I have long labored under the belief--the hope, really--that we were a free people, citizens in a free republic. Today, however, I have to accept that we are not citizens but rather are subjects of our government. There is no limit on the power of our government beyond the limits our lawgivers place on themselves, and since absolute power corrupts absolutely, the reach of our government is limitless. We have no rights that the government is bound to respect. Heck, an hour ago I, like a good subject, submitted to a nudie scanner at the airport.
A free people. It was a nice fiction while it lasted.
Update, 6/30/12: The lefties love V For Vendetta, and perhaps after viewing this clip I can see why (well, the message and Natalie Portman)....
15 comments:
Yes, there are limits because slippery slopes and reducto ad absurdum are fallacious argument. No one will ever be forced to buy broccoli because that would be ridiculous.
Oh, I feel free now. Thank you for pointing out that the legislative and executive branches of government will never use its unlimited power to force me to buy broccoli.
The mere fact that government won't use its absolute power makes it not one bit less problematic that they have that power.
Remember -- in the UK, the "droit de signeur" existed for a very long time, allowing nobles to have the first shot at a bride on her wedding night prior to the consummation of the marriage by the couple. It was repealed only in the last couple of decades, even though it was not being used -- because the existence of that power itself was problematic even if it was not being used.
"No one will ever be forced to buy broccoli because that would be ridiculous."
Will organizations ever be taxed if they do not fund access to abortions (with the tax waived if the access is provided)?
-Mark Roulo
Well, now you're putting a moral/religious judgment on a secular business/legal issue. And, that's one of our problems.
Moral/religious judgements are enshrined in the 1st Amendment. That you don't care about that is one of our problems.
Well, HMMM. Speaking as one who is routinely turned down for insurance because of a pre-existing condition, and who has two young adult kids who will never make enough to buy individual insurance policies under the old system, and who are in occupations where they will be contract workers forever so no employer-based insurance for them, I feel very differently. If the insurance companies in the US had made any effort to serve the entire working population, we would not have had to have this reform. As it is, I'm very glad for it.
Yes, but abortion is legal regardless of any moral or religious objection. So, caring about the law is not really a problem, at least not from a conservative point of view.
Give me a bunch of taxpayer money, and I'd be for it, too. Doesn't make it right.
And abortion is legal, but I shouldn't have to fund it. Lots of things are legal, but there's no reason for government to fund it. Cigarettes are legal, but no one's compelling me to buy products from tobacco companies.
"...who has two young adult kids who will never make enough to buy individual insurance policies under the old system, and who are in occupations where they will be contract workers forever so no employer-based insurance for them..."
There's a solution for that - get trained for a better job.
Existing laws could be changed to allow people to buy insurance across state lines and to choose what coverage, beyond major medical, they want - just as is done with other kinds of insurance. The connection of insurance to employment is an historical artifact; it was first done in WWII, when raising salaries was not allowed. State mandates for coverage (psych, chiropractor, accupuncture etc) also drive up costs but allowing people to buy insurance, tailored to their needs, from states with fewer mandates would undoubtedly change this.
BTW: when I was growing up, health insurance was a major medical policy only; doctor visits, labs, x-rays, meds were all paid in cash. Of course, technology has vastly increased the number of options since that time.
I disagree, Darren . . . you can't pick and choose which religions and systems of moral values get to reserve their tax monies from which expenditures. Pacifists oppose spendingon defense; Christian Scientists oppose ALL medical procedures. Neither group is given the right to reserve tax es from those uses. The fact that there is a larger group of people who don't agree with abortion rights makes it no different -- abortion is a legal procedure, and at least in some instances is medically necessary; in a slightly larger number of circumstances it may be the best decision. So as long as you're going to have government funding for health care, you can't eliminate certain ones because you don't like them. Personally, I would be happy if government solved the problem by not funding health care at all . . . but, failing that, the other option is to work to reverse Roe v. Wade . . . or to promote birth control so that fewer abortions are preformed.
No, Max, you are mistaken.
There's a difference between paying taxes and having the government spend tax money on that with which you don't agree, and having government compel you to buy a product you don't want. As religion is specifically mentioned in the 1st Amendment, there's a stronger (constitutional) argument against being compelled to pay for abortion than there is against being compelled to pay a union--but no one should be compelled to buy anything he or she doesn't want to.
And no one is talking about eliminating abortions,we're talking about being required to pay for them (and not out of taxes) out of pocket. Also, abortion is legal, but that's no justification for government paying for it or requiring that I pay for it.
With an exception . . . I'm okay with the non-coverage of elective procedures, like nose jobs. Abortion could certainly be argued either way, but I tend to believe it falls more towards the non-elective side. Just as I would feel about prescription drugs for birth control or erectile dysfunction.
Post a Comment