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 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 167

Thread: Mandated Burial Plot

  1. #81
    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 Henrin View Post
    So how do you follow something when you ignore what it means? Care to tell me?
    That's a loaded question, as it assumes that I already agree with your premise that "what it means" equals "what the original intent was".

    All you just did was say it was outdated AGAIN. Thanks for nothing.
    I'm not sure what you're asking here. What kind of "proof" do you want? Proof that relying on a fundamentalist interpretation of a document drafted for an agrarian, third-world country doesn't work for a modern, industrialized democracy? Since that model of governance has never been tried anywhere in the world, there isn't much proof beyond speculation. The only other case of people trying a model of governance even CLOSE to this would be religious fundamentalists who want to impose the literal words of a centuries-old or millennia-old religious doctrine onto their modern societies...and that typically doesn't work out so well.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #82
    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 Kandahar View Post
    That's a loaded question, as it assumes that I already agree with your premise that "what it means" equals "what the original intent was".
    There is nothing to disagree with, it does. What else could it possibly mean? What you make up out of the wind?

    I'm not sure what you're asking here. What kind of "proof" do you want?
    Proof of your claim. What else could I possibly want?

    Proof that relying on a fundamentalist interpretation of a document drafted for an agrarian, third-world country doesn't work for a modern, industrialized democracy?
    Care to tell how the Constitution doesn't allow for an industrialized nation under its original intent?

    Since that model of governance has never been tried anywhere in the world, there isn't much proof beyond speculation.
    What are you going on about now? It was not drafted for what you said above.

    The only other case of people trying a model of governance even CLOSE to this would be religious fundamentalists who want to impose the literal words of a centuries-old or millennia-old religious doctrine onto their modern societies...and that typically doesn't work out so well.
    Care to me how that is comparable?
    Last edited by Henrin; 03-30-12 at 07:59 AM.

  3. #83
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    So talking ot my relatively apolitical wife about the health care law last night and the arguments made in court, she brought up an analogy that I actually thought was rather on point and one I wanted to expand on.

    People die. When people die, if there is no family or no one able to provide for their burial we do not simply leave the dead decaying body to lie out and about. Someone bears the cost to go forward with disposing of the body either thorugh burial or cremation. And when that's ont a family member its putting an unnecessary financial burden on portions of society. Everyone, in some fashion, will enter into this market place at some point. There is no an individual who at some point in their life will be involved in some fashion with this particular market. We don't know when an individual may enter this market, and the entrance to it could be sudden and without any forthought.

    As such, should the government be able to regulate this market in advance by mandating that every individual do one of the following two things or be levied a tax penalty?:

    1. Purchase Life Insurance, assuring that everyone who dies will have some money doled out that will cover after-death costs. To go along with this, regulation will be put on Life Insurance that it must cover ALL forms of death at least to a minimum amount, including suicide.

    2. Purchase a burial plot and coffin or pre-purchase cremation services.
    None of the above.
    (And I didn't read the whole thread.)

    If someone has to be buried at county expense then I would hope (at least if it's MY county) that they would forward the bill to whatever county is handling the estate of the deceased. If the deceased doesn't have enough in the estate to cover the bill they were obviously destitute and couldn't have afforded anything anyway. If the estate is enough to cover burial then where's the loss?
    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

  4. #84
    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 Henrin View Post
    There is nothing to disagree with, it does. What else could it possibly mean? What you make up out of the wind?
    Legal precedent and changing interpretations to fit the needs of a changing society.

    Care to tell how the Constitution doesn't allow for an industrialized nation under its original intent?
    Obviously you're missing the point (although I'm not yet sure whether it's intentional). It isn't that the Constitution doesn't ALLOW for an industrialized nation under its original intent, it's that it wasn't DESIGNED for a nation like the United States circa 2012. It would be like taking the constitution of any other democracy and expecting it to work equally well in the United States. Obviously that wouldn't work because the cultural, political, historical, and economic conditions of the two nations might be vastly different.

    Our Constitution was written for an entirely different country...in fact, the gulf in circumstances between the US circa 1789 and the US circa 2012 is much wider than the gulf in circumstances between the modern US and France or Germany or Japan or South Africa or Brazil. Since our amendment process is so arduous, the only way our Constitution is able to stay relevant is through modern interpretations of the Constitution.

    What are you going on about now? It was not drafted for what you said above.
    To the best of my knowledge, no nation in the world has a Constitution that has not been amended in any important way since 1920, which they follow to the letter of the law. Such a system would be completely unworkable given how much the world has changed.

    Care to me how that is comparable?
    Some religious fundamentalists seek to take an ancient holy text, apply the "original intent" to their modern societies (based on a blind faith that some wise people from previous generations understood their contemporary problems better than their contemporaries do), and let the chips fall where they may...even if it means turning the clock back centuries or millennia. This is essentially what constitutional fundamentalists seek to do as well. And the retort to "just amend the Constitution when you want to change it" is equivalent to saying you don't want it changed at all, given how difficult the amendment process it is.

    Consider this: With the exception of the process to work out the initial kinks in the Constitution (1789-1804), and a few amendments passed at the barrel of a Union gun (1865-1870), there has been only one period in all of American history where major constitutional reforms were implemented: 1913-1920, at the height of the progressive era. That's it. In 200+ years. The utter dearth of important constitutional amendments throughout American history should be all the proof necessary to demonstrate that the amendment process is untenable for most things, and therefore the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted to fit modern circumstances.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-30-12 at 08:51 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #85
    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 Kandahar View Post
    Legal precedent and changing interpretations to fit the needs of a changing society.
    The first has no part in the courts and the later is just failing to read to get what you want.

    Obviously you're missing the point (although I'm not yet sure whether it's intentional). It isn't that the Constitution doesn't ALLOW for an industrialized nation under its original intent, it's that it wasn't DESIGNED for a nation like the United States circa 2012.
    Where does it not allow it? Where is it impossible to have industrialized nation. Trying to get answers out of you is not being dense. Its called exploring..

    It would be like taking the constitution of any other democracy and expecting it to work equally well in the United States. Obviously that wouldn't work because the cultural, political, historical, and economic conditions of the two nations might be vastly different.
    Not all constitutions are equal so that comparison fails on face value.

    Our Constitution was written for an entirely different country...in fact, the gulf in circumstances between the US circa 1789 and the US circa 2012 is much wider than the gulf in circumstances between the modern US and France or Germany or Japan or South Africa or Brazil.
    The size of the country makes no difference what so ever.

    Since our amendment process is so arduous, the only way our Constitution is able to stay relevant is through modern interpretations of the Constitution.
    And why is that again? Why must you fail at reading to have a working country for today with the document given? Still no answer there.


    To the best of my knowledge, no nation in the world has a Constitution that has not been amended in any important way since 1920, which they follow to the letter of the law. Such a system would be completely unworkable given how much the world has changed.
    You still aren't saying anything in this post and that includes this part. How is it unworkable? Please tell me. Stop just repeating yourself over and over again. Thank you.

    Some religious fundamentalists seek to take an ancient holy text, apply the "original intent" to their modern societies (based on a blind faith that some wise people from previous generations understood their contemporary problems better than their contemporaries do), and let the chips fall where they may...even if it means turning the clock back centuries or millennia. This is essentially what constitutional fundamentalists seek to do as well. And the retort to "just amend the Constitution when you want to change it" is equivalent to saying you don't want it changed at all, given how difficult the amendment process it is.
    You really don't like how the Constitution is put together do you? Tell me, why does the government need new powers to advance as a society to work as a country? I still haven't gotten an answer there which I would think is the question to be asked.

    And I honestly don't care what religious people want. Stop acting like I do or that it actually has some sort of reason in your posts. It doesn't.

    Consider this: With the exception of the process to work out the initial kinks in the Constitution (1789-1804), and a few amendments passed at the barrel of a Union gun (1865-1870), there has been only one period in all of American history where major constitutional reforms were implemented: 1913-1920, at the height of the progressive era. That's it. In 200+ years. The utter dearth of important constitutional amendments throughout American history should be all the proof necessary to demonstrate that the amendment process is untenable for most things.
    It is supposed to be. How does that make a difference?
    Last edited by Henrin; 03-30-12 at 09:02 AM.

  6. #86
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Actually I said that the original intent is not followed. That is not the same as saying the Constitution is not followed. Nice try though!



    We have an 18th century document (with a few more recent amendments) that is simply outdated for today's world, if one were to follow the original intent of the law. Furthermore, the amendment process is generally not a workable solution; our constitutional amendment process is somewhere between extremely difficult and nearly impossible. Since the Bill of Rights, our Constitution has been amended only 17 additional times...and many of those amendments were for minor things. The last time it was amended for anything important was 1920.

    As a result, we are left with two choices: Stick with our 18th century document as is, or do not rely on a fundamentalist interpretation. And I hope that you aren't seriously going to suggest that sticking with a 200+ year old document as is, which hasn't even had an important amendment in nearly 100 years, is a viable model of governance in 2012.

    WOW. Man am I glad you are not a politician. For attitudes and beliefs like that are exactly what this country does not need. It goes right into my belief that the left really does not give a crap about the constitution and will do whatever they need to accomplish their idiotic ideas.

    Pathetic stuff.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  7. #87
    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 Henrin View Post
    The first has no part in the courts and the later is just failing to read to get what you want.
    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. 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.

    Where does it not allow it? Where is it impossible to have industrialized nation. Trying to get answers out of you is not being dense. Its called exploring..
    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.

    Not all constitutions are equal so that comparison fails on face value.
    I don't expect that our Constitution would work well if it were implemented in France or Japan or Brazil, any moreso than the French/Japanese/Brazilian constitutions would work well if we tried to implement them here. It's not a matter of one being "better" than the other in some objective sense (although some constitutions clearly don't work at all), it's a matter of different constitutions working better in some societies than others. The societal differences between the US and France/Japan/Brazil are simply too great for a constitution from one nation to work just as well in another...and the societal differences between the US circa 1789 and the US circa 2012 are vastly greater still.

    The size of the country makes no difference what so ever.
    It's not just a matter of size (although that is certainly part of it). It's also a matter of different history, different politics, different cultural values, different economic systems, etc.

    And why is that again? Why must you fail at reading to have a working country for today with the document given? Still no answer there.

    You still aren't saying anything in this post and that includes this part. How is it unworkable? Please tell me. Stop just repeating yourself over and over again. Thank you.
    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.

    2. The concept of environmentalism was almost totally unknown in 1789, aside from maybe a few minor issues like overfishing. 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.

    3. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, most people identified with their state first and their nation second. Today, it is the opposite. 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).

    You really don't like how the Constitution is put together do you?
    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. Furthermore, there are fundamental flaws in the document - like the amendment process itself - which the Founding Fathers could not possibly have imagined when they were writing it for a nation of 13 coastal colonies, instead of a continent spanning 50 states.

    Tell me, why does the government need new powers to advance as a society to work as a country? I still haven't gotten an answer there which I would think is the question to be asked.
    See above, re: fundamental differences in society today versus society in 1789. Our Constitution was written for a totally different country, and following an originalist interpretation of it now would be just as alien to modern American society as following the French Constitution would be.

    And I honestly don't care what religious people want. Stop acting like I do or that it actually has some sort of reason in your posts. It doesn't.
    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.

    It is supposed to be. How does that make a difference?
    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.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-30-12 at 10:36 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #88
    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

    On a side note, I'd just like to point out the logical fallacy of some originalists in presuming the Constitution was wisely-crafted because of how great America has become...and then lamenting the fact that we don't follow the Constitution. Considering that most of America's "greatness" occurred in the late 19th century and the 20th century (long after we abandoned an originalist interpretation of the Constitution), how do you know that strictly following the original intent of the Constitution would have led to greatness? Perhaps the value of our Constitution was in the fact that we HAVE interpreted it to fit modern times...or perhaps we're a great nation in spite of our antiquated Constitution.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-30-12 at 10:33 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #89
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    You have said the amendment process was bad. I think many disagree with you, and probably see your belief as just a realization on your part that the things you want done are not possible due to the amendment process, due to lack of support.

    Other than that, what exactly in the constitution is so 'out of date' that it does not fit 'current times'?
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    So if "Obama and the Dems" would have wasted their time pushing a bill that both you and they knew perfectly well couldn't have passed, you would have "listened." Wow, are you not generous. Somehow I think they were less concerned with whether or not you personally would "listen" for five minutes than they were with creating actual health care reform that could actually pass.

    Unfortunately it's now clear that ANY workable health care reform was going to be challenged in court. It didn't matter what it contained, how flimsy the legal ground, or what precedent would indicate. Republicans were hellbent on preventing health care reform, period, and would stop at nothing to achieve it. And unfortunately it looks like they may have convinced the Supreme Court to go along with it.

    It's fun to speculate what bull**** reason they might have come up with to challenge single-payer health care, had it actually passed Congress. And don't say that no one disputes its legality...what you really mean is that no one disputes its legality NOW, as was the case of the individual mandate just 3 years ago. If it actually became a law, you can bet that Republican politicians and conservative ideologues would be able to invent some constitutional reason out of thin air why it's somehow different than Medicare or the VA. And unfortunately I no longer have any confidence that the judicial system wouldn't have bought whatever bull**** they threw at it.
    Why is it so bad to ask for honest debate? Present your ideas to the American people and let us decide. Seems to me you are admitting single payer would never be accepted by the American people if it was openly discussed and you are defending trying to ram a program down our throats that we don't want and would never willingly accept. I would be for single payer if you could show me it would work better and less expensively than our current system, apparently your side can't do that.

Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •