View Poll Results: Should the government be able to regulate this market in advance as stated below?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 12.50%
  • No

    19 79.17%
  • Other

    2 8.33%
Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 167

Thread: Mandated Burial Plot

  1. #131
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Months ago I poised the same question about life insurance. Can the government force people to buy life insurance to insure that if a parent dies the children are not left paupers and dependent on the government?
    Require people to buy mortgage life insurance so if one of the parents dies the family doesn't become homeless?
    Require people to employment injury and illness supplemental insurance?

    How many ways can the government require people to labor to make the money to fulfill their required duty to give money to private for profit corporations that bribe their way onto the government approval list?

  2. #132
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Months ago I poised the same question about life insurance. Can the government force people to buy life insurance to insure that if a parent dies the children are not left paupers and dependent on the government?
    Require people to buy mortgage life insurance so if one of the parents dies the family doesn't become homeless?
    Require people to employment injury and illness supplemental insurance?
    Taxes, FICA, and welfare take care of most of those issues. So, no. it's already been done.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  3. #133
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Taxes, FICA, and welfare take care of most of those issues. So, no. it's already been done.
    Wrong. None of those pay a mortgage or for a college education.

    And emergency rooms are for indigent care for which there is already universal health care.

  4. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Sorry for the late reply, but my video card decided it was better to fry alive than to stay alive for another moment on this earth. I decided to take the chance to upgrade my computer and take a few days off from the Internet as I badly needed both.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Legal precedent certainly does have a part in the courts...in fact, it is the cornerstone of our
    judicial system.

    Common law - rather than code law - has been the governing principle of American courts from the beginning, even predating the Constitution itself.
    My point was really that it has proven itself to be an instrument to compound problems, instead of leading to better solutions. I feel its better to throw it out than continue a practice that is clearly not part of the solution.

    As for "failing to read to get what you want"...if your interpretation of the Constitution was the only correct one, then the Supreme Court would be composed of nothing but "originalists" and there wouldn't be any legal debate over anything in the first place.
    Hardly. The debate would be over what applied with the understanding of a foundation to begin with while everything else stayed the same.

    I understand, and I'm not opposed to "exploring" these answers...but it would go a lot more quickly if you didn't misquote me. For example, you just responded to a paragraph where I explicitly said that the problem was NOT that it didn't allow such a system with "where does it not allow it?" It isn't a matter of allowing or not allowing an industrialized nation, it's a matter of the Constitution simply not being designed to accommodate the needs of an industrialized nation.
    What needs are we talking about? What needs do the constitution not give out as it is written that are important for an industrialized nation?

    Here are just a few reasons why an "originalist" interpretation of the US Constitution would not work for our modern society. This is by no means an exhaustive list, just what I could think of off the top of my head:

    1. We have cars, airplanes, and an interstate highway system. It is relatively easy for people to pick up and move from one state to another, whereas when the Constitution was written most people lived their entire lives without traveling more than 30 miles from their home. This means that a system of assigning primary taxing/spending responsibilities to the states, rather than the federal government, would be far less effective now than it was in 1789. Not to mention that it greatly increases both the size and scope of interstate commerce.
    Why would it be less effective? Doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference. What is covered by the commerce clause does not change because of inventions either.

    2. The concept of environmentalism was almost totally unknown in 1789, aside from maybe a few minor issues like overfishing.
    Seems like a state issue and I personally don't see much of a problem to begin with. If you want to help endangered species start a restaurant and serve the fish. This has worked in the past for such concerns.

    The Founding Fathers certainly could not have envisioned massive air pollution from smokestacks, widespread electricity consumption, the economics of the oil trade, climate change, nuclear power plants, a hole in the ozone layer (or even the existence of an ozone layer), ocean trawling, etc. Regulating some of these activities cannot easily be done on a state level, because the environmental practices of one state can affect others.
    Courts can handle this and I don't see why states can't handle disputes like they always have for this matter. Do we forget this happened before? While surely it needed reform, the powers given can handle this just fine.

    It should however be noted that many of those would have never came into being if the states power didn't grow. For example, nuclear power..

    3. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, most people identified with their state first and their nation second. Today, it is the opposite.
    For many people it is not different and at all for many it is. Much like it ever was.

    This is a profound cultural shift, that ingrains a "we're all in this together" mentality on most American citizens. This, of course, leads to comparisons of American policies with those of other nations (rather than between the states), and calls for a heavier federal role in things like health care and education. (You personally may or may not have this mentality, but that's irrelevant to the historical fact that this way of thinking is radically different from what it was in 1789).
    People have always demanded more and more from government as it ages. When Jefferson said that the natural progression is for liberty to give way to government this is exactly what he was talking about. People not only demand more but the government demands more. This only naturally makes them more important as time passes. The country was formed in the hopes this pattern would be stopped and simply working around the blockades because they are effective does not in any way mean you are different than the people of the past. In fact, healthcare and education were run by many countries in their time and they simply rejected the idea. Well..Jefferson liked the idea of education, but he was in the minority and moved on with a college when he failed instead of simply doing what you are doing here and trying to wiggle around the bothersome truth of what is written and why it was written.

    It's not a matter of "liking" it or not. It certainly was an historical achievement for its time, and I suppose it worked reasonably well in 1789 (aside from the whole slavery and gender discrimination thing). But it doesn't work well in 2012, at least if one adopts an "originalist" interpretation.
    We didn't really fix the later, but took away rights to battle it. I wouldn't call that a victory or an expansion on the ideals put out. If anything it is missing the point completely.

    The former we solved but by an illegal war that Justice Chase decided was legal by falsely claiming the introduction means that states can't succeed.

    Umm YOU asked for elaboration on that point; I only brought it up in the first place as the only other example I could think of of people trying to strictly adhere to a nearly-unchangeable 100+ year old document, and applying all those situations to their modern circumstances.


    Again, this "exploration" of answers to questions would probably go more efficiently...if you didn't ask a question and then say you didn't care about the answer.
    Fair enough. Though I didn't reject your answer as much I found it inappropriate as religion changes based on what people believe. They just hide it is all.

    It is supposed to be DIFFICULT to amend. It is not supposed to be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to amend. The fact that we've only had a single 7-year period in our entire nation's history in which important, non-coerced, modernizing constitutional amendments were passed, should indicate that the task is nearly impossible. Therefore, the only other solutions are preserving the document as is for all eternity and assuming that we figured out the perfect government for all-time in 1920...or allowing for more modern interpretations of the Constitution.
    The only reason we haven't had more amendments is because people simply have ignored the use for them. I have little doubt there would many more amendments if people were forced to use the outlet. Would it still be almost impossible, yes, it would, but again that is point. It was a way to control the size of and power of government as they thought it was important to keep government within some kind of restraint that was very hard to escape. If it was easier to amend it simply would not live up to its reason for being there.
    Last edited by Henrin; 04-07-12 at 08:27 AM.

  5. #135
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Wrong. None of those pay a mortgage or for a college education.
    Have no clue what kind of crap you're trying to peddle here.

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    And emergency rooms are for indigent care for which there is already universal health care.




    Ed:
    If you think that's true then you shouldn't have a problem leaving uninsured people outside the ER.
    Hint: The indigent already have insurance cards.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 04-07-12 at 08:46 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  6. #136
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin responding to someone else View Post
    Seems like a state issue and I personally don't see much of a problem to begin with. If you want to help endangered species start a restaurant and serve the fish. This has worked in the past for such concerns.

    Courts can handle this and I don't see why states can't handle disputes like they always have for this matter. Do we forget this happened before? While surely it needed reform, the powers given can handle this just fine.
    You're kidding, right? Unlike many people on this site I saw what was happening and what a mess we made before Uncle Sam stepped into the mix. The States and/or the courts couldn't/wouldn't/didn't handle it for whatever reason. Your way didn't work - try again.

    I have no clue why some people equate conservation and the environment with endangered species and treehuggers. There are some of us who have no problem using natural resources - we just want to do it in a sustainable way and not make people sick or dead in the process. But if you take that business oriented view then, of course, you reduce people to renewable resources on a ledger where lives and health are measured in dollars, not sense.
    (Last word not misspelled.)

    It should however be noted that many of those would have never came into being if the states power didn't grow. For example, nuclear power..
    I have no idea what you're trying to say here?
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  7. #137
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    See this is the problem here. You keep saying "if we were following an "originalist interpretation" of the Constitution". It does not have to follow exactly. That would be impossible considering we have things now that they didn't even dream of back then. However, following as closely as possible? That is doable. And has been done.
    No, even following it as "closely as possible" hasn't been done...at least not since 1803, when we had both the unconstitutional Louisiana Purchase and the unconstitutional decision in Marbury v Madison (if you follow the original intent). The original intent of the Constitution was already becoming obsolete just 15 years after it was ratified...let alone now.

    What you consider important is subjective. They were all obviously important enough to get 2/3rd's majority of both houses/states.
    I would argue that the reasons the post-1920 amendments were able to pass was precisely because they were NOT important. Take the most recent amendment, for example, dealing with congressional pay raises. It was actually written back in the 1780s as part of the original Bill of Rights, but never passed back then and ended up sitting dormant for 200 years. Then in the 1980s, there was a renewed movement to ratify it...and eventually it did pass. Why was this? Did we suddenly have a crisis of Congress setting their own pay before the end of their term? No...some college kid discovered the amendment, and started lobbying state governments to ratify it. It passed precisely because of its lack of importance and the fact that no one really had any strong feelings for or against it.

    Which was what you contested right? That getting amendments was "impossible"? The fact that there have been amendments since your cutoff date seems to prove you wrong about the impossiblity of the Constitution being amended.
    Fine, let me rephrase: It is nearly impossible to pass any MEANINGFUL constitutional amendments, which fundamentally change the structure of our government (from an originalist perspective). That's why it hasn't happened in 92 years.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #138
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Just because things change this does not mean that an amendment must be employed every single time. Particularly if it can be implemented in other ways. The amendment process was suppose to only be for things that actually mattered. Not "just because times change".
    The amendment process exists because times change; the Founding Fathers had enough humility to understand that their particular historical, political, and economic circumstances which they used as the basis for the Constitution might not apply for all time. Thomas Jefferson suggested that a constitutional convention happen every 19 years so that each generation could have its own constitution.

    There are times to go the originalist route and times that we don't need to.
    Then that isn't truly going the originalist route at all.

    When it comes to the federal government mandating that private citizens have to buy things then going the originalists route is best for the simple fact that any such mandate is an expansion of power. And the Constitution was and always will be about restraining the government, not the individual.
    An individual mandate fits in quite well with the standard interpretation of the commerce clause, and is therefore not an expansion of power. The distinction between "activity" and "inactivity" is a canard, because in either case the commerce already exists, just in a different form.

    The times that we don't have to go the originalist route (in case you're wondering) has to do with the Spirit of the Law. Originalists like to tout the Letter of the Law while ignoring the Spirit of the Law. The Spirit of the Law is just as important as the Letter of the Law.
    The "spirit of the law" sounds like a euphemism for reinterpreting the Constitution to fit the times, which I thought you were against. If I'm mistaken about this, can you give an example of what you mean?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #139
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    However, am I wrong in my understanding that the Administration has been adamant from the very beginning this is not a tax of any form
    When speaking to the public about it, you are correct.

    and has even based this case around the notion that it is not a tax but rather a penalty for actions taken with regards to commerce?
    Nah...that's actually the opponents' view of it. They argue that it isn't a tax, and therefore it doesn't fall under Congress' power to levy a tax. The Obama Administration's position on that issue is a muddled mess, but for the most part it comes down on the side that it is a tax and therefore Congress has the constitutional authority to pass it. The individual mandate certainly sounds like a tax to me...it amends the IRS tax code, it's collected by the IRS on April 15, it's money that people are compelled to the government and for which they don't directly receive any service, etc.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 04-07-12 at 10:15 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    You're kidding, right? Unlike many people on this site I saw what was happening and what a mess we made before Uncle Sam stepped into the mix. The States and/or the courts couldn't/wouldn't/didn't handle it for whatever reason. Your way didn't work - try again.
    The laws needed and still do need reform to be practiced correctly. There is no reason to believe that with the proper reforms the system couldn't be more effective and fairer to all parties involved than having the EPA handle it.

    I have no clue why some people equate conservation and the environment with endangered species and treehuggers. There are some of us who have no problem using natural resources - we just want to do it in a sustainable way and not make people sick or dead in the process. But if you take that business oriented view then, of course, you reduce people to renewable resources on a ledger where lives and health are measured in dollars, not sense.
    (Last word not misspelled.)
    No one wants people to die, but I want people/business to be guilty of a right violation before they are treated like they are guilty. I want the business to be able to decide on what course of action they wish to take to correct course and I want repeat offenders to be out of business. What I want is a system that treats all people like people.

    I have no idea what you're trying to say here?
    Without government action nuclear power would of never came to be.

Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •