What, no thread on health care yet?

oldsaw wrote: What works well for you is not the issue. After experiencing the questionable success of the US government's prowess in managing entitlement programs, people have no confidence in the claimed cost/benefit ratio of reform legislation. The economic melt-down has already resulted in life-style changes, and people are very aware of their personal roles in the failure. They also see how government and business actions factored in the downturn and are VERY wary of futher expansion and intrusion. People in the US are not against reform; they are against the contents of this specific bill, how the contents were realized, and that the government has ignored the most pressing issue - getting the economy on the right track.

Which is why, in my first post in this thread, I indicated that the bill seemed to please no one, and be the worst possible outcome for everyone, regardless of political stripe or inclination.

The legislation is flawed. The idea of socialized medicine has its flaws. The current US system is flawed. Completely privatized medicine is flawed. It may be that there is no answer to any of them, and that all have strengths and weaknesses.

But I will maintain that I do not live in a state with less freedoms because I have socialized health care. All states decide where to subsidize -- I don't get to deduct my mortgage interest from my income taxes, for example (which, in effect, subsidizes housing). If I want a house, I have to pay for it and not expect a subsidy in the form of a tax credit.

But I will maintain that I do not live in a state with less freedoms because I have socialized health care.

Absolutely agree. You have socialized health care because you live in a state with less freedoms.

;-)

(Before arguing, review your recent post of how Canada criminizes speech for the good of all...)

wcelliot wrote: Not really... history has shown that's the typical progression. Capitalism is the natural state of things and can exisit with no Government whatsoever... and is completely voluntary to participate in. A socialist state must use repressive Government power to force participation...(like fining you if you don't buy a certain product)... otherwise socialism falls apart to a capitalist black market... once a Government has that sort of power, it's already well down the road to totalitarianism. I guess it depends on your definition of "slavery", but if the Government forces you to work for them, takes a sizeable percentage of your productivity, but provides you with protection, housing, food, and healthcare... how is that so very different than living on a plantation? But often the frog in the pot vehemently denies that the water is heating up...

I still don't see how I am being forced to do anything in a "semi-socialist" system? I get healthcare and protection, but not food or housing. I still have all the rights and freedoms enshrined by our Charter -- I can say what I wish, meet with who I wish, unioinize if I wish, move if I wish, vote -- the list is comprehensive. Slaves had none of those rights, even when they were enshrined in the US Constitution.

Do you have an example of a system where people went from socialism to totalitarianism? I don't think there is an example of a state with constitutionally-enshrined rights and freedoms with the power to enforce those ideals, and where there is a practice of enforcing those ideals, where that has ever happened.

I can think of examples where people had "rights" in theory, but never in practice. But that's not limited to a socialist system.

wcelliot wrote: But I will maintain that I do not live in a state with less freedoms because I have socialized health care. Absolutely agree. You have socialized health care because you live in a state with less freedoms. ;-) (Before arguing, review your recent post of how Canada criminizes speech for the good of all...)

Better do some research on the hate law. How is it different than laws for slander or libel? Or shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theatre? Or any myriad of new offences under the Patriot Act. Or the example in Michigan from yesterday. All rights and freedoms have limits, in every state. Owining a firearm, for example, doesn't give you the right to shoot me

I say we all get together and actually round table this situation out.

I know of a club we can use that is good with binding litigation.

7969 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood, Ca., 90046

In reply to ZOO:

Canadian provinces already have laws against slander and libel. The addition of a "hate speech" statute would seem a further restriciton of personal expression, or addresses weaknesses in the laws in place.

Which is it?

I don't agree with hate speech laws, but even more retarded are US laws that criminalize swearing on TV, and radio.

Better do some research on the hate law. How is it different than laws for slander or libel? Or shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theatre? Or any myriad of new offences under the Patriot Act. Or the example in Michigan from yesterday. All rights and freedoms have limits, in every state. Owining a firearm, for example, doesn't give you the right to shoot me

If you can't tell the difference in criminalizing the speech of someone making a poltical statement (such as "gays shouldn't have legalized marriage because their behavior is a mental disorder"... which if I understand Canada law would be considered hate speech), shooting "fire" in a crowded theater, saying something personal slanderous or libelous (even these US law is much more liberal than that of Canada or the UK), and my shooting you, I'm afraid I can't explain much further...

The real problem is that those who espouse hate speech legislation in fact DO equate all those things.

ZOO wrote: The hyperbole in this thread is strong. Socialism to totalitarianism to slavery? Wow. That's a leap.

I suspect that your sarcasm gauge isn't registering properly. Maybe it needs a new sensor.

I still have all the rights and freedoms enshrined by our Charter -- I can say what I wish, meet with who I wish, unioinize if I wish, move if I wish, vote -- the list is comprehensive.

I once had a political science professor from the USSR. She used to argue that the USSR was more free than the US... using the same sort of reasoning that you do... and pointing out all the "postive rights" (ie. "the right to healthcare") that USSR citizens enjoyed.

They obviously didn't consider themselves slaves, but I did. I'll bet the people of China, Cuba, Iran, pre-WW2 Italy, Nazi Germany, and Chavezland would make the same arguments.

So I guess the definition of "slavery" has a lot to do with expectations. Some people are probably better off with a paternalistic Government rather than being able to exercise their own free will... that doesn't make them any less slaves to the state in my book.

wcelliot wrote: Better do some research on the hate law. How is it different than laws for slander or libel? Or shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theatre? Or any myriad of new offences under the Patriot Act. Or the example in Michigan from yesterday. All rights and freedoms have limits, in every state. Owining a firearm, for example, doesn't give you the right to shoot me If you can't tell the difference in criminalizing the speech of someone making a poltical statement (such as "gays shouldn't have legalized marriage because their behavior is a mental disorder"... which if I understand Canada law would be considered hate speech), shooting "fire" in a crowded theater, saying something personal slanderous or libelous (even these US law is much more liberal than that of Canada or the UK), and my shooting you, I'm afraid I can't explain much further... The real problem is that those who espouse hate speech legislation in fact DO equate all those things.

No, the issue is that identifiable groups (for example, based on sexual orientation) are protected as enshrined in our Charter. Personal speech is not part of hate legislation (meaning that people are free to be as ignorant or offensive as they wish). They just can\t do it in a public setting.

I love this debate -- thanks for keeping it friendly and thought-provoking, even when we disagree. GRM forums rock.

so....how did we get from health"care" to hate speech in 15 pages?

Personal speech is not part of hate legislation (meaning that people are free to be as ignorant or offensive as they wish). They just cant do it in a public setting.

Being able to publically state potentially unpopular beliefs is a basic tenet of free speech. How can there be the free exchange of ideas (say at a university) with one side of the debate silenced only only the politically correct side being heard?

Again, once you have the the Government declaring that is criminal speech and what isn't, that distinction is only a matter of current fashion.

"White males", "Christians", "conservatives", and "capitalists" are readily identifiable groups who have "hate speech" used against them daily... but I'll somehow bet there are few convictions of such offenses... that's what makes such laws unjust... aside from infringing on the basic human right to publicly make an E36M3 of yourself if you like...

Strizzo wrote: so....how did we get from health"care" to hate speech in 15 pages?

Being willing and able to control something so basic as speech is a clear example of the differences between a fully free society and one which can force their citizens to participate in a Govenrment program like socialized medicine.

wcelliot wrote: "White males", "Christians", "conservatives", and "capitalists" are readily identifiable groups who have "hate speech" used against them daily... but I'll somehow bet there are few convictions of such offenses... that's what makes such laws unjust... aside from infringing on the basic human right to publicly make an E36M3 of yourself if you like...

And that is a big part of why I don't like these laws

wcelliot wrote: Personal speech is not part of hate legislation (meaning that people are free to be as ignorant or offensive as they wish). They just cant do it in a public setting. Being able to publically state potentially unpopular beliefs is a basic tenet of free speech. How can there be the free exchange of ideas (say at a university) with one side of the debate silenced only only the politically correct side being heard?

There are, in my opinion, unpopular beliefs, and then there are things that are downright offensive and no reasoanble person would believe them. Advocating a gencoide based on religion is not something any reasonable person would find acceptable. And since we've protected sexual orientation within the charter (along with ethnicity, religion, and such) you cannot openly advocate hatred against homosexulaity, either.

I don't know that completely "free speech" would be tolerated in the US, either. I don't imagine you can publically incite rebellion against the lawful government without some sort of response in the US, can you (and I am being serious)?

Arguing about the difference between free speech between nations is something that a reasonable person would find engaging, on the other hand.

zomby woof wrote:

wcelliot wrote: "White males", "Christians", "conservatives", and "capitalists" are readily identifiable groups who have "hate speech" used against them daily... but I'll somehow bet there are few convictions of such offenses... that's what makes such laws unjust... aside from infringing on the basic human right to publicly make an E36M3 of yourself if you like...

And that is a big part of why I don't like these laws

Religion is protected in hate crime legislation in Canada. "White" would be a visible ethnicity. Capitalist -- not so much. But most Canadian capitlaists probably look like socialists compared to US capitalists (the spectrum is quite broad).

I don't think there are any examples of people promoting hatred against white males -- there is a big difference between criticism and hatred.

Ah... we can have a "rebellion" every 2- 4 years. We can over throw all the people that are in office and replace them with someone new, someone different and we can openly plan that. It's called an election.

Ever heard the phrase "Whitey holding me down"? Yeah, we're openly discriminated against in school funding, in the inability to open white male only schools, against us in the workplace ("equal opportunity").... and you don't see that?

Bobzilla wrote: Ah... we can have a "rebellion" every 2- 4 years. We can over throw all the people that are in office and replace them with someone new, someone different and we can openly plan that. It's called an election. Ever heard the phrase "Whitey holding me down"? Yeah, we're openly discriminated against in school funding, in the inability to open white male only schools, against us in the workplace ("equal opportunity").... and you don't see that?

We have elections, too. But can you openly incite a violent rebellion? Not likely. That's the restriction I am talking about.

I can't address anything in your second paragraph -- those issues are not familiar to me But they do seem to confirm that there are restrictions on your freedoms, which is how we ended up at this point in a thread about health care.

I don't think there are any examples of people promoting hatred against white males -- there is a big difference between criticism and hatred.

Yep, it depends completely who the "victim" is... the same action against one group is "hatred" while being only "criticism" against another.

Your example of homosexuality is an illustrative example of how "fashion" changes. In less than a generation, homosexuality moved from being considered a mental disorder with criminal penalties for its practice, to a mere sexual preference with no criminal penalites for its practice, to a protected minority against which (as you state) "no reasonable person" could defend speech against. I expect that 40 years ago, "no reasonable person" could defend speech in favor of the same thing... that's how "fashion" changes.

If such a lightning quick turnaround could happen for a practice almost univerally banned and shunned by virtually every society and religion since the beginning of time, it could happen to virtually any activity, etc...

(Not homophobic by any means... just using this as an example because it's such a dramtic change.)

How much of a stretch would it be to envision similar protections of a "Government Official while in the performance of their offical duties' which would suddenly stop all criticism of the Government?

Or the other way around... you get twenty years of Government controlled by the Religious Right... think you'd lie the definition of "protected categories" following that?

That's the "slippery slope" of hate speech.

In the US we can openly call for rebellion against the Government... we just can't make specific threats, etc.

Like the militia group that the Feds just rounded up... they have been spewing anti-Government, anti-Muslim hatred for years... but it wasn't until they allegedly developed a plan to actually do something that the Feds had cause to act.

Bill

I can't address anything in your second paragraph -- those issues are not familiar to me But they do seem to confirm that there are restrictions on your freedoms, which is how we ended up at this point in a thread about health care

You're making our own arguments for us. Restrictions on our freedoms brought about under the guise of protecting a "disadvantaged minority". Whenever the Government takes any action to "protect" one set of people they are invariably infringing on the rights of others. Same when the Government "provides" anything... to provide something to one group means depriving another group of their property and/or freedoms. A Government that has the ability to so infringe upon freedoms is the sort of Government able to impose socialized healthcare on its people...

In the US, the Government did not have the authority to do that, but the Constitution has been "reimagined" to the point that there are really no limitations on Government power.

Someone asked Nancy Pelosi where in the Constituion did the Government have the right to nationalize healthcare and wasn't a Constitutional Amendment Required. She actually laughed out loud and responded "Are you serious"? to what is actually a very reasonable question.

(Since the failure of the ERA in ther 70's leftists have been reinterprenting the Consitution to fit their agenda without seeing the need to actually Amend it... there is now a whole new theory of Constitutional law that holds what the Constituion actually says is unimportant... that judges should apply the basic "priniciples" which they think the Constitution "represents" to current situations... meaning "basically anything goes").

I recently had an Ivy League lawyer tell me that if the Consitutution didn't specifically prohibit the Government from doing something, then the Government was authorized to do it. Anyone with any background at all in Constitutional Law knows how screwed up that idea is... but this is the new crop of lawyers and judges who will be dictating our future....

wcelliot wrote: I can't address anything in your second paragraph -- those issues are not familiar to me But they do seem to confirm that there are restrictions on your freedoms, which is how we ended up at this point in a thread about health care You're making our own arguments for us. Restrictions on our freedoms brought about under the guise of protecting a "disadvantaged minority". Whenever the Government takes any action to "protect" one set of people they are invariably infringing on the rights of others. Same when the Government "provides" anything... to provide something to one group means depriving another group of their property and/or freedoms. A Government that has the ability to so infringe upon freedoms is the sort of Government able to impose socialized healthcare on its people...

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.

The US government has the ability to infringe upon freedoms based on your example -- simply by rasing taxes (and thereby taking your property). Those taxes are then used to support other people (welfare, Medicaid, etc) -- you may not receive the benefit.

Again, the two systems are more alike then they are different.

wcelliot wrote: I don't think there are any examples of people promoting hatred against white males -- there is a big difference between criticism and hatred. Yep, it depends completely who the "victim" is... the same action against one group is "hatred" while being only "criticism" against another. Your example of homosexuality is an illustrative example of how "fashion" changes. In less than a generation, homosexuality moved from being considered a mental disorder with criminal penalties for its practice, to a mere sexual preference with no criminal penalites for its practice, to a protected minority against which (as you state) "no reasonable person" could defend speech against. I expect that 40 years ago, "no reasonable person" could defend speech in favor of the same thing... that's how "fashion" changes. If such a lightning quick turnaround could happen for a practice almost univerally banned and shunned by virtually every society and religion since the beginning of time, it could happen to virtually any activity, etc... (Not homophobic by any means... just using this as an example because it's such a dramtic change.) How much of a stretch would it be to envision similar protections of a "Government Official while in the performance of their offical duties' which would suddenly stop all criticism of the Government? Or the other way around... you get twenty years of Government controlled by the Religious Right... think you'd lie the definition of "protected categories" following that? That's the "slippery slope" of hate speech. In the US we can openly call for rebellion against the Government... we just can't make specific threats, etc. Like the militia group that the Feds just rounded up... they have been spewing anti-Government, anti-Muslim hatred for years... but it wasn't until they allegedly developed a plan to actually _do_ something that the Feds had cause to act. Bill

Another fascinating example, to be sure. But if you replace the words homosexual with "African American" or "Asian" you could make almost the same argument, but earlier in history. Any eugenics beleifs have long been discredited -- we know that actual brain size has little to do with intelligence, for example. But 100 years ago you would have scientists who believed that "race" could explain intelligence, amongst many other ideas.

We've come a long way in promoting tolerance and acceptance of diversity based on the ideals from the American Revolution (all men are created equal). That evolution has occurred based on actions around the free world, including the US, Canada, and countries in Europe.

Again, a great, thought-provoking discussion.

zomby woof wrote: I don't agree with hate speech laws, but even more retarded are US laws that criminalize swearing on TV, and radio.

Well, the good news is we aren't subjected to 10 Alanis Morrisette and Anne Murray songs for every American tune, and we don't have to watch 50 episodes of "You Can't Do That on Television" per episode of "My Name is Earl."

Thanks CRTC!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Radio-television_and_Telecommunications_Commission

(Note: The purpose of this post was solely for comic relief. I can't actually sit down and type a long, logical argument in this thread, or my head may ass-plode.)

wcelliot wrote: How much of a stretch would it be to envision similar protections of a "Government Official while in the performance of their offical duties' which would suddenly stop all criticism of the Government? That's the "slippery slope" of hate speech. In the US we can openly call for rebellion against the Government... we just can't make specific threats, etc.

The interesting thing is what's happened to Canada since we adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It empowered our Supreme Court (some would say too much) to overthrow repressive legislation from governement. So in Canada there is a check against totalitarian government control (as there is in the US, I believe). The "slippery slope" does have someone to cast sand upon it, at any rate.

Anyone charged under hate crime legislation could end up having their case heard by our Supreme Court. More often than not the Supreme Court has held the governemnt in check.

We can openly call for rebellion,,too -- and indeed one could, in Quebec at least, vote for political parties advocating the seccession of that proivince from Canada. Sometimes the national party that calls for this holds the balance of power in our House of Commons. Surprisingly, it all works out.