4th Great Awakening in American History

[Phatscotty]

[The Bison King]

Maybe the 4th great awakening is when we realize "Hey we can't keep do this likes, this, and learn moderation" awakening. Our economies busted and we've got a gulf filled with oil. Maybe it's time that we Invest money into research to fund alternative fuel sources. We would all settle down and live moderate lives with a smaller ecological impact. We would buy less, we wouldn't replace things that we could just live with being slightly less than perfect. We'd learn to recycle buildings for longer periods of time, rather than knocking them down for newer bigger malls, that no body goes to anymore.

I doubt that this is the wake up call anyone's getting but it would be nice.

[jonesthecurl]

Ring Ring

WAKE UP!

[InkL0sed]

I haven't read this thread, but you are aware that the Great Awakening refers to religion in American history?

[gatoraubrey2]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It does not refer to rights guaranteed to Americans, but it does certainly give an idea of what our founders were looking for. In the context of the Declaration, this means freedom from a government which denied them "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If we're going to extrapolate the Declaration, which is not a legally binding document and doesn't refer in any way to what the new government would or wouldn't do, into a formula for how the founders would have wanted the country to function, then do it properly. The founders would not have wanted a government which denied its citizens "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That's not the issue with healthcare. The issue now, is whether the government will "provide" life. I'm perfectly content with their not taking my life away. I will provide my own life, by working for the money which will provide my food, shelter, and healthcare, as well as the other things I need to sustain my life.

In addition, proponents of government funded healthcare or any other socialist programs are taking away one of the above-named rights in order to give me another. They are limiting my liberty to earn as much as I want, and to spend it as I want. I should have the right to earn unlimited funds, as my skill dictates, and then to spend it as I choose. Without economic liberty to match my physical and intellectual liberty, my freedom is not complete.

I've heard it argued that you're not taking away my liberty, you're just limiting it a bit to give me the comfort of knowing I'll have healthcare. But wait, when the Patriot Act was the hot debate, what was your favorite quote? Ben Franklin, wasn't it, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both." Not quite so convenient for your viewpoint in this case, eh? It seems like a bit of a liberal double standard: "It's acceptable to deny liberties, but only the liberties that we aren't too fond of. Like the second amendment. And anything regarding the economy."

I'm coming into this argument late, and this post doesn't begin to address some of what I've seen so far in this thread, but I don't intend to write a novel off the bat. Anyone disagree?

[King Doctor]

I've heard it argued that you're not taking away my liberty, you're just limiting it a bit to give me the comfort of knowing I'll have healthcare. But wait, when the Patriot Act was the hot debate, what was your favorite quote? Ben Franklin, wasn't it, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both." Not quite so convenient for your viewpoint in this case, eh? It seems like a bit of a liberal double standard: "It's acceptable to deny liberties, but only the liberties that we aren't too fond of. Like the second amendment. And anything regarding the economy."

I find it very difficult to contort the definition of 'liberty' to make it at odds with 'requiring corporations to extend coverage to the weak and the poor, who need it most, instead of just letting them rot'. Perhaps you could explain how you're managing it?

[gatoraubrey2]

I find it very difficult to contort the definition of 'liberty' to make it at odds with 'requiring corporations to extend coverage to the weak and the poor, who need it most, instead of just letting them rot'. Perhaps you could explain how you're managing it?

I should have the liberty to spend the money that I earn wherever and however I like, and not be forced to pay taxes for a program that I do not support and do not intend to take advantage of.

Corporations, which have been defined as being entitled to the same rights as people multiple times by the Supreme Court, should have the liberty to deny service to anyone who is unable to pay, and, deeper than that, to anyone they choose not to serve. The owner or stockholders of a company take on the financial risk associated with running a business; therefore, they should have the liberty to run that business in the way that they deem most fit.

EDIT: Also, using the word

requiring

is

at odds

with liberty. If I am free, I am not required to commit any action. My sole requirement is not to infringe upon the liberty of others, by an action of my own.

[King Doctor]

I should have the liberty to spend the money that I earn wherever and however I like, and not be forced to pay taxes for a program that I do not support and do not intend to take advantage of.

Nobody is taking the first right away from you.

Second, if that's your stance; then are you also happy with people who don't intend to drive being forced to pay taxes for the upkeep of roads? Or for those who don't support overseas wars being taxed to pay for foreign invasions? What about those who can afford private security not paying for the police?

Presumably that's all ok with you?

Corporations, which have been defined as being entitled to the same rights as people multiple times by the Supreme Court, should have the liberty to deny service to anyone who is unable to pay, and, deeper than that, to anyone they choose not to serve.

But of course.

But people, who as you have already conceded are owners of certain inalienable rights, ought not have no recourse to basic care simply because of their financial situation.

If I am free, I am not required to commit any action. My sole requirement is not to infringe upon the liberty of others, by an action of my own.

Your second statement contradicts your first.

Second, if you accept your first statement, then you would have to concede that every inhabitant of post-constitution America has been 'un-free'.

In other words, while what you say is a very dramatic sounding proclamation of 'freedom', it doesn't actually articulate it in any meaningful or achievable sense of the word (indeed, I suspect that your own political views would seek to deny 'freedom' to many).

[Iliad]

I find it very difficult to contort the definition of 'liberty' to make it at odds with 'requiring corporations to extend coverage to the weak and the poor, who need it most, instead of just letting them rot'. Perhaps you could explain how you're managing it?

I should have the liberty to spend the money that I earn wherever and however I like, and not be forced to pay taxes for a program that I do not support and do not intend to take advantage of.

So if you don't want to, you shouldn't have to pay taxes for roads. If you're really rich and can just jet and helicopter to anywhere you need. The highways can rot for all you care, you don't have to be forced to pay taxes fro a program you don't support or take advantage of.

Also f*ck the army. You've bought yourself enough guns and ammunition for a platoon, you don't need the army. Plus you live far from the border and large cities so the others will soak up the damage if need be/ You don't have to be forced to pay taxes for a program you don't intend to use.

You reckon you got a good chance of not getting cancer, Alzheimers, diabetes, etc. Screw the medical research. You don't have to pay taxes for a program you don't support.

You're not really that interested in chemistry or physics either. You're not using NASA and all the other research facilities, they can go and f*ck themselves. You don't have to pay taxes for a program you don't support.

Not a fanatic of art or literature either. You don't have to fund Art galleries.Libraries can rot as well, then.

You've got a good house with in-built sprinklers and expensive but effective anti-fire infrastructure. You don't need to pay taxes to fund firemen, you disagree with that!

You don't have any kids; why should you have to be taxed for education? You disagree with this tax and don't have to pay for it.

You're well respected and partly feared, no-one will move against you. Why do you have to pay taxes for the police and the legal system? If you do not support this program you don't have to pay taxes right?

With this hypothetical I've uncovered how this liberty of yours seems to be trampled everywhere. It's almost as this "liberty" is really against the entire notion of taxation itself rather than just healthcare. If we really apply your liberty to the real world than surely people should have the freedom to not pay taxes for any of options above if they don't want to, just as you insist that liberty should extend to you regarding healthcare?

Corporations, which have been defined as being entitled to the same rights as people multiple times by the Supreme Court, should have the liberty to deny service to anyone who is unable to pay, and, deeper than that, to anyone they choose not to serve. The owner or stockholders of a company take on the financial risk associated with running a business; therefore, they should have the liberty to run that business in the way that they deem most fit.

Well that sounds just great! Look how great it's working out for healthcare: as soon as people actually get sick with a serious disease, ie cancer, and need ongoing treatment to survive, they get labeled with "pre-existing condition" their insurance skyrockets to the point many cannot afford it anymore. So when they actually get sick and require treatment which they have been paying for, the company decides it will not be in their interests to provide that. And they can, because they should be able to ran their business in the way they deem most fit.

I don't know, but maybe we should have people in charge of these things who have our well-being as their priority, and not profit and are held accountable. If you disagree we should enforce consistency then and have private police and fire fighting forces. Sure they will not help the people they need most, because that is at odds with having profit as your top priority.

[gatoraubrey2]

I should have the liberty to spend the money that I earn wherever and however I like, and not be forced to pay taxes for a program that I do not support and do not intend to take advantage of.

Nobody is taking the first right away from you.

If you're taking and spending my money before I even touch it, then yes, you are taking away my liberty to spend it whenever and however I like.

But people, who as you have already conceded are owners of certain inalienable rights, ought not have no recourse to basic care simply because of their financial situation.

As I've already said, people have the right not to have their lives, liberties, or pursuit of happiness taken from them by the government. This in no way suggests that the government is responsible for providing any of the three. Lack allows me to pursue as much happiness as I want on his website, but I don't hold him responsible for making me enjoy it.

Your second statement contradicts your first.

Second, if you accept your first statement, then you would have to concede that every inhabitant of post-constitution America has been 'un-free'.

Again, there is a discernible difference between being prohibited from doing something, and having that prohibition extended to force one to take positive action against that first something.


As for the examples of tax-funded programs provided by Iliad and King Doctor, they fall into three categories. The military, roadways, and the court system are mandated in the Constitution as responsibilities of the federal government. It would be a violation of law for the government not to fund them. The police and firemen, as well as state and local courts, have nothing to do with the federal government, and therefore are irrelevant in a discussion about a federal-level program funded by federal-level taxes. The third category includes examples like art, literature, science, education, medical research, and healthcare. These are areas in which the federal government does interfere, but have no Constitutional right to do so. The fact that they are partially funded and partially regulated by the federal government doesn't make it right, it simply shows the progressive, socialist direction that presidents like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Barack Obama have lead this country.

All of these arguments, however, are simply a distraction from the heart of the matter. The following is a proof, demonstrating that the establishment of a federal healthcare plan is a violation of the liberties of the American people.

1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare, nor to impose a tax to fund said healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

Finally,

(indeed, I suspect that your own political views would seek to deny 'freedom' to many).

I would appreciate if you would refrain from commenting upon my political views unless you are quite sure what they are. It is accusations of this kind that prohibit mutual enlightenment and respect. These are usually the actions of one who knows that his statements are not holding up to a logical argument, and who seeks to sidetrack the discussion into an orgy of mud-flinging and name-calling in an effort to distract from the fact that his claims are being disproved. Do it again, if you want to show one and all that you're incapable of sustaining an intelligent debate.

[gatoraubrey2]

Bump.

I've seen my opponents in this debate all over the forums today, yet I have not seen them in this thread. Can it be that they have no response to my above assertion?

[Phatscotty]

Bump.

I've seen my opponents in this debate all over the forums today, yet I have not seen them in this thread. Can it be that they have no response to my above assertion?

on to the next one...take it as a compliment

[Frigidus]

If you're taking and spending my money before I even touch it, then yes, you are taking away my liberty to spend it whenever and however I like.

So, just to clarify, you are saying that taxation for any purpose is wrong?

As for the examples of tax-funded programs provided by Iliad and King Doctor, they fall into three categories. The military, roadways, and the court system are mandated in the Constitution as responsibilities of the federal government. It would be a violation of law for the government not to fund them.

Who cares if something is or is not a law? How does a law change your broader philosophy that taxation is a violation of liberty? Considering that the Constitution did not descend from on high, it is meaningless in a discussion about what is and is not just.

The police and firemen, as well as state and local courts, have nothing to do with the federal government, and therefore are irrelevant in a discussion about a federal-level program funded by federal-level taxes.

So you feel that your money can be taken away from you on a local scale but not a national scale? Why?

The third category includes examples like art, literature, science, education, medical research, and healthcare. These are areas in which the federal government does interfere, but have no Constitutional right to do so. The fact that they are partially funded and partially regulated by the federal government doesn't make it right, it simply shows the progressive, socialist direction that presidents like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Barack Obama have lead this country.

Are you saying that you are opposed to libraries, universal education, and essential research that would not otherwise be done? And again, the Constitution thing. Is something a violation of rights (a concept without national borders) in one country and acceptable in another depending on what is law at the time?

All of these arguments, however, are simply a distraction from the heart of the matter. The following is a proof, demonstrating that the establishment of a federal healthcare plan is a violation of the liberties of the American people.

This should be good.

1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."

OK, I don't usually define broad ideas like "liberty" in less than 10 words, but we can roll with that.

2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare, nor to impose a tax to fund said healthcare.

Right, this is getting repetitive. What is it about this country that we so readily label something as evil because it violates a document that was written in another age? I personally like the majority of the ideas in the Constitution, but I won't defend those ideas just by saying "it's in the Constitution". It's a logical fallacy. Proof fail.

[AAFitz]

Funny

I thought it was centuries of cultural superiority and greater work ethic as evidenced by yield.

I stand corrected. It was all 'luck'.

If you think you live the life you lead because you are superior in some way to someone who happens to be born somewhere else, you truly need to be corrected.

Further, compare your supposed work ethic to some kid who grew up in china. Or even brazil. Your work ethic is a vacation compared to many of their work histories. And perhaps you think you would be one of the few to rise out of such a system because you truly are more gifted, superior, intelligent, or have been born with a greater work ethic...but heres the thing...if your mom didnt feed you enough, youd have died. If you got sold as a prostitute youd have died. And if your only option was to go work in a factory at age 9 or die, making what you spend on a cup of coffee a day...youd have done that...but make no mistake, you would not have simply rose above it all because of your insane belief that you are somehow superior. If you got out of that beginning, there no doubt would have been work involved, but most definitely, luck, would have been the most important factor.

He did not say it was all luck. He said that you were lucky as hell to be born here and not somewhere else. If you ignore that, or worse, are too stupid to realized it, than all the benefits you've enjoyed have been wasted.

[gatoraubrey2]

If you're taking and spending my money before I even touch it, then yes, you are taking away my liberty to spend it whenever and however I like.

So, just to clarify, you are saying that taxation for any purpose is wrong?

As for the examples of tax-funded programs provided by Iliad and King Doctor, they fall into three categories. The military, roadways, and the court system are mandated in the Constitution as responsibilities of the federal government. It would be a violation of law for the government not to fund them.

Who cares if something is or is not a law? How does a law change your broader philosophy that taxation is a violation of liberty? Considering that the Constitution did not descend from on high, it is meaningless in a discussion about what is and is not just.

The police and firemen, as well as state and local courts, have nothing to do with the federal government, and therefore are irrelevant in a discussion about a federal-level program funded by federal-level taxes.

So you feel that your money can be taken away from you on a local scale but not a national scale? Why?

I'm saying that illegal taxation is wrong. Period.

Are you saying that you are opposed to libraries, universal education, and essential research that would not otherwise be done? And again, the Constitution thing. Is something a violation of rights (a concept without national borders) in one country and acceptable in another depending on what is law at the time?

I'm saying I'm opposed to them being funded by illegal taxes. And yes, if my country has a written document that defines my rights, and it is violated, then I don't have liberty. The right not to be taxed is not a universal human right, but it is a right of citizens in the United States to be taxed to fund anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Right, this is getting repetitive. What is it about this country that we so readily label something as evil because it violates a document that was written in another age?

In case you weren't aware, the entire purpose of the third branch of our government is to interpret whether laws violate the rights of the States and the People as established in the Constitution. It defines what government may or may not do, and protects us from despotism. It may have been written in another age, but it is still applied today. If you can violate its terms for a program you like, what's to prevent someone else for doing the same to support a program that you may not like?

I personally like the majority of the ideas in the Constitution, but I won't defend those ideas just by saying "it's in the Constitution". It's a logical fallacy. Proof fail.

Let me try to help you with this. We're not discussing the moral implications of the healthcare bill. I'm not suggesting that it's morally wrong to provide universal healthcare just because the Constitution says it is. What I am saying is that the word "liberty" means that we are free from despotic control. When the government ignores the limits set for it, this becomes despotic control. It's not that hard. Let's try again:

1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare, nor to impose a tax to fund said healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

[Frigidus]

If you're taking and spending my money before I even touch it, then yes, you are taking away my liberty to spend it whenever and however I like.

So, just to clarify, you are saying that taxation for any purpose is wrong?

As for the examples of tax-funded programs provided by Iliad and King Doctor, they fall into three categories. The military, roadways, and the court system are mandated in the Constitution as responsibilities of the federal government. It would be a violation of law for the government not to fund them.

Who cares if something is or is not a law? How does a law change your broader philosophy that taxation is a violation of liberty? Considering that the Constitution did not descend from on high, it is meaningless in a discussion about what is and is not just.

The police and firemen, as well as state and local courts, have nothing to do with the federal government, and therefore are irrelevant in a discussion about a federal-level program funded by federal-level taxes.

So you feel that your money can be taken away from you on a local scale but not a national scale? Why?

I'm saying that illegal taxation is wrong. Period.

Are you saying that you are opposed to libraries, universal education, and essential research that would not otherwise be done? And again, the Constitution thing. Is something a violation of rights (a concept without national borders) in one country and acceptable in another depending on what is law at the time?

I'm saying I'm opposed to them being funded by illegal taxes. And yes, if my country has a written document that defines my rights, and it is violated, then I don't have liberty. The right not to be taxed is not a universal human right, but it is a right of citizens in the United States to be taxed to fund anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Right, this is getting repetitive. What is it about this country that we so readily label something as evil because it violates a document that was written in another age?

In case you weren't aware, the entire purpose of the third branch of our government is to interpret whether laws violate the rights of the States and the People as established in the Constitution. It defines what government may or may not do, and protects us from despotism. It may have been written in another age, but it is still applied today. If you can violate its terms for a program you like, what's to prevent someone else for doing the same to support a program that you may not like?

I personally like the majority of the ideas in the Constitution, but I won't defend those ideas just by saying "it's in the Constitution". It's a logical fallacy. Proof fail.

Let me try to help you with this. We're not discussing the moral implications of the healthcare bill. I'm not suggesting that it's morally wrong to provide universal healthcare just because the Constitution says it is. What I am saying is that the word "liberty" means that we are free from despotic control. When the government ignores the limits set for it, this becomes despotic control. It's not that hard. Let's try again:

1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare, nor to impose a tax to fund said healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

For now I'm not going to debate the Constitutionality of our entire working system of government. Let's say that, theoretically, a constitutional amendment was put in place that allowed the federal government to tax for whatever reason they wanted. Would you no longer have any complaints about universal healthcare? Because right now you are saying that your main problem with health care is that existing law doesn't allow it. Using that argument I could argue that nothing should be changed, ever.

[thegreekdog]

Just want to clarify:

(1) Taxation is not illegal. There was an amendment made to the Constitution which was added back in the days where amendments were used to change the Constitution (rather than in the last 50+ years or so where court decisions are used to change the Constitution). The first two sentences (disregarding the paranthetical which includes my own strict constructionist spin) are fact. They are not debatable.

(2) Federal universal health insurance could still be considered unconstitutional because the federal government is permitted to regulate only interstate commerce. Health insurance is generally not portable across state lines. Thus there is no interstate commerce. Intrastate commerce can only be regulated by the states. I suspect that someone will bring this type of suit in the future (and should lose, depending on the makeup of the Supreme Court). In any event, if you want to fight universal health insurance, this is the place to go.

[gatoraubrey2]

(1) Taxation is not illegal. There was an amendment made to the Constitution which was added back in the days where amendments were used to change the Constitution (rather than in the last 50+ years or so where court decisions are used to change the Constitution). The first two sentences (disregarding the paranthetical which includes my own strict constructionist spin) are fact. They are not debatable.

You are correct. Taxation is not illegal. Federal funding or regulation of a program of this nature is (because it's not interstate commerce, thanks again for your insight ). Since there is no limit on taxes, theoretically, the government could tax for whatever they want, then not actually spend the money. I apologize for cutting corners, but for the sake of brevity I was addressing the new tax burden and the new program as one issue, when, legally, they are separate. I appreciate you pointing this out. For the sake of accuracy, I shall re-post my proof below without addressing the issue of taxation.

For now I'm not going to debate the Constitutionality of our entire working system of government. Let's say that, theoretically, a constitutional amendment was put in place that allowed the federal government to tax for whatever reason they wanted. Would you no longer have any complaints about universal healthcare? Because right now you are saying that your main problem with health care is that existing law doesn't allow it.

I'll read this to mean "amendment was put in place that allowed the government to spend funds for whatever reason they wanted." As thegreekdog pointed out, I was using the wrong language, but I understand what you're saying. Fundamentally, morally, yes, regardless of the law, I would still have an issue with healthcare. In the event of a Constitutional amendment making it legal for the federal government to fund and regulate it, however, I would no longer argue that it violates my liberty. In such a case, the government would no longer be seizing control in a despotic manner. Rather, they would have gone through the proper channels to have such powers granted to them by the people, and would only be exercising those powers. In such a case, I would attempt to relocate to a country whose government did not have such sweeping powers, because I believe in limited government.

Using that argument I could argue that nothing should be changed, ever.

The Constitution was constructed so that things would change slowly. It is intentionally difficult to pass a Constitutional amendment, so that if the government is granted new powers, it will be after a healthy discussion and done with the support of the people. I'm not arguing against all change, just the despotic sort.

Revised:
1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

[rabbiton]

(1) Taxation is not illegal. There was an amendment made to the Constitution which was added back in the days where amendments were used to change the Constitution (rather than in the last 50+ years or so where court decisions are used to change the Constitution). The first two sentences (disregarding the paranthetical which includes my own strict constructionist spin) are fact. They are not debatable.

You are correct. Taxation is not illegal. Federal funding or regulation of a program of this nature is (because it's not interstate commerce, thanks again for your insight ). Since there is no limit on taxes, theoretically, the government could tax for whatever they want, then not actually spend the money. I apologize for cutting corners, but for the sake of brevity I was addressing the new tax burden and the new program as one issue, when, legally, they are separate. I appreciate you pointing this out. For the sake of accuracy, I shall re-post my proof below without addressing the issue of taxation.

For now I'm not going to debate the Constitutionality of our entire working system of government. Let's say that, theoretically, a constitutional amendment was put in place that allowed the federal government to tax for whatever reason they wanted. Would you no longer have any complaints about universal healthcare? Because right now you are saying that your main problem with health care is that existing law doesn't allow it.

I'll read this to mean "amendment was put in place that allowed the government to spend funds for whatever reason they wanted." As thegreekdog pointed out, I was using the wrong language, but I understand what you're saying. Fundamentally, morally, yes, regardless of the law, I would still have an issue with healthcare. In the event of a Constitutional amendment making it legal for the federal government to fund and regulate it, however, I would no longer argue that it violates my liberty. In such a case, the government would no longer be seizing control in a despotic manner. Rather, they would have gone through the proper channels to have such powers granted to them by the people, and would only be exercising those powers. In such a case, I would attempt to relocate to a country whose government did not have such sweeping powers, because I believe in limited government.

Using that argument I could argue that nothing should be changed, ever.

The Constitution was constructed so that things would change slowly. It is intentionally difficult to pass a Constitutional amendment, so that if the government is granted new powers, it will be after a healthy discussion and done with the support of the people. I'm not arguing against all change, just the despotic sort.

Revised:
1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

yo gatoraubrey2... what's up with the, er... dribble-dribble?

also, explain to me, using quotes from the constitution, bible and, for bonus points, koran, how the restrictions on my access to unlimited ice cream supplies are not 'arbitrary control'.

also, mods on my underpant-hat wearing desires, and a clamp-down on my rights to drive my recently purchased concorde jet on city streets i consider egregious and thoroughly arbitrary control and i would like it explained in your usual lyrical style.

in fact, pretty much all laws bug me. particularly with their lack of conformity to common usage definitions of lay dictionaries. so explain that, dribbles mcaubrey.

[gatoraubrey2]

yo gatoraubrey2... what's up with the, er... dribble-dribble?

also, explain to me, using quotes from the constitution, bible and, for bonus points, koran, how the restrictions on my access to unlimited ice cream supplies are not 'arbitrary control'.

also, mods on my underpant-hat wearing desires, and a clamp-down on my rights to drive my recently purchased concorde jet on city streets i consider egregious and thoroughly arbitrary control and i would like it explained in your usual lyrical style.

in fact, pretty much all laws bug me. particularly with their lack of conformity to common usage definitions of lay dictionaries. so explain that, dribbles mcaubrey.

The "double dribble" stems from the fact that I created a logical proof out of thin air, and logical proofs are extremely difficult to create and defend. I made an error. I corrected the error. People who are interested in truth do that. And anyway, the correction that I made was minor and did not have any effect on the substance of the proof.

And since I don't see any federal laws having any effect on your underpants hats, or your ice cream supplies, I'll ignore those examples and write them off as a sad attempt at humor. As for your Concorde jet, you can imagine how a vessel constructed to fly internationally might at least fall under the power to "regulate interstate commerce." Besides the fact that a federal law on this matter wouldn't have to exist anyway, since municipalities almost universally have noise ordinances and speed limits which would prohibit your Concorde from coming near ground level.

I'm not sure which fallacy you're trying to use here. Are you trying to use an Appeal to Common Practice, and state that just because our rights are violated all the time, this isn't a violation of those rights? Or are you fallaciously applying Reductio ad Absurdum, by pretending that the issues you mentioned are related, when they're not? Either way, fallacies contribute nothing but confusion to the argument, but if you're going to derail a discussion, at least do it well.

Regardless of any other situation, the proof stands. And if the proof stands, then the healthcare bill is a violation of our liberties as Americans. So try again.

Revised:
1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

[john9blue]

The "double dribble" stems from the fact that I created a logical proof out of thin air, and logical proofs are extremely difficult to create and defend. I made an error. I corrected the error. People who are interested in truth do that. And anyway, the correction that I made was minor and did not have any effect on the substance of the proof.

You're not going to get very far with them using logical proof. Maybe try flaming, or using a strawman or other fallacy. At least that way they'll respond.

[thegreekdog]

I like this gatoraubrey person.

[gatoraubrey2]

You're not going to get very far with them using logical proof. Maybe try flaming, or using a strawman or other fallacy. At least that way they'll respond.

I know, but it's funny to me when they don't have anything to say and fall mysteriously silent.

i like this gatoraubrey person

Thanks! I like me, too. But I think there are a few people here who don't...

[Phatscotty]

There are 2 kinds of people here.

boys, and Men.

[jimboston]

It is possible with today's technology to link most taxes directly to the services they provide... I say most and not all because there is no such thing as an absolute in this world, and some things must come from a General Account. However you could get pretty close. Examples;

Gas Tax / Auto Excise Tax => Funds from these sources would pay for roads, bridges, highway, etc. These funds would be used only for items directly related to this type of infrastructure. If you did not drive a car you would not pay these taxes directly. However, if you got items delivered to your home or used taxis, etc. these vendors would be paying the tax and those costs would pass to you indirectly. You would be getting benefit from the roads indirectly and so would have some burden.

Alcohol Tax / Smoke Tax => These taxes would go to pay educational programs to teach people about the negative aspects of these items. These taxes would also cover the costs associated with 'policing' vendors who sell these product... i.e. ensuring they aren't sold to minors. These taxes maybe could also be used to offset the healthcare burden put on society by low income people who smoke or drink and now can't pay for care. Though I would advocate care be kept to a minimum... people who smoke and drink do KNOW it is bad for them.

Corporate Taxes => A percentage may go toward industry regulation. I wouldn't want a lot of regulation, but obviously some is necessary. A percentage would go toward Gov't sponsored R&D... since this R&D helps all businesses it is a way to achieve economies of scale that are hard for individual companies to achieve. Open to other ideas... what other things MUST the Gov't do... and that industry in general benefits from???

Federal Sales Tax or Income Tax => Kept to a bare minimum... this would be for Defense, Diplomacy, and Administration. (BYW... Nasa would fall under Defense, though may have some research funding provided via Corp. Taxes.)

Bare Minimum for FEMA and Health Research (i.e. FDA etc.)... maybe funded from general fund or taxes on healthcare industry.

There would be NO Federal Dept. of Education.... no Health and Human Service (not in the form as it exists today).

States would be able to tax as their constitutions and constiuents see fit. Some people may prefer to live in a State with high taxes and lots of services, others may prefer low taxes and minimal services. Because people can move you would find that things would even out... States with lots of services would attract low income people (who wouldn't add to the tax base)... they therefore would have to cut services as they would shortly find their burden outstripping their capacity to pay for these services. A median would be found across most States over time...

I am sure I missing things... what MUST we add to this...