• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

I accept the parts I like and I don't accept the parts I wish to change and to be honestly, I suspect most people feel that way (I couldn't find any polling on it though, so I don't know for sure). However, as a caveat, any parts I do wish to change, I wish to change in a lawful manner as proscribed by our legal system.
Well, when you can get the congress to pass an amendment that does not violate the constitution, 2/3 of the states to agree, and a president who will sign it then we'll agree. Till then you've got some lobbying to do.

The problem with emigrating though is that often people do not have the means to do it and another country may not accept them.
I don't want to hear it, people leave this country constantly, if you do not wish to leave for whatever reasons you accept our social contract.
This would make them stuck and without a home.
Canada is just next door.
Facing this possibility, many do not do anything to change their lives because there is some risk. I don't fault the people who do this for those reasons. (Not that I want to leave, but I am trying to be realistic and not ideological about it).
You are being too idealogical, you are saying you want us to change to your opinion. I don't agree, you accept things as they were laid out, or you figure out a way to change societal thinking, but changing things through policy or court fiat is not acceptable.
 
OK, my apologies for the last part.

The constititution is what it is. It is designed to protect your freedoms and liberties, and otherwise, get the government the hell out of your way.

It is genius, and it should not be changed to satisfy 300 million different people in 300 million different ways.

I agree that it is what it is and its mostly a good document. I also agree that it is the result of some serious intellectual work, but I think it was simply the result of the philosophy that was popular at the time and a reaction to English Monarchy. I also agree that it can never be everything to everyone.

However, I see nothing wrong with people trying to push their views onto the greater society as long as everyone does it. The reason is that the net effect will be a compromise that almost everyone can at least live with. You are right that the constitution is hard to amend. Which I am also ok with since the constitution is the core of the legal system and any change made to it can have wide ranging effects. So it should be difficult to change (even though I think the FF's made it too difficult)
 
Last edited:
Well, when you can get the congress to pass an amendment that does not violate the constitution, 2/3 of the states to agree, and a president who will sign it then we'll agree. Till then you've got some lobbying to do.

You are absolutely correct.

I don't want to hear it, people leave this country constantly, if you do not wish to leave for whatever reasons you accept our social contract. Canada is just next door.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what another thinks. This is a decision everyone must make on their own out of necessity and their personal means.

You are being too idealogical, you are saying you want us to change to your opinion. I don't agree, you accept things as they were laid out, or you figure out a way to change societal thinking, but changing things through policy or court fiat is not acceptable.

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.
 
Sure, you say that now.

But when the socialized mail delivers your copy of Men's Health and your socialized veteran's benefits check......

And when the socialized police patrol your city.........or the socialized paramedics save your life...........

And when you drive on the socialized roads...........to your socialized public school......or the socialized rest stop near the socialize state park.......where you meet friends for social interaction around the the camp fire.......

.......and should your fire get out of control..... guess what? Those socialized firefighters will show up......

and how are our public schools and postal service doing these days? :2wave:

Not to mention you cannot claim socialism with specific services provided by a republic.
 
Last edited:
and how are our public schools and postal service doing these days? :2wave:

Not to mention you cannot claim socialism with specific services provided by a republic.

Health care would be a specific service.
 
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.
 
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.

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:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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).

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.

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:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 :( )
 
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.

What if some lefty would pay your way to get out of here? Would you go then.......I wish all you far left people who hate this country so much would get the **** out.....
 
Socialism is inheriently immoral and evil.
Socialism forces people to provide means to other people.
That's slavery.
Slavery is the antithesis of liberty.
Thus, sociailism is the antithesis if liberty.

While not technically evil, it is certianly reprehensible and should be unacceptable to anyone that values freedom.
 
Sure, you say that now.

But when the socialized mail delivers your copy of Men's Health and your socialized veteran's benefits check......

And when the socialized police patrol your city.........or the socialized paramedics save your life...........

And when you drive on the socialized roads...........to your socialized public school......or the socialized rest stop near the socialize state park.......where you meet friends for social interaction around the the camp fire.......

.......and should your fire get out of control..... guess what? Those socialized firefighters will show up......
You'd be right, except that these aren't examples of socialism.
 
So Hazlnut, what exactly does the Military "PRODUCE"? What do POLICE "Produce"? What does the Post Office "PRODUCE"?
The military is not an example of the state owning/controlling the production of wealth, and the means of distributing same.

It is also not exaxmple of the state redistributing weath thru the welfare system.

As such, the military is not an example of socialism.

Anyone that understands socialism recognizes this.
 
Then revolt.

Or I can just stay and fight for what I think is right, regardless if its constitutional (by some people's interpretation) or not. Personally, I think the constitution is a good document, except some people interpret it too strictly. However, me liking it or not liking it doesn't imply consent, because again, I never actively consented and I do not accept passive consent as valid because there are too many problems with the idea for it to be workable in the real world. If people were more free to move from one country to another, than your love it or leave it attitude might be worth considering. But people tend not to agree with the free flow of people or else we wouldn't have a big controversy about illegal immigrants from latin american countries.

However, just saying revolt is silly.
 
Last edited:
Or I can just stay and fight for what I think is right, regardless if its constitutional (by some people's interpretation) or not. Personally, I think the constitution is a good document, except some people interpret it too strictly. However, me liking it or not liking it doesn't imply consent, because again, I never actively consented and I do not accept passive consent as valid because there are too many problems with the idea for it to be workable in the real world. If people were more free to move from one country to another, than your love it or leave it attitude might be worth considering. But people tend not to agree with the free flow of people or else we wouldn't have a big controversy about illegal immigrants from latin american countries.

However, just saying revolt is silly.

Do you believe in the social contract?
 
Or I can just stay and fight for what I think is right, regardless if its constitutional (by some people's interpretation) or not. Personally, I think the constitution is a good document, except some people interpret it too strictly. However, me liking it or not liking it doesn't imply consent, because again, I never actively consented and I do not accept passive consent as valid because there are too many problems with the idea for it to be workable in the real world. If people were more free to move from one country to another, than your love it or leave it attitude might be worth considering. But people tend not to agree with the free flow of people or else we wouldn't have a big controversy about illegal immigrants from latin american countries.

However, just saying revolt is silly.



Do you know that revolt is how we became a country?
 
Do you believe in the social contract?

Just looked it up. From what wikipedia tells me, this particular concept stems from the concept of natural law which I do not believe in. So by extension, I cannot believe in this.

However, your extreme reaction to my first statement about not accepting to being government by the constitution intrigues me because you could have avoided the whole thing simply by asking me to.

I would have said yes. :)

The simple fact is that I was never asked and since it was my word and that is something I take very seriously, I would have meant it for life.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom