What, no thread on health care yet?

I just cannot see how someone in the US can claim to have more "freedom" than I do based on socialized healthcare. That's the line of reason I am not following. The point that you suggest supports your argument clarifies that there are restrictions on the freedoms of Americans, too

I was making the opposite argument.. that you have socialized healthcare because you live in a country with less freedom. If the US still had the freedoms that our Founding fathers intended, we wouldn't have the upcoming socialized healthcare either... because the Government would not have the power to enact it.

In the US, the Supreme Court is more often the enabler of more totalitariaism... as I suspect your court is... both under the guise of guranteeing something to someone... the more Goverment power is increased (even if it's the power to "do good") the more individual liberties are sacrified. It's never a "win-win" situation... though it's typically made out to be.

Bill

wcelliot wrote: In the US, the Supreme Court is more often the enabler of more totalitariaism... as I suspect your court is... both under the guise of guranteeing something to someone... the more Goverment power is increased (even if it's the power to "do good") the more individual liberties are sacrified. It's never a "win-win" situation... though it's typically made out to be. Bill

I am willing to consider this standpoint -- but I haven't seen examples of it in any of my research about the Charter and its implementation. Then again, as you may have guessed, I am a pretty strong supporter of it, so I hadn't been looking for it.

Can you elaborate -- for example, if someone takes an issue to the US Supreme Court because it violates their first amendment rights, for example, and it is found that indeed that's the case -- how does that enable totalitarianism?

I'll add you to my "buy a beer list", too, Bill.

In reply to ZOO:

Not reference to a First Amendment case, but a curious (and furiously debated) decision on "eminent domain" immediately comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Sadly, the land "legally procurred" sits empty as development was (later) considered as a financial loss-maker. The damage was done because a precedent was set in that government can subvert the Consitutionally-based concept of personal land-ownership, in the name of pursuing tax revenue.

This was a lose-lose-lose-lose case; the individual, the city, the developer and US citizens gained nothing in the decision.

Great example oldsaw.

In first amendment cases it's typically the Supreme Court deciding that a right was not violated... but let's say that the Dixie Chicks bring a First Amendment case to the USSC that a radio station, broadcasting on publicly-owned airwaves, refused to play their music because of a political comment they made.

If the Court decided that since the airwaves were publicly owned and that the station's owners had indeed infringed on the Chick's rights, then the Government would begin enforcing free market companies to alter their behavior in order NOT to infringe on such rights... that's a step toward totalitarianism under the guise of protecting rights.

Not such a far-fetched idea... the Dems are already talking these principles to shut down talk radio...

If you believe private corporations should have the same rights as individuals, I suppose. Does the US Supreme Court have the power to overturn the law -- that is, rule it unconstitutional?

Another great point... and one of contention. A corporation is nothing more than a collection of individuals. So if you say that a radio station, as an example, does not have the right to broadcast what it wants to, you are saying that the individual who owns that radio station are not allowed to broadcast what they want to... once you have the Government telling a radio station what it may and may not broadcast, just how close to totalitarianism is that?

The USSC does indeed have the power to overturn an unconstitutional law (or one they deem unconstitutional) but it's a political organization as well subject to fashion trends. it's currently split between Justices that think the Constitution should be interpreted as written and those who think the concepts should be used (along with precedents in international law having nothing at all to do with the Constitution). They are less likely to overturn an questinable law than they are to uphold it as being constitutional, ushering in even more power to the Government. (For example there is little chance they will overturn the current healthcare law... even though it would have once been clearly seen as an unconstitutional power grab by the Government.)

ZOO wrote: If you believe private corporations should have the same rights as individuals, I suppose. Does the US Supreme Court have the power to overturn the law -- that is, rule it unconstitutional?

In a word, yes!

Said law has to be challenged in the courts and work its' way up to the Supremes. It is their job to review law and declare if it meets Constituional demands.

Obviously, as in the Kelo case, they system is not perfect. However, the upside of the federal decision toward eminent domain is that it prompted individual states to enact laws limiting such abuse on a state level.

It is good that our founding fathers designed a system that mandates the states have more control (over internal affairs) than the federals. This is why states have filed suit to contend the legality of the HC reform bill.

If the SCOTUS validates the bill, we'll see an unprecendented expansion of federal control. If it is refuted, the feds will have received a well-deserved smack-down (IMHO).

wcelliot wrote: A corporation is nothing more than a collection of individuals.

To me, there is a fundamental difference. You can't sanction a corporation the way you can sancition an individual if it misbehaves (for example, negligence causing death). Sure you can levy a fine, but what about incarceration? It seems to me that treating the corporation as an individual gives it all of the rights of a citizen, but without the same degree of responsibillity. That may or may not be a good thing.

Rob

wcelliot wrote: Another great point... and one of contention. A corporation is nothing more than a collection of individuals. So if you say that a radio station, as an example, does not have the right to broadcast what it wants to, you are saying that the individual who owns that radio station are not allowed to broadcast what they want to... once you have the Government telling a radio station what it may and may not broadcast, just how close to totalitarianism is that?

Whatever your point is, your premise that "A corporation is nothing more than a collection of individuals" does not even remotely describe in short form or otherwise the legal status an individual holds in any of the forms of corporations we have here in the states. Your premise is pretty much the opposite of what a short description of a corporation would be. A member of a corporation give up many of their legal rights and gains indemnity from liabilities within the defined legal structure of the corporation. The corporation has legal rights similar to an individual.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

"is this a hotlink?"

Actually, company officers can be personally incarerated. And there are a lot of "single owner" corporations.

I'm not saying that a corporation is due all the rights and protections that an individual is, but you have to measure the infringement of the rights of the individual.

Using your examples to an extreme would be a country like China. Like Canada, the Chinese are allowed to say anything they want to, just not in a public forum. And Chinese corporations are controlled by what they can do and say by the Chinese Government. Radio and TV content is controlled by the Chinese Govenrment. Internet access is controlled by the Chinese Goverment... ALL supposedly for the good of the society...

They claim to be "more free" than the US or Canada... this is the natural evoution of collectist thought that values the good of society over the rights of the indivdual... and that's really what this debate is all about. Hitler did everything he did "for the good of society", as did Mao, Stalin, Lenin, etc...

Bill

wcelliot wrote: Hitler did everything he did "for the good of society", as did Mao, Stalin, Lenin, etc... Bill

Of course, he would have been arrested under our hate crime legislation:

It does come down to the idea of the collective versus the individual -- and I suspect that there is quite a spectrum, reflected by China at one end. I don't really know who would be on the other end, where it is all about the individual.

Rob

ignorant wrote:

Shaun wrote: Read some Ayn Rand ferchrisake.

you are cut off. Don't go throwing that whacko around...

I start to short circuit and melt into a bundle of confusion when Iggy and I agree. I don't even know how to act...

It does come down to the idea of the collective bersus the individual -- and I suspect that there is quite a spectrum, reflected by China at one end. I don't really know who would be on the other end, where it is all about the individual.

Rob

It was once the US. Unique in the history of civilization to recognize the rights of the individual over that of the "people" (Government) or king. That's what makes the fall so painful.

Bill

wcelliot wrote: It was once the US. Unique in the history of civilization to recognize the rights of the individual over that of the "people" (Government) or king. That's what makes the fall so painful. Bill

QFT. It's not that this particular issue - health care reform - represents the tipping point of socialism vs. non-socialism. It's just that we've slid so far so fast in the last 4 years or so that those of us who truly believe this is Change for the worse are getting pretty uptight.

Shaun wrote:

wcelliot wrote: Another great point... and one of contention. A corporation is nothing more than a collection of individuals. So if you say that a radio station, as an example, does not have the right to broadcast what it wants to, you are saying that the individual who owns that radio station are not allowed to broadcast what they want to... once you have the Government telling a radio station what it may and may not broadcast, just how close to totalitarianism is that?

Whatever your point is, your premise that "A corporation is nothing more than a collection of individuals" does not even remotely describe in short form or otherwise the legal status an individual holds in any of the forms of corporations we have here in the states. Your premise is pretty much the opposite of what a short description of a corporation would be. A member of a corporation give up many of their legal rights and gains indemnity from liabilities within the defined legal structure of the corporation. The corporation has legal rights similar to an individual..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation "is this a hotlink?"

Corporations are people too....

http://murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html <-- A corporation is running for congress you know..

http://murrayhillweb.com/new_day/index.html

http://murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html <

SVreX wrote:

ignorant wrote:

Shaun wrote: Read some Ayn Rand ferchrisake.

you are cut off. Don't go throwing that whacko around...

I start to short circuit and melt into a bundle of confusion when Iggy and I agree. I don't even know how to act...

you and me need to sit down some day and have a "insert beverage of choice"... I think we'd both find it interesting..

This is the internets after all, I am not like this in person. Jensenman can attest to that.

Zoo,

These guys are covering most of what I have found. I actually sat down and read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It and the Constitution are very similar. The main difference I found is most Canadian rights are held by the people as a group. What is good for the group is more important that what is good for the individual. The US Constitution on the other hand concerns the rights of the individual. The group is not as important. The other thing that stood out is a lack of property rights in the Canadian Charter. Several comparison reports I read pointed this out.

We have true freedom of speech in the US. The KKK still marches in some of the smaller towns in south. They still spout off their racist and homophobic speech. Legally they can do that. I could walk up to a black police officer and call him the N word or call my next door neighbors fags and not be in trouble. (not that I would) Hate crimes come into affect when someone commits a racially motivated crime. If someone kills, robs, or injures a person because of his race, religion, or sexual orientation then it becomes a hate crime. The speech isn't unlawful, just the act.

I can also stand on a street corner and call for the overthrow of the government. That is free speech. I can call the president a worthless socialist pig. That's free speech. I can call congress a bunch of spineless two bit power grabbing weasels that should all be behind bars for breaking their oaths to uphold the Constitution. That's free speech. I can almost promise you the government will be overthrown in 2010 and 2012. At the rate the congress is going there might not be any incumbents coming back. We'll probably end up with another group of worthless butt heads again, but they will be different butt heads.

You are comfortable with the liberties you do and don't have therefore you are free. I am becoming less comfortable about the liberties we are loosing. Maybe you are more free than I am after all.

Toyman01 wrote: Zoo, These guys are covering most of what I have found. I actually sat down and read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It and the Constitution are very similar. The main difference I found is most Canadian rights are held by the people as a group. What is good for the group is more important that what is good for the individual. The US Constitution on the other hand concerns the rights of the individual. The group is not as important. The other thing that stood out is a lack of property rights in the Canadian Charter. Several comparison reports I read pointed this out. You are comfortable with the liberties you do and don't have therefore you are free. I am becoming less comfortable about the liberties we are loosing. Maybe you are more free than I am after all.

This is an interesting perspective -- and one that we are increasingly hearing attributed to a more "Native American" or "Metis" approach to our governmental system (see John Ralston Saul). This does connotate a sense of "community" rather than "individualism", and does stand in contrast to the "frontier mentality" so important to American history and experience.

As for property rights -- my interpretation is that they are part of the "life, liberty, and security of the person" phrasing of our document (in contrast to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). It is an interesting and noteworthy distinction, though.

Freedom is likely a state of mind -- and I can certainly understand your opinions about freedoms and liberties if you feel you are losing yours. I'd be irate, too, if I felt my Charter rights and freedoms were being infringed upon by government action (in Canada, it often takes the form of repealing laws guaranteeing equality to same-sex marriages, for example). I'm not a fan of repealing rights that have been previously recognized, either -- even if gay marriage is a non-issue to me as a heterosexual man in a traditional marriage.

Thanks for reading the posts, and reflecting upon the debate. This forum rocks. Someday I'll meet more of you for beer (Canadian, and American -- I like one called Fat Tire from the US, and Rolling Rock, and I want to try Yeungling).

ignorant wrote:

SVreX wrote:

ignorant wrote:

Shaun wrote: Read some Ayn Rand ferchrisake.

you are cut off. Don't go throwing that whacko around...

I start to short circuit and melt into a bundle of confusion when Iggy and I agree. I don't even know how to act...

you and me need to sit down some day and have a "insert beverage of choice"... I think we'd both find it interesting.. This is the internets after all, I am not like this in person. Jensenman can attest to that.

Dude can drink some beer.

The main difference I found is most Canadian rights are held by the people as a group. What is good for the group is more important that what is good for the individual. The US Constitution on the other hand concerns the rights of the individual.

In a nutshell, this is the difference between Europe and the US and from this particular perspective, Canada is much closer to the European model.

The French Revolution is often compared to the US Revolution as establishing the modern political enviornment of the "West". And there are many similarites.

But the differences are actually huge... and underscore the differences that we're discussing here today.

The French Revolution was to assert the rights of the people (as a society) over their sovereign. I don't want to undersell the value of the French Revoution... it was indeed highly significant and absolutely crucial in bring Europe into the modern age.

But with the rights held by the "people", it naturally follows that the "people" determine what is best for society as a whole, a philosophical environment that is not incapatible with the concept of socialism. When combined with the long shared history of a parternalistic soveriegn results in the ready acceptance of an activist Government (as well as being more prone to turn over significant power to charismatic leaders, especially in times of perceived crisis).

The American Revolution, on the other hard, was almost unique in history in establishing the concept of natural individual rights... rights which cannot be granted by a Government, only recognized. (The 1320 Declaration of Arbroath made similar assertions, just not as clearly.)

Philosophically, this belief in indivdual rights establishes the rights of the inidivdual not only over their sovereign, but over the "people" as well... not allowing the "people" to usurp these rights even if by democratic means.

The Founders strictly limited the power of the Federal Government to infringe on individiual rights (and to that end necessarily limited Federal Government functions)

Obviously there are additional functions desirable of Government, but these were reserved for state governments, where the people whose rights were being infringed upon in order to provide those services could demand more direct accountability.

The Founders could not have envisioned that their Constitution would simply be ignored when convenient in order to allow popular Federal programs to be formed... which has led to the now virtually unlimited expansion and power of the Federal Government.

(Though it can be argued that failing to allow states to seceed was the first overreaching Federal action, the first clear step to socialism was the New Deal program. FDR threatened the SCOTUS that if they didn't ratify his New Deal as constitituonal, he would expand the number of justices and pack the court with juctices that he could control... so in the end under duress they found much of the New Deal program constitutionally acceptable under the Interstate Commerce clause. Not conidentnally, guess what Constitutional authority Congress is citing for the health Care bill? If you actually read the clause... and the intentions of the clause... it's easy to see how inapplicable it is in both cases.)

Come on guys, you're killing me. I got out of school so I wouldn't have to study this kind of stuff. Now you're making me dig back into it again.

Zoo, thanks for an intelligent reply. I think as long as you are happy with the way your government works, that is great. One of my concerns about the way the current and previous government is doing things is:

That number is the current US national debit. Over the last three years that number has grown by 4.02 Billion per day. This isn't a republican problem or a democratic problem. This is a everybody problem. It's not about pissing money away on health care or a war in what ever third world country we decide to blow the crap out of this month. It's about spending money we don't have. If the American people want government run health care, fine. (general consensus at the moment they don't) Do it by the book, by the constitution and figure out how to pay for it in cash. Don't tack another trillion dollars of debit on a overloaded system. How about cut spending on all the crap that doesn't help people. That would be a novel approach for congress. Every time they come up with a new entitlement program, they dip into my pocket to pay for it and then turn around an spend twice what they take. I paid over $60K in business and personal taxes and licensing for 2009. I work myself and my two employees 50-60 hours a week because I can't afford to hire any additional people. This new health care law means I will never be able to hire more than 5 people. I own a construction company. The new law call for any construction company with over 5 employees to supply health care to all employees. My profit margins won't allow that. The companies I compete with are multi-billion dollar companies (Stanley Works, Assa-Abloy, look them up) that can and in a lot of cases already do. In the mean time I have to beg money from the government and school grants to send my daughter to college next year. Something is wrong with that and it really pisses me off. Congress thinks they are so smart. Why can't they balance a budget. The guy flipping burgers at McDonalds can do it. Hell, I can do it in business and at home and I didn't even graduate from high school.

Wcelliot, great post even though I had to read it three times to get it to sink in. That describes to a T where most of the Tea Party people and I for that fact stand. The truly conservative people in this country are just now waking up to what has happened to the country and the constitution over the last 100 years. Obama is doing a fine job of driving the point home. We will see where things stand after the next election. I'm just glad we have a peaceable way to change things around here.

All I want from the US government is Minimal Government. Keep the borders secure, keep the law enforced, and leave me the hell alone to take care of my self and my family. Unfortunately the US government has been taken over by a bunch of corrupt people who buy votes with tax dollars. As long as that happens the sheeple sill try to vote them in and I will try to vote the out.

This post is a little jumbled. I might edit it later for clarity.

Good discussions, thanks.

Toyman01 wrote: sheeple

there is that word again

ignorant wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: sheeple

there is that word again

Sorry about that Iggy, I forgot how much it drives you crazy.

Toyman and I agree. Deficit spending will be the death of this nation, the grandest experiment in freedom ever.

Maybe that means the sheeple who continue to vote back in the goobers who ladle out the freebies from the Treasury don't deserve freedom since they don't understand what it's really all about.

Maybe the natural state of most people is in bondage to others.

Damn that sucks.

Jensenman wrote: Toyman and I agree. Deficit spending will be the death of this nation, the grandest experiment in freedom ever.

Buffet worries not about the spending deficit.. It's the trade deficit that bothers him.. I think he's right. I'm not worried about our deficit.. I'm worried about our will and resolve to actually create value in this country. But.. What the hell do I know.. I'm only a stupid liberal...