Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 99

Thread: Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

  1. #81
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post

    I disagree. Everyone wants their view of what is correct for society to be applied to society. Even those who want strict interpretation of the constitution want to remake society according to their views of what is the correct application of law. That is simply human nature and unavoidable.
    What I am getting at is that there are a lot of people who want us to change to make them happy, they will misrepresent their view as a majority and appeal to democracy, which would be fine if we were one and not a republic, the other problem comes when someone's societal view would necessarily infringe upon others rights, these are types that don't care about the rights of others just an enforcement of their worldview and have no problems with abusing law and policy to enforce their beliefs, I have a huge problem with that.
    The current health debate is a perfect example of this. Many people are saying "because it's the right thing to do", well, no it isn't. There are key problems with healthcare that will not be fixed by this completely unconstitutional bill or the abuse of protocol, none of the problems will be solved, and professionals on every side of the healthcare debate are saying they are unhappy, but hey, some people, and a decided minority will get to "change" society to their line of thinking if this crap passes.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #82
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    What I am getting at is that there are a lot of people who want us to change to make them happy, they will misrepresent their view as a majority and appeal to democracy, which would be fine if we were one and not a republic, the other problem comes when someone's societal view would necessarily infringe upon others rights, these are types that don't care about the rights of others just an enforcement of their worldview and have no problems with abusing law and policy to enforce their beliefs, I have a huge problem with that.
    My stance is that everyone is free to use the current legal structure to try to shape society how they want. If they don't like the legal structure, they are free to use the legal structure to change it. They should never use violence or skirt around the law (unless the law is grossly unfair, such as civil rights problems). Also, no one is any better than anyone else and we should all have an exactly equal voice in these things since they affect everyone. You should have as much voice as I do, no more or less.

    Everyone will have their views and reasons for voting the way they do, but I think it would be immoral of me to enforce my views on someone in such a way that it overrides their voice in government. I think government should be responsive to the citizenry's welfare, needs, wants, rights, etc above all things (in my opinion) and it is up to citizens to decide how they want society to be shaped. If they think more government is better, fine, if they think less is better, fine. I am simply one voice in that eternal conversation. However, if I wasn't fighting for what I wanted, I wouldn't be fully participating and that is something I consider to be my duty to society.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    The current health debate is a perfect example of this. Many people are saying "because it's the right thing to do", well, no it isn't. There are key problems with healthcare that will not be fixed by this completely unconstitutional bill or the abuse of protocol, none of the problems will be solved, and professionals on every side of the healthcare debate are saying they are unhappy, but hey, some people, and a decided minority will get to "change" society to their line of thinking if this crap passes.
    I hate the current health care bill since it does nothing to contain long term costs increases and you are right, nobody should be playing tricks with legislative votes (Even though fillabuster is an internal rule, not a law, so its not as important to me). Anyone who uses that slaughter rule should be stripped of office.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 03-19-10 at 02:21 PM.

  3. #83
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    My stance is that everyone is free to use the current legal structure to try to shape society how they want. If they don't like the legal structure, they are free to use the legal structure to change it. They should never use violence or skirt around the law (unless the law is grossly unfair, such as civil rights problems). Also, no one is any better than anyone else and we should all have an exactly equal voice in these things since they affect everyone. You should have as much voice as I do, no more or less.

    Everyone will have their views and reasons for voting the way they do, but I think it would be immoral of me to enforce my views on someone in such a way that it overrides their voice in government. I think government should be responsive to the citizenry's welfare, needs, wants, rights, etc above all things (in my opinion) and it is up to citizens to decide how they want society to be shaped. If they think more government is better, fine, if they think less is better, fine. I am simply one voice in that eternal conversation. However, if I wasn't fighting for what I wanted, I wouldn't be fully participating and that is something I consider to be my duty to society.
    I believe in people's rights to be heard, afterall there is a right to redress of grievances, however that does not give one the right to impose their will on me, this is what many are trying to do now.



    I hate the current health care bill since it does nothing to contain long term costs increases and you are right, nobody should be playing tricks with legislative votes (Even though fillabuster is an internal rule, not a law, so its not as important to me). Anyone who uses that slaughter rule should be stripped of office.
    I think most of us in the rational camp would agree here.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #84
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    I believe in people's rights to be heard, afterall there is a right to redress of grievances, however that does not give one the right to impose their will on me, this is what many are trying to do now.
    Imposing will is unavoidable. That is what laws are. The majority doesn't think it is right for me to do a lot of things from jaywalking to murder, and they will impose their collective will, through law enforcement, to stop me from doing those things. The only reason I don't try to change those laws is because I happen to agree with them.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 03-19-10 at 02:34 PM.

  5. #85
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Imposing will is unavoidable. That is what laws are. The majority doesn't think it is right for me to do a lot of things from jaywalking to murder, and they will impose their collective will, through law enforcement, to stop me from doing those things. The only reason I don't try to change those laws is because I happen to agree with them.
    I think we're getting off track. Jaywalking law isn't something I agree with, it's your safety, if you want to jeapordize it to save a few seconds, I will tell you it's not a good idea, but hey....your business. Murder isn't on the same level, it is the violation of your fellow citizen's right to life, theft isn't a "social theory" problem, you are depriving someone of their rightful property without compensation(due process). Where I have a problem is when those who don't agree with something that isn't a right, such as wholesale bans of smoking in any establishment with a business license, or this attempt at taking over the health industry, or say, if a city decides to ban meat products, or telling people they cannot exercise what was a right because it offended some panty waist with whatever cause they deemed as "progress".

    The test of necessary and proper is simple yet complex at the same time, but should be applied every time a law is proposed. Why is something necessary? Proof must consist of a "clear and present danger" or "public need", then the law must be proper. Does the law violate a right in order to fullfill a need and what is the balance?
    Good example, driver seat belt law, it's good because it can be argued that the driver should maintain control of a vehicle even in a wreck, the driver can't do that after being ejected. Bad seat belt law would dictate that all passengers must be buckled in. What's the compelling interest? If the answer is to protect people from themselves it fails on it's face. The principle applies to literally every law ever written in this country, and unfortunately, many of our fellow citizens forget that.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #86
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    I think we're getting off track. Jaywalking law isn't something I agree with, it's your safety, if you want to jeapordize it to save a few seconds, I will tell you it's not a good idea, but hey....your business. Murder isn't on the same level, it is the violation of your fellow citizen's right to life, theft isn't a "social theory" problem, you are depriving someone of their rightful property without compensation(due process). Where I have a problem is when those who don't agree with something that isn't a right, such as wholesale bans of smoking in any establishment with a business license, or this attempt at taking over the health industry, or say, if a city decides to ban meat products, or telling people they cannot exercise what was a right because it offended some panty waist with whatever cause they deemed as "progress".
    In the next paragraph you say that something can be prohibited because of danger. In the case of smoking, the link to second hand smoke causing cancer has tons of evidence. I don't think that is a good example. I think I get your point though in the seatbelt example below.

    Edit: In regards to prohibitive laws. I think they are acceptable as the majority deems it to be (in most cases, if a community wants to rape and pillage that shouldn't be allowed, obviously). A community should be free to create its own standards. However, I think it should be progressively more difficult as the community gets larger or if the thing being prohibited gets closer to a constitutional right. Its a lot easier to leave a city than a nation.

    I agree theft is wrong (but I don't think taxes are theft).

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    The test of necessary and proper is simple yet complex at the same time, but should be applied every time a law is proposed. Why is something necessary? Proof must consist of a "clear and present danger" or "public need", then the law must be proper. Does the law violate a right in order to fullfill a need and what is the balance?
    Those are questions that will forever be debated, because a good reason to one person is a stupid reason to another. The apparent answer to these sorts of questions is a matter of interpretation and perception, which is unique to each individual. This is why we have judges.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Good example, driver seat belt law, it's good because it can be argued that the driver should maintain control of a vehicle even in a wreck, the driver can't do that after being ejected. Bad seat belt law would dictate that all passengers must be buckled in. What's the compelling interest? If the answer is to protect people from themselves it fails on it's face. The principle applies to literally every law ever written in this country, and unfortunately, many of our fellow citizens forget that.
    This is a better example. Why is protecting people from themselves bad? People do stupid things all the time. I know I certainly do. I appreciate it when someone or society goes "hey, you're being stupid." I don't really see a problem here, except that there should be less protection from obvious stupidity than more obscure stuff (financial laws).
    Last edited by tacomancer; 03-19-10 at 03:36 PM.

  7. #87
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    In the next paragraph you say that something can be prohibited because of danger. In the case of smoking, the link to second hand smoke causing cancer has tons of evidence. I don't think that is a good example. I think I get your point though in the seatbelt example below.
    The study in question for second hand smoke has been exposed, it's not necessarily false, but it's definitiveness has been shattered. I don't remember when but it was about five years ago. Still, there is no immediate danger to the public from secondhand smoke, remember, the danger must be clear and present, both requirements must be met and demonstrable, also, it must be something that poses an immediate threat. So in the private smoking ban example, basically a governing body is telling a private owner they are a partner in policy even though they contribute nothing to the business.

    Edit: In regards to prohibitive laws. I think they are acceptable as the majority deems it to be (in most cases, if a community wants to rape and pillage that shouldn't be allowed, obviously). A community should be free to create its own standards. However, I think it should be progressively more difficult as the community gets larger or if the thing being prohibited gets closer to a constitutional right. Its a lot easier to leave a city than a nation.
    I am not a fan of the "community standards" argument. While the concept has been upheld by the courts it is easy to abuse. I've seen communities, including my own say a majority of people don't want something, but I live in a city of 140k+, when four people can't decide on pizza toppings I find it hard to believe that a community of more than 2 people are going to have standards that are so close as to pass a law against someone else's pursuit of happiness.

    I agree theft is wrong (but I don't think taxes are theft).
    Taxes can be theft if they are not representative, punitive, or excessive.


    Those are questions that will forever be debated, because a good reason to one person is a stupid reason to another. The apparent answer to these sorts of questions is a matter of interpretation and perception, which is unique to each individual. This is why we have judges.
    Again, the test for necessary and proper is simple and complex. It's simple enough to make a case that something is necessary, the complexity comes from scrutiny. For instance, a smoking ban, convenience and comfort of a singular individual or even a majority of such isn't a compelling interest to trump private property rights, therefore it would reason that unless smoke can definitively kill someone in that moment directly, then that would be the only starting point that would be constitutionally acceptable. Basically every right has a limit, and every argument for expansion of limits has a counter, but to limit a right or priveledge should require intense effort.



    This is a better example. Why is protecting people from themselves bad?
    Simple, it's not our business.
    People do stupid things all the time. I know I certainly do. I appreciate it when someone or society goes "hey, you're being stupid." I don't really see a problem here, except that there should be less protection from obvious stupidity than more obscure stuff (financial laws).
    People should have all the freedom in the world to make mistakes, the difference comes from someone maliciously causing harm, to play off of your financial example. I am in the financial field and eventually plan to expand my business lines, there is fraud, ethical behavior, and honest mistakes. We insure for honest mistakes, but I have seen some fraud and what it does to people's finances, it's not pretty. So laws protecting people from fraud and exploitation, sure, but where's the line when no malice is present? Moreover, where is the line when much of what looks like abuse is actually financially necessary because of government presenting influence past what it should?
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    How in the world did we consent?
    If by "we" you mean "I", then I would say no individual is forced to accept the terms of the Constitution. You're free to revolt or leave the country. The fact that you've done neither of these things leads me to believe you consent to be governed by the Constitution.

    As far as I can tell, the only people who consent are those who immigrate from another country and acquire citizenship. The rest of us were simply born here.
    Like I said, any American is free to revolt or leave the country.

  9. #89
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    If by "we" you mean "I", then I would say no individual is forced to accept the terms of the Constitution. You're free to revolt or leave the country. The fact that you've done neither of these things leads me to believe you consent to be governed by the Constitution.

    Like I said, any American is free to revolt or leave the country.
    Or I don't have the means to leave. Or another country won't accept me. There are more options than love it or leave it.

  10. #90
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    The study in question for second hand smoke has been exposed, it's not necessarily false, but it's definitiveness has been shattered. I don't remember when but it was about five years ago. Still, there is no immediate danger to the public from secondhand smoke, remember, the danger must be clear and present, both requirements must be met and demonstrable, also, it must be something that poses an immediate threat. So in the private smoking ban example, basically a governing body is telling a private owner they are a partner in policy even though they contribute nothing to the business.

    I am not a fan of the "community standards" argument. While the concept has been upheld by the courts it is easy to abuse. I've seen communities, including my own say a majority of people don't want something, but I live in a city of 140k+, when four people can't decide on pizza toppings I find it hard to believe that a community of more than 2 people are going to have standards that are so close as to pass a law against someone else's pursuit of happiness.

    Taxes can be theft if they are not representative, punitive, or excessive.

    Again, the test for necessary and proper is simple and complex. It's simple enough to make a case that something is necessary, the complexity comes from scrutiny. For instance, a smoking ban, convenience and comfort of a singular individual or even a majority of such isn't a compelling interest to trump private property rights, therefore it would reason that unless smoke can definitively kill someone in that moment directly, then that would be the only starting point that would be constitutionally acceptable. Basically every right has a limit, and every argument for expansion of limits has a counter, but to limit a right or priveledge should require intense effort.

    Simple, it's not our business. People should have all the freedom in the world to make mistakes, the difference comes from someone maliciously causing harm, to play off of your financial example. I am in the financial field and eventually plan to expand my business lines, there is fraud, ethical behavior, and honest mistakes. We insure for honest mistakes, but I have seen some fraud and what it does to people's finances, it's not pretty. So laws protecting people from fraud and exploitation, sure, but where's the line when no malice is present? Moreover, where is the line when much of what looks like abuse is actually financially necessary because of government presenting influence past what it should?
    At this point, we are both using the word should and are delving into philosophy. I don't want to simply dismiss the debate, but I do not know how it can be productively moved forward (hopefully you have an idea). I believe these things are acceptable and you do not. We each have our reasons, but I don't think we are going to agree. However, for me, it is good since we each have a vote and a duty to try to influence society into our image, so I see what we are doing as good, even though we could potentially debate forever.

    (Plus, I need to go run errands, so I am forced to cut it short )

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •