
The American healthcare system is demonstrably much more expensive, for worse outcomes, than healthcare systems in countries which have single payer or socialized healthcare systems.
- TODAY.
Not before 1965, not before US government got into it with its money and corruptive power of monopoly creation. As to other economies - they would be better off with free market as well.
Given the increasing cost of medical care, a single medical emergency can destroy most of those inalienable rights ; your liberty, because you are a slave to your debt, your happiness, because you're not happy about that, and your life, because your insurance company won't pay for your treatment.
- TODAY. That's because the government caused the prices to go up rather than where market was taking the costs - down, while increasing efficiencies and quality.
Government is CAUSING the prices to go up and it's causing the destruction of the economy in the process, you want protections? Reinstitute the Constitution, get government out of things that it is not authorized to do. It got over that barrier long ago, 100 years ago.
And the insurance company will also refuse to insure you if it knows that you have particular healthcare issues (thus destroying your happiness as you fell insecure), or require premiums that essentially make you their slave, and thus you lose your liberty.
- not in a free market, where prices are low and where you are responsible for your own insurance, it's not government and it's not your employer.
So you have your insurance, they can't stop it, it's a contract. With work insurance you only have your insurance as long as you have that job.
Before 1965 the cost of insurance for most people was $2/month.
While your health is not under control of the government, surely allowing these predators to exist is against your inalienable rights. The only way to get rid of them, in a "free market" is to remove their market niche by providing a decent public healthcare system.
- No. You do NOT have a right to force OTHERS to GIVE you stuff, even through government.
Your RIGHT is to have government PROTECT you against somebody ACTIVELY trying to deprive you of your right to liberty - that's what border protection is for, but most importantly, your rights are there to protect you against the real threat - your government.
I take it you didn't look at either of the links to 2 of my journal entries, one on health care and insurance and data (government statistics actually) that shows that private care and insurance were preferred even when 'public' option began, and in fact care was cheap and getting cheaper, and the other link showing that it is government ponzi scam that results in destruction, because it is mandatory.
Private ponzi scams drain the economy of resources only to the moment that they are discovered to be scams. Then there is a 'bank run' and the scam ends. Public scams are mandatory, so they pretend they can run them forever, by continuously increasing the tax payments and decreasing the benefits.
The free market never works, it always sinks to the lowest common denominator and that means liars, cheats and thieves.
- nonsense. Free market gets rid of liars and cheats and thieves much faster and more efficiently than government mixed or command economy, with the proof of Madoff and Enron and housing bubble and Internet bubble before it and the agriculture bubble that inflated starting in 1925, again, all caused by the Federal reserve money destruction.
Free market always works better, quickly finding and eliminating those, who cheat their customers while promoting the real deal. So Ford's product was promoted, not shunned, but Charles Ponzi was eventually found out to be a fraud and his 'business' stopped.
Furthermore, you are now putting moral obligations on a government, which is a strange way to deal with morality and eventually leads to collapse of morality.
By the way, here is an interesting piece about UK UHC doctors talking about stopping the terminal cancer patients from being able to continue their treatment because there are no resources for it (obviously, a system that is dead set on removing all risk eventually collapses under the weight of those impossible to meet obligations. This applies to health care as well as education and money, everything.)
The point is that resources are actually scarce, government systems make the treatments more expensive by putting government money there, and this ends up costing lives at the end, while in a free market the medical costs would be coming down, not going up all the time, because technology actually makes things more efficient and costs come down. So if in the past an exploratory surgery was needed for something that only requires an imaging procedure today, and if somebody is taking pills against something that they would have a surgery for decades ago, etc., that means technology allows efficiencies to go up and costs to come down, but government money prevents the costs from coming down and forces them up.
Obama by the way, came to an agreement in his plan, with pharma companies, which gave those companies extension on their patents. What do you think that does to the costs of drugs? Right. Any government involvement into any industry causes costs to go up, never down. It's impossible for costs to go down with government intervention, after all, it's an entire system set up to regulate and impose bureaucracy over innovative fields and ideas and technology. And it provides government money, which means more money is chasing the scarce resources. Of-course costs go up.
So more money is introduced into the system. More regulations, that cause costs to go up. More protections against competition.
How can anybody expect costs to come down with government involvement? If costs are high, competition is low, then there will be more death.
Oh, and I have to leave soon, but just in case you take exception about something that has to do with the criminal code: you are not going to argue about your rights with a killer.
So if a private person wants to come and kill you and steal your property and such, that's not an argument about rights. The criminal code is also given to the government by authorization to uphold, but your government most likely will not protect you against those things if somebody really wants to do that kind of damage.
So you won't be arguing about your rights with a thief or a murderer, you will have to deal with those, and the most obvious way of prevention here is to set up private security and/or local police to do something about things like that.
But rights are about government power, not about some thief or murderer or other type of a criminal. Rights and constitution is about protecting you from your government becoming that sort of a criminal, and the reason why it is set up this way is because the founders knew enough about other forms of governance, where a person was just a subject and didn't have any rights and could be killed by the King or some other feudal.
Your rights are not given to you, the point of government is to protect your right to liberty FROM government.
What do you think Constitution is? It is a document, designed to keep your federal government in check against taking away your liberties, your life, your property and your ability to pursue happiness.
The founders were mostly libertarian, in that they understood the importance of keeping you safe FROM your government. The government is the evil force that you need protection from. All other forces are not as evil as government though they can kill you.
For example your neighbor can kill you, but that's not what Constitution is about. Your neighbor (or your corner convenience store) are not your government, which has the ultimate ability to kill you.
The reason that your government has this ability is because it is devised in order to keep the power vacuum filled, which exists without any government force. If there is no government of any kind, then some government will form. What you want to do is to control what will form, thus you form it, give it shape but you understand that what you are forming is the ultimate evil - powerful force that has ability to destroy you. So you must protect yourself, and you do this by limiting the role of government via the law that applies to the government - Constitution.
Now, federal gov't in USA would not be able to form if it was more powerful than any State in terms of what it could do to people living in the State. Federal gov't was there to occupy that power vacuum and to present the republic to the world, and protection of borders became a centralized thing, though even this now is a problem - the monopoly of federal government on the military power within the republic is dangerous at this point. Of-course that's what second amendment is about (and you shouldn't need amendments, all your rights are there, so amendments only muddy the waters, but people sometimes do irrational things, so they wanted to enumerate certain things that shouldn't even have been enumerated.)
The point is that your right is in the denial to your government to kill you, steal your property and stop your business.
That's what your rights are.
Federal government is not authorized for anything else than protecting your liberty, life and pursuit of happiness from government itself and from foreign invasion.
Saying that government must give you something is meaningless, because government doesn't have anything to give. But it can take. That's what rights are for - so you can stop this.
"but it will just work if we REALLY try it" are unconvincing
- no, it has been tried, it wasn't ideal, but it was tried in USA in nineteen century, before 1913 happened and the federal system figured out a way around the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution, it figured out a way to start growing uncontrollably while denying people the opportunity to stop it. This was done with the Federal reserve and income tax system.
USA became worlds largest creditor nation, innovator and producer of cheap high quality goods under that system, it became the wealthy country that people wanted to come to because they saw opportunity there due to the freedoms FROM the government intervention that were absent in most other places.
Today USA is no longer that country and people are leaving and so are businesses.
As to the 'purity' of the system - you make me laugh. What you have today is an invasive fascist environment, that is so far removed from the idea of a free society that the former communist China is beating USA in freedoms that allow people to operate businesses, which is really the key right after the life and liberty part. Because if you are denied ability to do business and to make economic decisions that allow you to prosper, you are denied means of survival and means that allow one to pursue happiness.
The entire system is corrupt and you are talking about 'purity'.
Read my journal if you want to leave specific comments but don't bother me with generalizations.
I don't know what 'your' state is, but you are not talking about the federal US Constitution.
As to right to a fair trial - criminal code will put your life on the line, and since you actually have a RIGHT to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then you are ENTITLED to a fair trial.
Whether this is done with jury or not is irrelevant. The system is violating your right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness if it puts you in a position, where you have to defend yourself against criminal accusations, so at this point the system is in possible VIOLATION of your right, so it has a mechanism (which may include juries), to make sure that in fact it does not end up violating your principal rights, which are again: to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Now, live, liberty and pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, but it declares that those are your "unalienable rights" or sovereign rights, so if somebody is trying to take away THOSE rights, they better have it covered with the correct procedures.
That's why you have freedom of speech though, isn't it?
Beyond that, maybe those people are just assholes, but in reality, in the depth of economic truth, they are correct. Society needs a well functioning economy, which is destroyed by government trying to 'remove risk' from everything. If there is perception that there is no risk, then everything becomes equally risk-free (perception wise), and this creates an environment that eventually destroys the economy due to all of the things that people believe are risk free and they do those things without paying the price immediately. Eventually the errors in the system multiply, the moral hazards cause massive imbalances, but the perceptions stay, and they get even stronger over time.
Eventually the economies crash because everybody wants government to participate in order to 'remove the risk' whatever it takes. Be it making ridiculous loans, 'insuring' bank deposits, 'insuring' people against health problems, 'insuring' people against bad economic decisions, 'insuring' that people will not have to deal with the actual world.
Price controls, exchange controls, always rising taxes, always increasing government apparatus, always needing yet another war, always hoping for government to step in, always wanting government to give you everything, from jobs, to social security, to basic income, to education, to health, to transportation, to cheap energy, to clean environment, to non-discrimination, to moral satisfaction, to sexual gratification (I am joking here, sort of), everything.
Eventually the risks multiply, the mis-allocation of resources gets out of control, the government size destroys innovation, the regulations destroy risk taking as an opportunity to make money by destroying opportunity to compete, be it competition against government subsidized monopolies or competition against trying to save and invest, everything becomes mis-allocated, mis-aligned, mis-appropriated, mis-represented, mis-communicated, misunderstood, mis-directed, basically all balances are lost in this supposed risk-free environment.
This eventually destroys the economy, because eventually this makes cost of investment and cost of employment and cost of doing business so high, the system no longer allows for any of this just with the size of government apparatus.
At this point the system must crash in order to be restructured and re-calibrated. There is no other way. The imbalances must be removed from the system one way or another, and pushing this eventual outcome further into the future only makes it more difficult, as they grow bigger, and the eventual correction will feel and look like a cataclysm. And it may just become a cataclysm.
Unfortunately that's where it will end up and it's because the idea is to do good.
Nobody should be allowed to die - that was a good idea (unless gov't kills them of-course via punishment or in wars).
Nobody should be allowed to fail - that was a good idea (unless they are the actual citizens, who will suffer the biggest failure of all - the failed economy and society).
Under the 'general welfare' and 'interstate commerce', you are saying you are giving your federal government the ultimate dictatorial power over you, is that what you want?
I replied elsewhere, but you need a specific reply, so here it goes again:
If the founders were to give the Constitution of USA broad powers under general welfare and interstate commerce laws to the federal government, then the States would have never ratified it.
If you want a federal government with monopoly on all powers, then I understand what you want, but you are looking in the wrong country. USA was not designed to be a dictatorial power or even a country with a strong federal government.
Also 'general welfare' does not mean individual welfare, it means protection of all individuals in order to establish a more perfect union but only to the extend of authorization by the Constitution.
The interstate commerce is completely perverted as well as general welfare. Interstate commerce is supposed to be about making sure that separate States do not create barriers to entry against other States. So if you get a driver's license in one State, it's recognized in all.
The federal government actually is failing in this regard, because it's not promoting general welfare using the interstate commerce clause, because to promote general welfare the federal government would have to ensure that if you get any type of license in any one of the States, it should apply everywhere. So if you get a law or a medical or a financial or an engineer or any other license in one State, you shouldn't have to re-apply and pay over and over in every State - these are the barriers to entry, exactly what the federal government is supposed to remove by using the interstate clause and by upholding the general welfare.
If the founders were to give the Constitution of USA broad powers under general welfare and interstate commerce laws to the federal government, then the States would have never ratified it.
Thus you are wrong on all of your points. If you want a federal government with monopoly on all powers, then I understand what you want, but you are looking in the wrong country. USA was not designed to be a dictatorial power or even a country with a strong federal government.
Also 'general welfare' does not mean individual welfare, it means protection of all individuals in order to establish a more perfect union but only to the extend of authorization by the Constitution.
The interstate commerce is completely perverted as well as general welfare. Interstate commerce is supposed to be about making sure that separate States do not create barriers to entry against other States. So if you get a driver's license in one State, it's recognized in all.
The federal government actually is failing in this regard, because it's not promoting general welfare using the interstate commerce clause, because to promote general welfare the federal government would have to ensure that if you get any type of license in any one of the States, it should apply everywhere. So if you get a law or a medical or a financial or an engineer or any other license in one State, you shouldn't have to re-apply and pay over and over in every State - these are the barriers to entry, exactly what the federal government is supposed to remove by using the interstate clause and by upholding the general welfare.
So you don't know what you are talking about and you will never admit it.
- you cannot have a right that imposes an obligation on somebody, anybody.
There is no such thing as a right to a Ferrari, correct? So there is no such thing as a right to food or clothing or shelter or health insurance or health care or education, it's because this imposes an obligation for somebody to supply you with this stuff, so it cannot be a right.
Get your definitions straight. You may want to have those entitlements, but as long as somebody must pay for these with their time/money/work those are not rights.
CIA and FBI as well as pretty much all other 3 letter agencies need to be abolished. That's why Ron Paul is being shunned by the MSM - because they are being pressured by all those agencies as well as by corporations that stand to lose various privileges and government contracts (especially the military and people involved in destroying your liberties and your money.)
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean you are against contracting government services and government outsourcing, just curious. I am.
- no, that's not the point.
I am saying that government shouldn't be in business even trying to provide any of the services that it provides today. In the system that it this deeply corrupt (and I am talking about government corruption, with it doing things it is not authorized to do), any outsourcing is likely to result in even worse consequences because it will be done for reasons of personal gain.
WHO is going to profit from outsourcing of that MONOPOLY service?
--
No no, the real fix is in getting government OUT of providing any services and letting real market provide the services and have competition.
Having a government provide some service, and then outsourcing it, is just taking a monopoly that government had and handing it over to a private entity, which will use the unfair advantage of that monopoly and I am pretty sure it will end up costing more, not less.
Government needs to stop doing things and this means it must get out of business of dealing with businesses and individuals as if it is a business.
Government is not a business, it's not there to take care of your broken car or your broken rib. It's there so that you know what occupies the space of ultimate power over you, so you can establish the rules (rights) that you have against that force. Government is there to provide certain services at the cost of giving up certain amount of CONSUMPTION by the individuals. Note, I said consumption - because government is an ultimate CONSUMPTION system, not a production system.
So government cannot be allowed to feed itself based on your production, only based on your consumption so it is proportionate to what you are SPENDING, not to what you are earning, saving and investing, because that gives gov't force over the economy and allows it to grow where otherwise the economy would grow.
I think the thousands of people sued for violating civil rights would disagree with your definition of rights.
- they are given entitlements, not rights. There are no 'civil rights'. It's a ruse. There are entitlements and obligations.
Rights are only about your relationship with the government.
"Civil rights" are about government imposing itself upon individuals and taking away their individual rights to liberty and property and pursuit of happiness in order to give entitlements to some other individuals. The reasons for government doing anything is to gain political power, that's all.
People suing OTHER PEOPLE over 'civil rights', are not people suing over rights. That's people suing other people over entitlements that they believe they ought to be provided by those, who are then forced into obligations of providing something. The government is basically using this to gain votes, as majority are employees, while employers are a minority.
Now, if we look at the Civil Rights act of 1964, we will find that there are rules there to ensure that government treats people equally regardless of their race/skin color, but the government was supposed to treat all people equally.
In reality that particular "rights act" has nothing to do with government, it had to do with the rest of the act, which imposed obligations upon the minority - employers, to hire people in exactly the manner that the government prescribed at that point.
The reason was political, to get more votes (and politicians get many more votes from employees than employers) and at the same time it became possible to collect more REVENUE by issuing fines and having law suits, this helped the lawyers mostly, but if you look at the unemployment rate for blacks in USA, prior to 1964 and now, you will find that blacks had many more opportunities BEFORE the act than after it.
That combined with another obligation and entitlement - minimum wage, created a situation where employment for young blacks went down from 85% prior to 1964 all the way to 50% today.
The reason is too obvious not to understand it - making employing people more expensive, decreases the demand for employment. By instilling obligations upon employers to provide a minimum wage (especially if the benefit from the job does not outweigh the obligation of paying 7.25/hour), and having special entitlements given to a specific group of people made it very expensive to hire those individuals, because now they could sue the employer.
This is a LOSS of rights for the employers and this is a NET LOSS for the ECONOMY.
Anything that government does in pursuit of 'good' that it is not authorized to do, ends up creating the consequences that are the exact opposite of the expected effect.
Outcome of any government action can be understood only by examining the way that the government action will MODIFY HUMAN BEHAVIOR and eventually the economy.
All of that text, and still it says absolutely nothing that has to do with the topic.
The RIGHTS of individuals are about relationship between individual and the State, it's not about relationship between two individuals or relationship between an individual and a business or business and a business. That's what criminal and contract laws are for.
Also if your point is about the specific things that Constitution authorizes federal government to do, they are irrelevant to the thread at hand. We were discussing health care here if I didn't misunderstand the story.
With all that text, you have not a single actual thought.
again and again, those things have nothing to do with 'inalienable rights', those are obligations and entitlements. You may not like the fact that something is not an inalienable right, but it's not. Call it what it is. In fact that specific clause is about CIRCUMVENTING a right. That's a way to take away a right from somebody by writing a clause into the law, that allows such thing to happen. It's basically a way to go around private property rights.
Metal is good for making big knives and hammers for killing, it's especially good when the other side doesn't have metal.
Time and time and time again, however, it has been shown to be horrible as a food or as a pet. It just doesn't have the same functionality as a tomato.
It doesn't matter what kind of a very hard material we consider, they are all rife with the same problems: they are too hard to chew, they don't taste good, the teeth break all the time. Metal, rock, hard wood, sea shells, diamonds and quartz have all suffered from numerous problems when used as part of meals.
If you need to cook something, just kill a chicken!
Metals are not food sources. They are good at being used to make killing tools in a very specific manner. They can be used as heavy hard objects to hit with or as sharp objects to cut with. Even after THOUSANDS of years of trying, they still aren't as suitable to be eaten as simple banana. It's looking like they never will be, either.
Actually I think it would put a stake into Mozilla based browsers, because if they block Java plug in today, how do you know what they will do to the browser tomorrow?
AFAIC if they go this road, they are dead as a browser.
Oh, and by the way, while just arguing about the definition of what a right is, I also would like to note that any obligations and entitlements that the system enforces upon an economy eventually ends up destroying that economy. I am against all entitlements and obligations obviously, be it for corporations or individuals.
If the economy dies we can't afford to have police or an army, so people can kill us freely violating our right to life. Does that mean life is an entitlement?
- you are again, completely oblivious to the meaning of the word 'right'. Your rights are only meaningful in relationship to your government - the force that can come and destroy you, kill you, because it is a collective force (supposedly based on some form of Democracy in case of US or EU, but even that's questionable.)
You cannot ARGUE with another INDIVIDUAL over your right. You don't fully understand what I am talking about, are you? When a thief and a murderer comes to your house, he is NOT concerned with your so called 'rights', because you and he do not have the same relationship that you have with the government.
He is not your government, he is an individual. As an individual, when he kills you he is not 'denying your a right', he just kills you. There is no 'right violation' there. Now, when you protect yourself against an individual, you may want to get private security and you may want to establish a local police service (that won't help you likely if somebody is after you.)
You cannot argue about rights with individuals, because it's not the concept that is in any shape or form meaningful there.
Will a tiger argue with a lamb about the right to live? Well - both want to survive. The lamb wants to live and so does the tiger. If tiger doesn't eat - he dies. If lamb becomes tiger's food, it doesn't eat.
Same with people. However when people establish government - the most powerful entity within the borders of the State, then the concept of rights must be created and upheld, otherwise any individual within the State is just property of the State's government system. It will oppress the individuals for the purpose of governing body feeding on them.
Come to that we sometimes decide to revoke a person's right to life, e.g. in war.
- and I said that in a different reply in this thread. You can lose your right to life to the state, so that's why you want a very strict process and then you are entitled to this process.
Rights are not these abstract things you seem to think they are.
- no no no no no, I am being the most specific here, the most precise. You are talking about entitlements as if those are real rights, and you don't understand that the meaning of the word does not define your relationship with other individuals or businesses.
There you have criminal and contract laws.
For the government however, rights are very specific things, and the procedures to deprive you of these rights must be very specific too.
A right is something that everyone has a duty to attempt to uphold
- NO.
No. As an example: freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is a right, but it defines the relationship between you and the government. So government cannot prevent you from speaking. On the other hand an individual does not have to provide you with anything that helps you to speak. Individual does not have to listen to you speak. Individual can deny you access to their property so you cannot express your 'freedom of speech' there on his property.
You are wrong, and you misunderstand the concept of rights and entitlements.
For for example the right to an education means that the state must off all children schooling, children must attend school and parents cannot decide their children will remain ignorant.
- those are obligations and entitlements, they are not rights at all.
The kids are given this entitlement to so called 'free' education, which is also an obligation, they are forced into schools. This also puts obligations on tax paying base to provide this. The parents are forced into an obligation as well, where they are forced by law to send their children to schools, so that the government system can indoctrin
Actually those things are human rights in the EU.
- they are not rights because once the economy dies, nobody can provide you with those, so get your terminology straight, those are entitlements, not rights. Those impose obligations on people to provide you with something, they are not rights.
A right is not to have somebody provide you with stuff. A right is about relationship between an individual and the government (collective), in order to limit the government from depriving you of your sovereign (unalienable) rights.
You can call it whatever you like, but as long as somebody must GIVE you something in order for you to have that, that's an entitlement and an obligation. You believe that somebody must give you something and the State forces them to give it up.
So somebody gains a benefit and somebody loses a benefit by force of the State. That goes against the concept of individual rights, and that's why Europe is also going to have an economic collapse, though the US economic collapse is going to be more dramatic because of the amount of spending that US is doing and the dependency that it built upon other nations to cover the production for all that counterfeiting and borrowing.
However, once USA economy collapses it will have a choice - return to the Constitution and then quickly rebuild the real economy or go all the way to totalitarianism and become a poor, institutional, welfare state, where people are FORCED to give up their labor to feed the mob, but the wealth is not really increased or produced, it's basically a starvation based system.
That's what EU has, it just doesn't spend as much as USA. What's funny is all the people that say: rich are stealing from us, that's why they are rich.
No, rich people (majority, those who are not feeding at the public trough but those who produce the wealth people consume) are actually building the economy and the wealth that the government confiscates in order to 'spread' to gain political power, since majority are employees and not employers.
But what is funny is that Germany (where I am right now, and going to Switzerland tomorrow), is the place that can called 'rich' compared to those other European countries. So is it that Germany STEALS from those other countries? No. Those other countries made themselves dependent by not working and thus by having Germans supply them with stuff. But basically any WORKER in Germany can be considered 'rich' now compared to a Greek resident for example. So I find this funny and tragic.
USSR destroyed millions of people in the fit of socialist/communist agenda throughout thirties, forties and fifties, when the information started coming out about all of the collectivization and murder, the European countries (especially France and Germany) hid these facts from their population, because Communism was basically winning in Europe. I mean, hell, France had basically a Communist government come to power at the time, so they were scared to let people know what REAL socialism and communism LEADS to, when taken to the max - destruction of people.
I hope USA doesn't destroy itself and chooses the right path, and Ron Paul is elected and then the people are allowed to have competition in what money is and then income taxes are abolished, SS and Medicare and welfare and EI and minimum wage and all so called "civil rights" (which are again, obligations on some and entitlements to others, which destroy jobs), and all of the wars - drug war, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Pakistan, all of this is stopped and abolished.
All government involvement into business needs to go away the way of the Dodo bird. I will be able to do business in USA again, because now it's all monopolies and public trough feeders and currency destroyers and gamblers and there is no production.
USA imports 90% of its seafood from Asia. It's SURROUNDED with oceans. It has lakes and rivers and it imports 90% of its seafood. It has 53Billion USD/month trade deficit. It has over 100 Tri
What you get with the system you have is a vast twisty apparatus designed not to provide as much healthcare as possible for the money it is given, but to provide as little healthcare as possible, and extract as much money as possible.
- AGREE.
That's because GOVERNMENT is in it. In UK people also would be better off without government in health care, just like they were in USA prior to 1965 (there is plenty of data there, not just an essay).
One of the many reasons the UK NHS, is suffering is because technology tends to make the costs of healthcare increase, not decrease.
- nonsense.
With GOVERNMENT in charge the costs are going up, it's NOT because of new technology, it's because any new technology can be sold to government at a huge premium and costs will go up. In private free market the costs with new technologies and efficiencies always go down while quality goes up.
Thus you are on the Internet with a computer that is that much better than the first computers and that much cheaper than the first computers, with miniaturization in it that is made possible by very very expensive factories that are built all the time by processor makers.
The cars are a good example as well, the quality and features go up but prices stay the same (which is great given how much inflation governments creates with money printing). Imagine for a second that government was NOT allowed to print money and inflation didn't exist - prices would be falling rapidly for cars and for computers I don't even know where the prices would be. 10 dollars per new laptop? Maybe.
So there is no argument that new technology creates new efficiencies even if the technology itself is hard. It's because of real competition and COMPARATIVE LACK OF GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND MONEY in those fields.
New technology means that you save more lives that need more care.
- no. New technology means that you can find the problem quicker, fix it easier without surgery, with pills likely, you can process more people, and you do NOT allow the disease to get worse before it is found (with all of the new tech the diseases are found much before they show themselves with much more serious symptoms).
People are getting the treatment faster with new tech, because their problems are identified sooner, this makes the process LESS expensive, because they need LESS treatment.
People don't need exploratory surgeries with all the scanning and imaging.
Doctors share information quicker and in more efficient ways with the new information technologies, so mistakes are rarer.
. New technology costs more, because it's patented.
- everything is patented (I am against all patents by the way.) Computer tech, TV tech, car tech, phone tech, it's all patented.
much driven by the corporate side of the equation ; drug companies are not adverse to lobbying to get existing generic treatments off the market,
- THAT'S WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.
There should NOT be any government involvement into this, government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with normal market forces and competition, it causes prices to go up and resources to be mis-allocated while moral hazards are created and money is printed.
Quite aside from the ethics of making profits from healthcare
- I WELCOME profits from health care.
I WANT THEM TO MAKE PROFITS from health care.
Profits are the ONLY REAL GOOD MOTIVATOR FOR GOOD RESULTS in real COMPETING markets.
Government destroys competition, so profits are concentrated in few hands and they can keep prices high because there is government money all over it, government protections, government contracts, regulations that destroy competition.
There should be no government involvement into any product or s
So shouldn't it be protecting Americans against the HMOs?
- no. As I said - rights are not about you and your private dealings, it's about your rights not to be destroyed by your government.
Rights are very specific - it's between you and your government, not between you and your physician. What you have between you and your physician is a contract (and there is always criminal law, if he kills you or hurts you on purpose).
The American healthcare system is demonstrably much more expensive, for worse outcomes, than healthcare systems in countries which have single payer or socialized healthcare systems.
- TODAY.
Not before 1965, not before US government got into it with its money and corruptive power of monopoly creation. As to other economies - they would be better off with free market as well.
Given the increasing cost of medical care, a single medical emergency can destroy most of those inalienable rights ; your liberty, because you are a slave to your debt, your happiness, because you're not happy about that, and your life, because your insurance company won't pay for your treatment.
- TODAY. That's because the government caused the prices to go up rather than where market was taking the costs - down, while increasing efficiencies and quality.
Government is CAUSING the prices to go up and it's causing the destruction of the economy in the process, you want protections? Reinstitute the Constitution, get government out of things that it is not authorized to do. It got over that barrier long ago, 100 years ago.
And the insurance company will also refuse to insure you if it knows that you have particular healthcare issues (thus destroying your happiness as you fell insecure), or require premiums that essentially make you their slave, and thus you lose your liberty.
- not in a free market, where prices are low and where you are responsible for your own insurance, it's not government and it's not your employer.
So you have your insurance, they can't stop it, it's a contract. With work insurance you only have your insurance as long as you have that job.
Before 1965 the cost of insurance for most people was $2/month.
While your health is not under control of the government, surely allowing these predators to exist is against your inalienable rights. The only way to get rid of them, in a "free market" is to remove their market niche by providing a decent public healthcare system.
- No. You do NOT have a right to force OTHERS to GIVE you stuff, even through government.
Your RIGHT is to have government PROTECT you against somebody ACTIVELY trying to deprive you of your right to liberty - that's what border protection is for, but most importantly, your rights are there to protect you against the real threat - your government.
I take it you didn't look at either of the links to 2 of my journal entries, one on health care and insurance and data (government statistics actually) that shows that private care and insurance were preferred even when 'public' option began, and in fact care was cheap and getting cheaper, and the other link showing that it is government ponzi scam that results in destruction, because it is mandatory.
Private ponzi scams drain the economy of resources only to the moment that they are discovered to be scams. Then there is a 'bank run' and the scam ends. Public scams are mandatory, so they pretend they can run them forever, by continuously increasing the tax payments and decreasing the benefits.
The free market never works, it always sinks to the lowest common denominator and that means liars, cheats and thieves.
- nonsense. Free market gets rid of liars and cheats and thieves much faster and more efficiently than government mixed or command economy, with the proof of Madoff and Enron and housing bubble and Internet bubble before it and the agriculture bubble that inflated starting in 1925, again, all caused by the Federal reserve money destruction.
Free market always works better, quickly finding and eliminating those, who cheat their customers while promoting the real deal. So Ford's product was promoted, not shunned, but Charles Ponzi was eventually found out to be a fraud and his 'business' stopped.
Anyway, good luck with your agenda.
Furthermore, you are now putting moral obligations on a government, which is a strange way to deal with morality and eventually leads to collapse of morality.
By the way, here is an interesting piece about UK UHC doctors talking about stopping the terminal cancer patients from being able to continue their treatment because there are no resources for it (obviously, a system that is dead set on removing all risk eventually collapses under the weight of those impossible to meet obligations. This applies to health care as well as education and money, everything.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2042172/Dont-terminal-cancer-patients-drugs-just-prolong-lives-say-experts.html
The point is that resources are actually scarce, government systems make the treatments more expensive by putting government money there, and this ends up costing lives at the end, while in a free market the medical costs would be coming down, not going up all the time, because technology actually makes things more efficient and costs come down. So if in the past an exploratory surgery was needed for something that only requires an imaging procedure today, and if somebody is taking pills against something that they would have a surgery for decades ago, etc., that means technology allows efficiencies to go up and costs to come down, but government money prevents the costs from coming down and forces them up.
Obama by the way, came to an agreement in his plan, with pharma companies, which gave those companies extension on their patents. What do you think that does to the costs of drugs? Right. Any government involvement into any industry causes costs to go up, never down. It's impossible for costs to go down with government intervention, after all, it's an entire system set up to regulate and impose bureaucracy over innovative fields and ideas and technology. And it provides government money, which means more money is chasing the scarce resources. Of-course costs go up.
So more money is introduced into the system.
More regulations, that cause costs to go up.
More protections against competition.
How can anybody expect costs to come down with government involvement? If costs are high, competition is low, then there will be more death.
Oh, and I have to leave soon, but just in case you take exception about something that has to do with the criminal code: you are not going to argue about your rights with a killer.
So if a private person wants to come and kill you and steal your property and such, that's not an argument about rights. The criminal code is also given to the government by authorization to uphold, but your government most likely will not protect you against those things if somebody really wants to do that kind of damage.
So you won't be arguing about your rights with a thief or a murderer, you will have to deal with those, and the most obvious way of prevention here is to set up private security and/or local police to do something about things like that.
But rights are about government power, not about some thief or murderer or other type of a criminal. Rights and constitution is about protecting you from your government becoming that sort of a criminal, and the reason why it is set up this way is because the founders knew enough about other forms of governance, where a person was just a subject and didn't have any rights and could be killed by the King or some other feudal.
You are wrong and I am going to correct you.
Your rights are not given to you, the point of government is to protect your right to liberty FROM government.
What do you think Constitution is? It is a document, designed to keep your federal government in check against taking away your liberties, your life, your property and your ability to pursue happiness.
The founders were mostly libertarian, in that they understood the importance of keeping you safe FROM your government. The government is the evil force that you need protection from. All other forces are not as evil as government though they can kill you.
For example your neighbor can kill you, but that's not what Constitution is about. Your neighbor (or your corner convenience store) are not your government, which has the ultimate ability to kill you.
The reason that your government has this ability is because it is devised in order to keep the power vacuum filled, which exists without any government force. If there is no government of any kind, then some government will form. What you want to do is to control what will form, thus you form it, give it shape but you understand that what you are forming is the ultimate evil - powerful force that has ability to destroy you. So you must protect yourself, and you do this by limiting the role of government via the law that applies to the government - Constitution.
Now, federal gov't in USA would not be able to form if it was more powerful than any State in terms of what it could do to people living in the State. Federal gov't was there to occupy that power vacuum and to present the republic to the world, and protection of borders became a centralized thing, though even this now is a problem - the monopoly of federal government on the military power within the republic is dangerous at this point. Of-course that's what second amendment is about (and you shouldn't need amendments, all your rights are there, so amendments only muddy the waters, but people sometimes do irrational things, so they wanted to enumerate certain things that shouldn't even have been enumerated.)
The point is that your right is in the denial to your government to kill you, steal your property and stop your business.
That's what your rights are.
Federal government is not authorized for anything else than protecting your liberty, life and pursuit of happiness from government itself and from foreign invasion.
Saying that government must give you something is meaningless, because government doesn't have anything to give. But it can take. That's what rights are for - so you can stop this.
"but it will just work if we REALLY try it" are unconvincing
- no, it has been tried, it wasn't ideal, but it was tried in USA in nineteen century, before 1913 happened and the federal system figured out a way around the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution, it figured out a way to start growing uncontrollably while denying people the opportunity to stop it. This was done with the Federal reserve and income tax system.
USA became worlds largest creditor nation, innovator and producer of cheap high quality goods under that system, it became the wealthy country that people wanted to come to because they saw opportunity there due to the freedoms FROM the government intervention that were absent in most other places.
Today USA is no longer that country and people are leaving and so are businesses.
As to the 'purity' of the system - you make me laugh. What you have today is an invasive fascist environment, that is so far removed from the idea of a free society that the former communist China is beating USA in freedoms that allow people to operate businesses, which is really the key right after the life and liberty part. Because if you are denied ability to do business and to make economic decisions that allow you to prosper, you are denied means of survival and means that allow one to pursue happiness.
The entire system is corrupt and you are talking about 'purity'.
Read my journal if you want to leave specific comments but don't bother me with generalizations.
I don't know what 'your' state is, but you are not talking about the federal US Constitution.
As to right to a fair trial - criminal code will put your life on the line, and since you actually have a RIGHT to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then you are ENTITLED to a fair trial.
Whether this is done with jury or not is irrelevant. The system is violating your right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness if it puts you in a position, where you have to defend yourself against criminal accusations, so at this point the system is in possible VIOLATION of your right, so it has a mechanism (which may include juries), to make sure that in fact it does not end up violating your principal rights, which are again: to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Now, live, liberty and pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, but it declares that those are your "unalienable rights" or sovereign rights, so if somebody is trying to take away THOSE rights, they better have it covered with the correct procedures.
I explained it with government backed data. If you care to read, it's not extremely long, but it's not a one pager either.
Oh look, somebody forgot the history of their country once again.
That's why you have freedom of speech though, isn't it?
Beyond that, maybe those people are just assholes, but in reality, in the depth of economic truth, they are correct. Society needs a well functioning economy, which is destroyed by government trying to 'remove risk' from everything. If there is perception that there is no risk, then everything becomes equally risk-free (perception wise), and this creates an environment that eventually destroys the economy due to all of the things that people believe are risk free and they do those things without paying the price immediately. Eventually the errors in the system multiply, the moral hazards cause massive imbalances, but the perceptions stay, and they get even stronger over time.
Eventually the economies crash because everybody wants government to participate in order to 'remove the risk' whatever it takes. Be it making ridiculous loans, 'insuring' bank deposits, 'insuring' people against health problems, 'insuring' people against bad economic decisions, 'insuring' that people will not have to deal with the actual world.
Price controls, exchange controls, always rising taxes, always increasing government apparatus, always needing yet another war, always hoping for government to step in, always wanting government to give you everything, from jobs, to social security, to basic income, to education, to health, to transportation, to cheap energy, to clean environment, to non-discrimination, to moral satisfaction, to sexual gratification (I am joking here, sort of), everything.
Eventually the risks multiply, the mis-allocation of resources gets out of control, the government size destroys innovation, the regulations destroy risk taking as an opportunity to make money by destroying opportunity to compete, be it competition against government subsidized monopolies or competition against trying to save and invest, everything becomes mis-allocated, mis-aligned, mis-appropriated, mis-represented, mis-communicated, misunderstood, mis-directed, basically all balances are lost in this supposed risk-free environment.
This eventually destroys the economy, because eventually this makes cost of investment and cost of employment and cost of doing business so high, the system no longer allows for any of this just with the size of government apparatus.
At this point the system must crash in order to be restructured and re-calibrated. There is no other way. The imbalances must be removed from the system one way or another, and pushing this eventual outcome further into the future only makes it more difficult, as they grow bigger, and the eventual correction will feel and look like a cataclysm. And it may just become a cataclysm.
Unfortunately that's where it will end up and it's because the idea is to do good.
Nobody should be allowed to die - that was a good idea (unless gov't kills them of-course via punishment or in wars).
Nobody should be allowed to fail - that was a good idea (unless they are the actual citizens, who will suffer the biggest failure of all - the failed economy and society).
Under the 'general welfare' and 'interstate commerce', you are saying you are giving your federal government the ultimate dictatorial power over you, is that what you want?
I replied elsewhere, but you need a specific reply, so here it goes again:
If the founders were to give the Constitution of USA broad powers under general welfare and interstate commerce laws to the federal government, then the States would have never ratified it.
If you want a federal government with monopoly on all powers, then I understand what you want, but you are looking in the wrong country. USA was not designed to be a dictatorial power or even a country with a strong federal government.
Also 'general welfare' does not mean individual welfare, it means protection of all individuals in order to establish a more perfect union but only to the extend of authorization by the Constitution.
The interstate commerce is completely perverted as well as general welfare. Interstate commerce is supposed to be about making sure that separate States do not create barriers to entry against other States. So if you get a driver's license in one State, it's recognized in all.
The federal government actually is failing in this regard, because it's not promoting general welfare using the interstate commerce clause, because to promote general welfare the federal government would have to ensure that if you get any type of license in any one of the States, it should apply everywhere. So if you get a law or a medical or a financial or an engineer or any other license in one State, you shouldn't have to re-apply and pay over and over in every State - these are the barriers to entry, exactly what the federal government is supposed to remove by using the interstate clause and by upholding the general welfare.
If the founders were to give the Constitution of USA broad powers under general welfare and interstate commerce laws to the federal government, then the States would have never ratified it.
Thus you are wrong on all of your points. If you want a federal government with monopoly on all powers, then I understand what you want, but you are looking in the wrong country. USA was not designed to be a dictatorial power or even a country with a strong federal government.
Also 'general welfare' does not mean individual welfare, it means protection of all individuals in order to establish a more perfect union but only to the extend of authorization by the Constitution.
The interstate commerce is completely perverted as well as general welfare. Interstate commerce is supposed to be about making sure that separate States do not create barriers to entry against other States. So if you get a driver's license in one State, it's recognized in all.
The federal government actually is failing in this regard, because it's not promoting general welfare using the interstate commerce clause, because to promote general welfare the federal government would have to ensure that if you get any type of license in any one of the States, it should apply everywhere. So if you get a law or a medical or a financial or an engineer or any other license in one State, you shouldn't have to re-apply and pay over and over in every State - these are the barriers to entry, exactly what the federal government is supposed to remove by using the interstate clause and by upholding the general welfare.
So you don't know what you are talking about and you will never admit it.
Neither is healthcare. It's a human right.
- you cannot have a right that imposes an obligation on somebody, anybody.
There is no such thing as a right to a Ferrari, correct? So there is no such thing as a right to food or clothing or shelter or health insurance or health care or education, it's because this imposes an obligation for somebody to supply you with this stuff, so it cannot be a right.
Get your definitions straight. You may want to have those entitlements, but as long as somebody must pay for these with their time/money/work those are not rights.
Of-course either those things are a local issue (like maybe something about water, which again, is about the government screwing with the free market, because it gives out franchise privileges to preferred monopolies instead of allowing the market to work), but federal government ran mandatory ponzi scheme like SS is definitely unconstitutional, immoral, bad for the economy (it's my journal I am linking to, it has the entire argument.) Health care is a product, just like any other, must be left to the market, which does a great job when not interfered by government as data shows.
CIA and FBI as well as pretty much all other 3 letter agencies need to be abolished. That's why Ron Paul is being shunned by the MSM - because they are being pressured by all those agencies as well as by corporations that stand to lose various privileges and government contracts (especially the military and people involved in destroying your liberties and your money.)