Negative Liberties and Obama's idea of Welfare

[Krazy P]

You may have seen the stories about Obama opining on the Constitution.

What intrigued me was his comment about negative liberties. I did some digging to try and put Obama's comments in context with his education as a lawyer at Harvard.

What I found was more intriguing than current press coverage and potentially more alarming.

There is a school of thought that proposes "positive liberties". Under the conventional theory, liberties of individuals (and the role of the state) are quite different than the position Obama was espousing.

Those who are familiar with these issues are encouraged to opine. Those that are not, but have an interest, should do some research.

Let's just put it this way - Obama has more in common with Karl Marx than John Stuart Mill.

[Josephine1012]

Any chance you could throw in your interpretation. I don't follow politics enough to be able to quickly spot what is important. I realize that your opinion is just an opinion. But I found your previous posts very interesting and concise.

[Algol]

Does this have to do with Napoleonic vs Constitutional law? Perhaps you should include some of his comments as part of your post.

[phantasma]

And people say the "socialism" accusation is blind.

[Luthor Rex]

From Wikipedia:

Positive liberty refers to the opportunity and ability to act to fulfill one's own potential, as opposed to negative liberty, which refers to freedom from restraint.[1] Inherent to positive liberty is the idea that liberty is the ability of citizens to participate in their government. As Isaiah Berlin noted, positive liberty is interested in action by citizens in the government. This is why he called it positive liberty, for pro-action. Berlin distinguished between two forms or concepts of liberty – negative liberty and positive liberty – and argued that the latter concept has often been used to cover up abuse, leading to the curtailment of people's negative liberties "for their own good".

Berlin believed that positive liberty nearly always gave rise to the abuse of power. For when a political leadership believes that they hold the philosophical key to a better future, this sublime end can be used to justify drastic and brutal means. [1]

Although Berlin's 1958 essay "Two Concepts of Liberty", is typically acknowledged with being the first to explicitly draw the distinction between positive and negative liberty, Frankfurt School psychoanalyst and humanistic philosopher Erich Fromm drew a similar distinction between negative and positive freedom in his 1941 work, The Fear of Freedom, predating Berlin's essay by more than a decade.

The positive notion of liberty plays a crucial, yet almost always implicit, role in many major political philosophies, such as direct democracy, socialism, and communism.

In contrast to negative liberty, which in its largest scope applies to individuals, positive liberty has often been applied by collectivist philosophies to whole segments of society or to a nation's society as a whole... the unbridled pursuit of positive liberty could lead to a situation where the state forced upon people a certain way of life, because the state judged that it was the most rational course of action, and therefore, was what a person should desire, whether or not people actually did desire it.

[SmileyMan]

Please provide quotations to back your statement.

[dogwoodlover]

And people say the "socialism" accusation is blind.

It is.

Obama is no more "socialist" than McCain is "fascist."

[zibber]

Krazy P, do you think this kind of thing will really be an issue?

Also,

the unbridled pursuit of positive liberty could lead to a situation where the state forced upon people a certain way of life, because the state judged that it was the most rational course of action, and therefore, was what a person should desire, whether or not people actually did desire it.

You mean like capitalism/consumerism conditions people from birth to link happiness to consumption/wealth?

That's way more subtle and nasty than these positive liberties you speak of, which Obama would never, ever be able to push onto people. (As if he even intends to.)

[Ool]

Obama is no more "socialist" than McCain is "fascist."

So what you’re saying is he might become what Hindenburg used to be to the Nazis in his declining years…?

[Chrysalis]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is a good source, regrettably too long for a single post.




Chrysalis added to this post, 4 minutes and 49 seconds later...

I don't follow politics enough to be able to quickly spot what is important. I realize that your opinion is just an opinion.

Sounds like a contradiction. How can you say it's just an opinion if you don't follow politics enough?

[void]

Unsurprisingly, this whole radio show (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) thing turns out to be little more than manufactured controversy. Sorry Krazy P, no Chairman Obama for you. I'm saddened too - would have been nice to see him wear that red beret and we could have been referring to each other as 'comrade'.

[Lights]

You may have seen the stories about Obama opining on the Constitution.

Are you talking about this?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hopefully you aren't talking about the annoying, out-of-context 30 second clips from that interview that people have been pandering around the internet.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You gotta love the sickle and hammer.

[Agile]

Thanks for your post, Krazy. Do you mind posting a few links to point us in the direction of your research? Thanks

[thod]

Its always amusing to hear Americans throw the word 'socialism' about as an insult. In Europe socialist parties are considered mainstream and calling someone a socialist is like calling them a football fan, it is not pejorative. It is considered a normal position between communism and unfettered capitalism.

I am reminded of the quote:

"If I give food to the poor, they call me a saint, but if I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist"

Silly Americans.

[Marcus]

Its always amusing to hear Americans throw the word 'socialism' about as an insult. In Europe socialist parties are considered mainstream and calling someone a socialist is like calling them a football fan, it is not pejorative. It is considered a normal position between communism and unfettered capitalism.

Every culture has a different frame of reference. Phenomena similar to this one exist in different forms in probably all countries. This might not be the best example, but American style patriotism would probably be seen as extreme right and thus unacceptable in Germany.

[Merle]

Its always amusing to hear Americans throw the word 'socialism' about as an insult. In Europe socialist parties are considered mainstream and calling someone a socialist is like calling them a football fan, it is not pejorative. It is considered a normal position between communism and unfettered capitalism.

I am reminded of the quote:

"If I give food to the poor, they call me a saint, but if I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist"

Silly Americans.

I was just thinking a similar thought... but also... Obama a Socialist, seriously?... I can only laugh.
Obama is Right of Centre and McCain is Right Wing... and that's the about the scope of American politics. From Conservative to Very Conservative.

[Chrysalis]

It is always amusing to hear Americans throw the word 'socialism' about as an insult. In Europe socialist parties are considered mainstream and calling someone a socialist is like calling them a football fan, it is not pejorative. It is considered a normal position between communism and unfettered capitalism.

Silly Americans.

I am certain that many people in Europe use the term socialist as an insult as well, at least those who have an understanding of how economy works.



Chrysalis added to this post, 13 minutes and 0 seconds later...

I was just thinking a similar thought... but also... Obama a Socialist, seriously?... I can only laugh.
Obama is Right of Centre and McCain is Right Wing... and that's the about the scope of American politics. From Conservative to Very Conservative.

I can only advice you to do some research on positive liberties and their coordinates within the political spectrum. You should also reconsider your opinion of John McCain. He is certainly not right wing.

[zibber]

I am certain that many people in Europe use the term socialist as an insult as well, at least those who have an understanding of how economy works.

You mean "at least those who are of the opinion socialism is inherently flawed".

[Merle]

I can only advice you to do some research on positive liberties and their coordinates within the political spectrum. You should also reconsider your opinion of John McCain. He is certainly not right wing.

He certainly is Right Wing if you are placing him on a Left/Right axis based on World politics. If you're creating an axis for America alone then sure, he's somewhere near the centre, but place that axis within a world one and it would all fit neatly within a small space between the centre (being the american 'left') and probably about the middle of the Right.

N.B. I am entirely aware of what Positive Liberties are. For one, they are an extremely important cornerstone of Western Democracy, something that really has very little to do with real Socialism. Just because someone believes that positive liberties are better than negative ones he is not automatically a Socialist.

[Lights]

You should also reconsider your opinion of John McCain. He is certainly not right wing.

McCain's track record is that of a moderate Republican. However, the policies he has adopted for his presidential campaign encompass neoconservative economic ideologies and religious right social ideologies. That puts him pretty damn far to the right.

[Chrysalis]

I am certain that many people in Europe use the term socialist as an insult as well, at least those who have an understanding of how economy works.
You mean "at least those who are of the opinion socialism is inherently flawed".

One equals the other.

McCain's track record is that of a moderate Republican. However, the policies he has adopted for his presidential campaign encompass neoconservative economic ideologies and religious right social ideologies. That puts him pretty damn far to the right.

You can't really judge politicians on a single campaign. They have to say what the public wants to hear to be elected. Campaigns are mostly substanceless, so if you really want to know what to expect from a politician, you have to ignore the campaigns and look at their entire political life instead.

One of the greatest mistakes of any politically interested person is following politics only in the time before an election. In order to avoid being a complete ignorant you have to follow the daily business of politics constantly, so you know what kind of people you deal with.

[void]

One equals the other.

All of Scandinavia and probably even Canada would like a word with you.

You can't really judge politicians on a single campaign. They have to say what the public wants to hear to be elected. Campaigns are mostly substanceless, so if you really want to know what to expect from a politician, you have to ignore the campaigns and look at their entire political life instead.

One of the greatest mistakes of any politically interested person is following politics only in the time before an election. In order to avoid being a complete ignorant you have to follow the daily business of politics constantly, so you know what kind of people you deal with.

This is generally true, although (some) campaign promises to large voting groups are generally fulfilled in the first term (to bolster the candidate's chances for a second term).

[OrrDavey]

I live in a very tight packed neighborhood in a very liberal part of Eugene (which is a very liberal city). One of my neighbors is a 20 something year old who cannot hold down the same job for more than a few months. He only shaves once every couple of weeks and only bathes every few days. He doesn't have any kids or serious disease or anything like that.

My question to the very liberal people here: Why should the government be able to force me to pay for his food, his medical bills, his utility and rent subsidies? I think if you took those things away from him, he would go out and work harder and put a little bit more effort in. I think all of these ridiculous programs are hurting him more than they are helping him.

Ok, so this is an extreme. What about the single mom? Or the mentally ill? Or someone who lost all of his limbs? Those people are a bit more in the gray area, and I think you could argue either way on those cases. But for the above example: what the fuck? Why do I work 55 hour weeks and have to pay for his crap? It makes no sense whatsoever. And this is, in my opinion, what happens when you give the government the authority to have its "we know best" attitude when ruling people. I think I know a little bit better in a lot of the cases.

[Maarten]

I live in a very tight packed neighborhood in a very liberal part of Eugene (which is a very liberal city). One of my neighbors is a 20 something year old who cannot hold down the same job for more than a few months. He only shaves once every couple of weeks and only bathes every few days. He doesn't have any kids or serious disease or anything like that.

My question to the very liberal people here: Why should the government be able to force me to pay for his food, his medical bills, his utility and rent subsidies? I think if you took those things away from him, he would go out and work harder and put a little bit more effort in. I think all of these ridiculous programs are hurting him more than they are helping him.

Ok, so this is an extreme. What about the single mom? Or the mentally ill? Or someone who lost all of his limbs? Those people are a bit more in the gray area, and I think you could argue either way on those cases. But for the above example: what the fuck? Why do I work 55 hour weeks and have to pay for his crap? It makes no sense whatsoever. And this is, in my opinion, what happens when you give the government the authority to have its "we know best" attitude when ruling people. I think I know a little bit better in a lot of the cases.
Exactly. Bad things happen and I can sort of understand people wanting to help out with that (although I think that's better done through charity rather than government help), but why would anyone want to reward the many, many individuals who can easily support themselves?

I mean, you hear all this talk about how some people work two jobs their whole life and they never get above burger king, and that's not enough to live on with a family, but have you ever gone to a fast food restaurant and seen people really working their asses off to impress the customers and give the best service they can? Maybe some do, but it's a small minority. If they're not willing to excel at what they do, even if it's a job like that, why should anyone else care to help them? I'm positive the US is still meritocratic enough that if you worked really hard, you'd get promoted within those organizations.

Also, it'd be one thing if the government programs aggressively aimed to get people back to work as soon as possible, but most of them just reward you for staying under a certain level of income. That'd be okay if money grew on trees, but it obviously doesn't.

[Jaycen Rigger]

Unsurprisingly, this whole radio show (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) thing turns out to be little more than manufactured controversy. Sorry Krazy P, no Chairman Obama for you. I'm saddened too - would have been nice to see him wear that red beret and we could have been referring to each other as 'comrade'.

Shows what you know. My office has been calling each other comrade since the election.:-P





Jaycen Rigger added to this post, 2 minutes and 12 seconds later...

Its always amusing to hear Americans throw the word 'socialism' about as an insult. In Europe socialist parties are considered mainstream and calling someone a socialist is like calling them a football fan, it is not pejorative. It is considered a normal position between communism and unfettered capitalism.

I am reminded of the quote:

"If I give food to the poor, they call me a saint, but if I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist"

Silly Americans.

Since socialism necessarily leads to the suppression of freedom, and capitalism thrives in a free society, we see them as polar opposites. Silly socialist.





Jaycen Rigger added to this post, 2 minutes and 7 seconds later...

I was just thinking a similar thought... but also... Obama a Socialist, seriously?... I can only laugh.
Obama is Right of Centre and McCain is Right Wing... and that's the about the scope of American politics. From Conservative to Very Conservative.

If that fact that you own that viewpoint weren't so sad, I'd laugh hysterically. Obama is right of center. Huh. You do understand that W. was left of center, right? No, oh, then don't bother to examine what he did as President. It'll only confuse you.





Jaycen Rigger added to this post, 1 minutes and 1 seconds later...

I am certain that many people in Europe use the term socialist as an insult as well, at least those who have an understanding of how economy works.



Chrysalis added to this post, 13 minutes and 0 seconds later...



I can only advice you to do some research on positive liberties and their coordinates within the political spectrum. You should also reconsider your opinion of John McCain. He is certainly not right wing.

QFT





Jaycen Rigger added to this post, 2 minutes and 14 seconds later...

You mean "at least those who are of the opinion socialism is inherently flawed".

????

You don't have to think something is flawed if it simply doesn't work. The economy grinds to a halt. The government must use facism to maintain its existence. Flawed or not, it's not a happy way to live, and it certainly doesn't encourage personal freedom.





Jaycen Rigger added to this post, 1 minutes and 58 seconds later...

McCain's track record is that of a moderate Republican. However, the policies he has adopted for his presidential campaign encompass neoconservative economic ideologies and religious right social ideologies. That puts him pretty damn far to the right.

Are you aware of where the term "neo-conservative" comes from? Do you know its a term coined by an American socialist who tried to use the label to scare other leftists away from conservative attitudes?

Just asking.





Jaycen Rigger added to this post, 2 minutes and 6 seconds later...

I live in a very tight packed neighborhood in a very liberal part of Eugene (which is a very liberal city). One of my neighbors is a 20 something year old who cannot hold down the same job for more than a few months. He only shaves once every couple of weeks and only bathes every few days. He doesn't have any kids or serious disease or anything like that.

My question to the very liberal people here: Why should the government be able to force me to pay for his food, his medical bills, his utility and rent subsidies? I think if you took those things away from him, he would go out and work harder and put a little bit more effort in. I think all of these ridiculous programs are hurting him more than they are helping him.

Ok, so this is an extreme. What about the single mom? Or the mentally ill? Or someone who lost all of his limbs? Those people are a bit more in the gray area, and I think you could argue either way on those cases. But for the above example: what the fuck? Why do I work 55 hour weeks and have to pay for his crap? It makes no sense whatsoever. And this is, in my opinion, what happens when you give the government the authority to have its "we know best" attitude when ruling people. I think I know a little bit better in a lot of the cases.

Indeed you do, sir.

[Sulurith]

This issue is very simple for me.
No one's rights should be infringed upon in any manner whatsoever. This statement determines what laws should be in place. Anything beyond this leads to infringement of said rights.

Socialism and socialist ideas are expropriations of property. Even the income tax is an expropriation of property, and should be put to death in favor of a consumption tax.

I don't care if there is someone out there who sits on his bum and makes 1 trillion dollars a year, if someone sees fit to pay him, it is his property and he has the right to it once it is in his hands. Taxing it any greater than anyone else because "he can afford to give up more of his money than I can" is illogical. The issue is not about who can afford to be taxed, it is about rights. I find that people who make such statements as the common "he can afford it" tend to look for handouts they didn't earn.

Taxing the man who makes more money than another provides those who make less a claim to the man's fortune and property, one which does not exist.

Thus, Socialism infringes upon the fundamental right to property, and therefore must be abandoned.

[John F Kennedy]

I live in a very tight packed neighborhood in a very liberal part of Eugene (which is a very liberal city). One of my neighbors is a 20 something year old who cannot hold down the same job for more than a few months. He only shaves once every couple of weeks and only bathes every few days. He doesn't have any kids or serious disease or anything like that.

My question to the very liberal people here: Why should the government be able to force me to pay for his food, his medical bills, his utility and rent subsidies? I think if you took those things away from him, he would go out and work harder and put a little bit more effort in. I think all of these ridiculous programs are hurting him more than they are helping him.

Ok, so this is an extreme. What about the single mom? Or the mentally ill? Or someone who lost all of his limbs? Those people are a bit more in the gray area, and I think you could argue either way on those cases. But for the above example: what the fuck? Why do I work 55 hour weeks and have to pay for his crap? It makes no sense whatsoever. And this is, in my opinion, what happens when you give the government the authority to have its "we know best" attitude when ruling people. I think I know a little bit better in a lot of the cases.

You're right, it does seem unfair when you're paying for someone's monthly cheque. However, if you knew how small percentage of your and the government's budget is devoted to welfare or social security you would just laugh the matter off and never think about it again. (I've seen the statistics, but unfortunately forgot the figures.) You would not actually feel the difference if all the jobless and the mentally ill were taken off their cheque. But the very fact that you describe the single unemployed mom and the mentally ill as only "a bit more in the gray area" tells me that you are unduly biased toward unbridled capitalism and that that's the actual problem. Frankly I'm proud whenever I can support the needy and I'm appalled your lack of community spirit.

Also if you talked to your "lazy" neighbour or others like him, you would probably realize that he is not happy that he can't hold down a job. He is probably more intelligent than most and has trouble handling the maddening rat race that society is forcing unto him. He is probably an underachiever in all facets of life because what others (those willing to accept mindless jobs) are trying to make him do conflicts with his understanding of life. Don't get me wrong, the situation is deplorable. He might not be doing much and you're paying for his rent, both of which sucks, but there are actual reasons behind behaviours, and not just asshole laziness. Society has created this sickness and if you condone this type of society, you are part of the problem.

[OrrDavey]

I've also seen the statistics about forced charity - I am not so concerned about the numbers right now. I am much more worried about what I consider to be a moral dilemma and I am also concerned about what will happen if these figures grow.

But the very fact that you describe the single unemployed mom and the mentally ill as only "a bit more in the gray area" tells me that you are unduly biased toward unbridled capitalism and that that's the actual problem. Frankly I'm proud whenever I can support the needy and I'm appalled your lack of community spirit.

I give my personal funds to charities that I believe in. I volunteer all the time for causes that I believe in. The company that I work for, a conservative one, will spend entire days working on public projects spending private funds for supplies.

The government is forcing people to give to causes that they may or may not agree with. I personally don't have a problem with building an institution for a mentally handicapped person. Most other people - even very conservative people - also do not have a problem with this. So what could possibly be the problem?

1. The government is inefficient when it takes on projects like this. When you task the government to accomplish some project, you are going to be paying more for less.

2. The liberal assumption is that if the government didn't do it, nobody would. This one is completely bullshit.

3. What about other projects that are a bit more controversial? You might have a stance one way or another on abortion, but isn't it wrong to force someone who is strongly against abortion to support it through government programs? Even the single mom thing is just stupid: You are forcing people with traditional values to support people who, very often, have highly self destructive lifestyles. And I am not even against supporting them, if it weren't for my next point.

4. The government allocates their funds very arbitrarily. I think a self destructive person in America is far less deserving of our limited funds than, say, a starving kid in Africa. But that is just me.

Also if you talked to your "lazy" neighbour or others like him, you would probably realize that he is not happy that he can't hold down a job. He is probably more intelligent than most and has trouble handling the maddening rat race that society is forcing unto him. He is probably an underachiever in all facets of life because what others (those willing to accept mindless jobs) are trying to make him do conflicts with his understanding of life. Don't get me wrong, the situation is deplorable. He might not be doing much and you're paying for his rent, both of which sucks, but there are actual reasons behind behaviours, and not just asshole laziness. Society has created this sickness and if you condone this type of society, you are part of the problem.

The guy is very interested in getting stoned - which he mooches off his roommate more often than not. And drinking beer. And walking around the few blocks surrounding our houses going on adventures. I've talked to the guy many times, there is nothing special about him, he just plain doesn't care.

When we had a pool table moved into my house, I asked a few of the neighbors from surrounding houses to give a helping hand. This guy was available, but didn't help. Now he tries to invite himself over to play pool from time to time.

I am telling you that this is a black and white case of what the fuck? But you are a very large liberal, so you just assume that the man* is somehow holding him down. It is so goddamn crazy.

* The man for a liberal is some combination of corporations, police, social pressures or other similar things.

[thod]

I bought a copy of the bioshock game recently. I was laughing my head off at it.

"we believe in 3 things, free markets, free will, and free men"

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God. No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone."

Its full of this stuff, the monsters run around and try to kill you calling you a parasite and a hanger on. The less well educated wouldn't understand the references but the baddy boss is called Andrew Ryan and you receive messages from a guy called Atlas.

[Reon]

I bought a copy of the bioshock game recently. I was laughing my head off at it.

"we believe in 3 things, free markets, free will, and free men"

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God. No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone."

Its full of this stuff, the monsters run around and try to kill you calling you a parasite and a hanger on. The less well educated wouldn't understand the references but the baddy boss is called Andrew Ryan and you receive messages from a guy called Atlas.

I loved that game as well, though the last two references I didn't get until I started reading into Ayn Rand.

[John F Kennedy]

I give my personal funds to charities that I believe in. I volunteer all the time for causes that I believe in.

That's great then. I'm afraid however most people don't, and it's not even a lack of will, but a simple lack of imagination or understanding of the human condition. If you don't force them to do the right thing, they will be too dumb to do so. But for all claims that this is really "forced charity", remember that this represents the will of the majority. People have voted for this out of their free will.

[Tocsin]

Inherent to positive liberty is the idea that liberty is the ability of citizens to participate in their government. As Isaiah Berlin noted, positive liberty is interested in action by citizens in the government. This is why he called it positive liberty, for pro-action...
... the unbridled pursuit of positive liberty could lead to a situation where the state forced upon people a certain way of life, because the state judged that it was the most rational course of action, and therefore, was what a person should desire, whether or not people actually did desire it.

So... let me get this straight... positive liberty promotes public participation in government... which could lead to an oppressive system where they end up forced to submit to policies they don't want.

Does anyone see a problem with this?

Isn't this about like complaining about losing an arm wrestling match - against yourself?

If "the people" are the government, how could they wind up "oppressing" themselves?

Under such a circumstance, the only people who would likely be "oppressed" are the people who either don't give a damn or refuse to become involved, and such people will not be represented well under ANY form of government.

[OrrDavey]

remember that this represents the will of the majority.

If "the people" are the government, how could they wind up "oppressing" themselves?

To both:

Your assumptions lie on the fact that majority rule is a good thing. Or, maybe not a good thing, but an acceptable thing. Think about some instances when majority rule was not a good thing. As a fast example: Gay marriage being banned in most states. Well the majority says so... so that is the will of the people!

Wasn't our country founded on the idea that people should have social and economic freedom? Because both of you seem pretty liberal, I am going to assume you are in favor of social freedoms. I think that is absolutely awesome, and I totally agree with you. I just don't see where people lost the importance of economic freedom - what our country was built upon in the first place.

-

If you calculate my total tax liability as a percent of income, it is just out of control. And I am not even very wealthy.

Federal and state income taxes - not just my liability, but the increased price of goods and services due to cost pass through.
Property taxes - This tax gets passed through to me which translates to higher rent cost
Tariffs - Additional taxes - which are immense - for every imported item I purchase.
Payroll taxes - More income tax
Other various hidden taxes - such as usage fees.
Inflation - not directly a tax, but has a similar effect in many cases.

I'm not even rich. Yet overall I lose over half of my income to taxes. I'd like to start my own business, I really would, but it will take me several more years of working until I will actually be able to make that a reality - and I point to exorbitant taxes as the primary reason holding me back.

I am not unique in this regard. There are a lot of other people out there like me.

[Tocsin]

Your assumptions lie on the fact that majority rule is a good thing.

"The People" implies all, not most, and certainly not just "the majority." "The will of the people" and "the will of the majority" are not the same things.

[OrrDavey]

So because 52% of Americans voted for Obama that means it was the will of the people that we put in social healthcare?

What if 52% of Americans voted for McCain - would that mean that it was the will of the people that we attacked Iran?

When you said

Under such a circumstance, the only people who would likely be "oppressed" are the people who either don't give a damn or refuse to become involved, and such people will not be represented well under ANY form of government.

I mean there were plenty of homosexuals protesting the laws against them. They were plenty active. It just didn't matter. They are the people, they are just not the majority of the people.

-

What you are doing is picking and choosing. If the ideas are something you favor, then it was the will of the people. If the ideas are not something you favor, then it was... something else?

[Sliderule]

Federal and state income taxes - not just my liability, but the increased price of goods and services due to cost pass through.
Property taxes - This tax gets passed through to me which translates to higher rent cost
Tariffs - Additional taxes - which are immense - for every imported item I purchase.
Payroll taxes - More income tax
Other various hidden taxes - such as usage fees.
Inflation - not directly a tax, but has a similar effect in many cases.


Well if you're tired of paying these then you should just move to somewhere out in the hills and do without: roads, sanitation, water supply, police, schools, etc etc. I guarantee that if all these things were absent from your life you would much more upset about them being so than paying taxes.

It's also important to note that traditional American views on low taxation were formed during a time period when very few of the above things existed. The simple fact of the matter is that in today's society taxes are necessary, that doesn't mean we have to like them, but you can to an extent help decide where they might go.

And if you're so against "positive liberty" then you should also be against the Americans' with Disabilities act; I'd love to see someone rally against that here. Perhaps one should consider the fact that in order to give people with disabilities, illness, poverty etc something resembling Negative liberty they are going to have to be given a helping hand. If you think the free market is going to provide for these people then I think you're sadly mistaken.

Furthermore, as long as we as Americans' pay taxes we should be entitled to positive liberties. If we paid no taxes at all then we should be only entitled to negative ones. We're already paying taxes, we might as well get some sort compensation for it. What you fear free universal health care in this country would be nothing short of a revolution for millions of Americans in how they live their lives.

All this thread seems to be is a magnet for those that are in a higher tax bracket (and those who believe they might be there someday) having their taxes raised.

What many many of those in the upper crust fail to realize is the simple fact that this country's economy is a consumer based economy and those consumers aren't going to consume if they're barely able to pay for health care or their education or simply don't have any sort of retirement. If these people are freed from these sort worries, which in a truly free society they should be, then they'll be able to take that extra income and spend it on consumables, their mortgage's, cars, etc. Which will benefit those who have to pay higher taxes since they'll be raking in profits instead of experiencing the situation we now find ourselves in.

To try and fight against this is short sighted at best, you can't possibly ensure the "liberties" of Americans by oppressing the majority of them with health care costs, higher education expenses, and lowered wages.

[OrrDavey]

Americans of almost any sort are the furthest thing from being "oppressed". Are you joking me?

Also, I agree that Americans that pay taxes are entitled to "positive liberties". They are paying taxes and should get something back for it. The people who do not pay taxes - the ones that choose not to work - don't deserve anything. Getting more out of the system than you are putting in is not reasonable.

There are some people in America who actually need help - people with serious mental or physical disability. I am not such an extreme libertarian as to say the free market will always provide for them. I do believe there are a number of ways we could provide for these people in a more efficient way than taxing and spending. However, these aren't even the people I am talking about in my post so I'd rather not talk about each of these groups for hours on end.

America's economy is now based on consuming. It is no longer based on working or saving. That is the very problem that I am talking about - I believe people who are capable should actually have to work to get things in return. What is short sighted is to believe that this is a good long term solution: Taxing the people who do the work, giving it to the people who do not do the work, and then saying "See, the rich people benefited because they sold more products!" This is exactly why all of the rich people are taking their capital out of this country and are putting it in places that have economies that are going down the right path.

I think the problem in America is that our citizen's work ethic has absolutely plummeted. Rewarding this kind of behavior through welfare is not the way to fix it.

[Sliderule]

Americans of almost any sort are the furthest thing from being "oppressed". Are you joking me?

Please tell that to the 47 million Americans who are unable to get access to basic medical services because they're too poor to afford it. And to the millions of others who spend an average of $7600.00 per year per person to pay for medical coverage and expenses. Considering the medium income per man is 45000 and per women is 35000 (according to wikipedia). I think a sum that is ~17% and ~20% of pre-tax median income could be considered a bit oppressive.

People have the right to life in this country, but not the right to a healthy one?? Or are some people's lives more equal than others because of their station?

And even if taxes increased for ALL Americans, not just the wealthy, you can't possibly argue that that tax increase would be greater than what they're currently spending in health care costs. The savings that nearly everyone would receive from "evil socialist" health care would benefit nearly everyone in the long term. It's not like this is some radical plan given the fact that nearly every other industrialized nation in the world has put it to use.

I think the problem in America is that our citizen's work ethic has absolutely plummeted. Rewarding this kind of behavior through welfare is not the way to fix it.

Yes clearly that is the problem, not the lack of jobs, lack of infrastructure, poor educational system and low wages. If you want to argue that lazy voters are to blame then you may be able to make a point, but to argue that everyone in America who can't find a job, pay for health insurance, or afford to go school is a lazy sob is ridiculous. The only point you end up making by a comment like that is that you yourself have a poor grasp of how and why this country is in the state it's in.

[OrrDavey]

You have to be such a failure to not be able to afford medical insurance in this country. People not having insurance because of their occupation? Yeah, I think people who want to get stoned all day and not show up to work on a regular basis do not deserve medical insurance. Does that make me a bad person? I sure don't think so. Even many of the extremely crappy jobs - the ones where the employee has to do little more than show up - offer medical insurance if you stay there long enough.

Also, you seem to think that medical insurance is the end all way to be healthy. How many of those 47 million people are obese? How many of them smoke? How many of them partake in some reckless activities/hobbies? Forcing them to stop this behavior would help their health a lot more than medical insurance ever would. But this infringes on their freedoms. Just like forcing me and other hard working people to pay for other people's medical bills infringes on our freedoms.

I don't understand where this idea comes from that having the government run health care in America is going to make it more efficient. One nearly universal truth in economics is that the government is less efficient in its operations. The reason the government should get involved is to complete projects that wouldn't otherwise be completed - with the beforehand expectation that efficiency will drop. The realistic way to lower the cost of health care would be to increase the supply - by eliminating some of the ridiculous requirements to become a doctor. The AMA basically acts as a monopoly for the medical business in this country. Frivolous malpractice cases are another reason that we are all paying more for health care - the cost of all of the legal protection and lawsuit insurance is just insane.

There is no lack of jobs - unemployment rate in the USA is at what economists consider to be a normal level (maybe SLIGHTLY above normal right now, it wavers from time to time). Also, people who work hard and do a good job get better wages. When is the last time you went to a Wal-Mart (or other store where people make minimum wage) and you saw an employee who wasn't a manager really busting their ass? Most of the time these people look like they are at work stoned and don't even have good hygiene. My work has a lot of different companies as clients and I constantly see people voluntarily leaving their jobs that pay 13+ an hour (with benefits) without having a college degree. If these people are summed up in the 47 million Americans, then no, I do not believe they deserve free medical insurance.

This country is the shape it is because people are spending more than they are making and they are not working as hard as they used to. This is what caused the housing market to crash. Consumer debt as well as the national deficit are massive problems as well - this interest expense has to be paid somehow. It has nothing to do with oppression.

[Reon]

You have to be such a failure to not be able to afford medical insurance in this country. People not having insurance because of their occupation? Yeah, I think people who want to get stoned all day and not show up to work on a regular basis do not deserve medical insurance. Does that make me a bad person? I sure don't think so. Even many of the extremely crappy jobs - the ones where the employee has to do little more than show up - offer medical insurance if you stay there long enough.


You don't have to be a failure to not have insurance, I agree that some people may be mismanaging money; but there are other situations where you just HAVE to skip out on insurance(losing a lot of money via job/fines/other bills). I didn't have insurance for a good portion of my life until I become a teenager because my brothers were sick, which took a heavy toll on my family financially as well as emotionally. This is unless you think my parents are total failures to pay for both of my brother's medical funds (Alagille's disease & something else, I forgot, probably liver problems) It can be expensive to get, and expensive to maintain.


Also, you seem to think that medical insurance is the end all way to be healthy. How many of those 47 million people are obese? How many of them smoke? How many of them partake in some reckless activities/hobbies? Forcing them to stop this behavior would help their health a lot more than medical insurance ever would. But this infringes on their freedoms. Just like forcing me and other hard working people to pay for other people's medical bills infringes on our freedoms.


Medical insurance helps keep you healthy, have you ever been told that you can't go to the doctor? People are going to have unhealthy habits, that doesn't mean that we should stop treating them if it causes an undesirable effect.



I don't understand where this idea comes from that having the government run health care in America is going to make it more efficient. One nearly universal truth in economics is that the government is less efficient in its operations. The reason the government should get involved is to complete projects that wouldn't otherwise be completed - with the beforehand expectation that efficiency will drop. The realistic way to lower the cost of health care would be to increase the supply - by eliminating some of the ridiculous requirements to become a doctor. The AMA basically acts as a monopoly for the medical business in this country. Frivolous malpractice cases are another reason that we are all paying more for health care - the cost of all of the legal protection and lawsuit insurance is just insane.


I'm going to admit that I have not checked the AMA, but I do think that most of the standards the AMA pushes are not trifle little rules, I think most of them need to be enforced. We need more 'trained' doctors, not just more doctors in general. Frivolous malpractice suits are an issue though.

There is no lack of jobs - unemployment rate in the USA is at what economists consider to be a normal level (maybe SLIGHTLY above normal right now, it wavers from time to time). Also, people who work hard and do a good job get better wages. When is the last time you went to a Wal-Mart (or other store where people make minimum wage) and you saw an employee who wasn't a manager really busting their ass? Most of the time these people look like they are at work stoned and don't even have good hygiene. My work has a lot of different companies as clients and I constantly see people voluntarily leaving their jobs that pay 13+ an hour (with benefits) without having a college degree. If these people are summed up in the 47 million Americans, then no, I do not believe they deserve free medical insurance.

Does your figure count for the growing number of people who work for themselves? As to Walmart, I've seen many people who work hard as walmart that aren't managers, they appreciate the money because that's all they can get.

This country is the shape it is because people are spending more than they are making and they are not working as hard as they used to. This is what caused the housing market to crash. Consumer debt as well as the national deficit are massive problems as well - this interest expense has to be paid somehow. It has nothing to do with oppression.

"


I don't think a significant majority of people are working (pardon the english here) less harder than they used to, but I do agree that they are spending more.

[Jaycen Rigger]

So... let me get this straight... positive liberty promotes public participation in government... which could lead to an oppressive system where they end up forced to submit to policies they don't want.

Does anyone see a problem with this?

Isn't this about like complaining about losing an arm wrestling match - against yourself?

If "the people" are the government, how could they wind up "oppressing" themselves?

Under such a circumstance, the only people who would likely be "oppressed" are the people who either don't give a damn or refuse to become involved, and such people will not be represented well under ANY form of government.

US politics serve as a great example. Now that the people have figured out they can vote themselves largess, they're doing it. Are there not a lot of lazy people in the world? They're certainly smart enough to figure out that pushing the level gets them cheese. By voting, they get more cheese. It's government cheese, but that's neither here nor there.

So, by letting the lazy and not too bright vote for people who's policies cost the workers more money, we're oppressing ourselves as a nation. People who are incapable of logical thought on a day-to-day basis, or of applying logic to situations outside their own direct experience, will continue to oppress those of us who desire freedom.

Those same people will read my last sentence and start saying things in their heads like "yeah, freedom to ...." doesn't matter. If you're one of those people, you now know who you are, and you'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, baby. Your type always consume each other. It's the hypocrisy of your life philosophy.

[Sliderule]

If you're one of those people, you now know who you are, and you'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, baby. Your type always consume each other. It's the hypocrisy of your life philosophy.

What the hell?

[Jaycen Rigger]

And if you're so against "positive liberty" then you should also be against the Americans' with Disabilities act; I'd love to see someone rally against that here. Perhaps one should consider the fact that in order to give people with disabilities, illness, poverty etc something resembling Negative liberty they are going to have to be given a helping hand. If you think the free market is going to provide for these people then I think you're sadly mistaken.

Furthermore, as long as we as Americans' pay taxes we should be entitled to positive liberties. If we paid no taxes at all then we should be only entitled to negative ones. We're already paying taxes, we might as well get some sort compensation for it. What you fear free universal health care in this country would be nothing short of a revolution for millions of Americans in how they live their lives.

All this thread seems to be is a magnet for those that are in a higher tax bracket (and those who believe they might be there someday) having their taxes raised.

What many many of those in the upper crust fail to realize is the simple fact that this country's economy is a consumer based economy and those consumers aren't going to consume if they're barely able to pay for health care or their education or simply don't have any sort of retirement. If these people are freed from these sort worries, which in a truly free society they should be, then they'll be able to take that extra income and spend it on consumables, their mortgage's, cars, etc. Which will benefit those who have to pay higher taxes since they'll be raking in profits instead of experiencing the situation we now find ourselves in.

To try and fight against this is short sighted at best, you can't possibly ensure the "liberties" of Americans by oppressing the majority of them with health care costs, higher education expenses, and lowered wages.

A lot of fallacies.

I'm against the American's with Disabilites Act. I also think the laws about racism, sexism, religious intollerance need to go.

If someone won't hire you because of what you look like, then go somewhere else. Start your own business. All the government has to do is keep it from getting physical.

If slavery hadn't been institutionalized in our government from the outset, it wouldn't be an issue. That was one of the biggest flaws in our early government. Under the circumstances, I can see why men chose to comprimise, instead. I don't like it, but I understand the history.

So, I don't owe anyone anything, and you can't force a business owner to provide for or cater to any particular clientele. It's the perogative of social advocates, like yourself, to make the case to business that it's in their best interest to seek such clients.

You're quite incorrect, however, that the free market doesn't provide them. Social advocates do exist in great numbers. Look at the number of charities. In America, look at the numbers for charitable donations. It's higher in this country than in any other. We spend less in government money, but we make up for it from our own pockets.

Even when we were struggling much harder than we are now, we always found a dollar to put into a bucket, boot, or jar. My wife has been a Girl Scout Leader, PTO member, room mother, etc, since my daughters were old enough to need one. I've been a PTO member, and now my son's Den Leader.

I don't have time. I don't have the money for it. It's a huge pain in my ass to do it. And yet I have chosen freely to commit myself on a regular basis. That's the free market in action. I've seen a need, and I'm providing it. What I get back is personal satisfaction.

I came from a background where I didn't have television, A/C, or a refridgerator for 2 years. I've worked very hard for my 80K a year salary to provide for my family of 5.

At times, we paid cash for health care. Other times, we went without and were miserable. And yet, we were still able to consume what we needed to get by. Crazy.

Your attitude is dispicable. When hippies start spouting their bleeding heart propaganda by trashing people with means, it makes me physically ill.





Jaycen Rigger added to this post, 3 minutes and 19 seconds later...

What the hell?

When you get what you want and the socialists run the country, you will not be a party member, my elitist friend. They'll not only come for me, but they'll come for you, too.





Jaycen Rigger added to this post, 5 minutes and 6 seconds later...

You have to be such a failure to not be able to afford medical insurance in this country. People not having insurance because of their occupation? Yeah, I think people who want to get stoned all day and not show up to work on a regular basis do not deserve medical insurance. Does that make me a bad person? I sure don't think so. Even many of the extremely crappy jobs - the ones where the employee has to do little more than show up - offer medical insurance if you stay there long enough.

Also, you seem to think that medical insurance is the end all way to be healthy. How many of those 47 million people are obese? How many of them smoke? How many of them partake in some reckless activities/hobbies? Forcing them to stop this behavior would help their health a lot more than medical insurance ever would. But this infringes on their freedoms. Just like forcing me and other hard working people to pay for other people's medical bills infringes on our freedoms.

I don't understand where this idea comes from that having the government run health care in America is going to make it more efficient. One nearly universal truth in economics is that the government is less efficient in its operations. The reason the government should get involved is to complete projects that wouldn't otherwise be completed - with the beforehand expectation that efficiency will drop. The realistic way to lower the cost of health care would be to increase the supply - by eliminating some of the ridiculous requirements to become a doctor. The AMA basically acts as a monopoly for the medical business in this country. Frivolous malpractice cases are another reason that we are all paying more for health care - the cost of all of the legal protection and lawsuit insurance is just insane.

There is no lack of jobs - unemployment rate in the USA is at what economists consider to be a normal level (maybe SLIGHTLY above normal right now, it wavers from time to time). Also, people who work hard and do a good job get better wages. When is the last time you went to a Wal-Mart (or other store where people make minimum wage) and you saw an employee who wasn't a manager really busting their ass? Most of the time these people look like they are at work stoned and don't even have good hygiene. My work has a lot of different companies as clients and I constantly see people voluntarily leaving their jobs that pay 13+ an hour (with benefits) without having a college degree. If these people are summed up in the 47 million Americans, then no, I do not believe they deserve free medical insurance.

This country is the shape it is because people are spending more than they are making and they are not working as hard as they used to. This is what caused the housing market to crash. Consumer debt as well as the national deficit are massive problems as well - this interest expense has to be paid somehow. It has nothing to do with oppression.

It has everything to do with oppression, man. They get everything you're saying, and they don't care.

The advocates of this philosophy want the government to run healthcare so the government can tell people what to eat, what to smoke, how much, how often, when, where and with whom they get to do it!

These people want that power over your life. They want you to have that mutual power, so in this way they'll feel safe. They don't understand confidence in others, it frightens them. They lack confidence, and they fear your freedom. They want to wake up in the morning and KNOW that someone won't shoot them walking down the street. They want to know it in the way that they KNOW it because Big Brother is holding their hand from the moment they open their eyes tilll they close them at night.

Because if he's watching them, he's watching you, too. So they'll never have to worry, or think for themselves (just regurgitate someone else's snarky witicisms).

[Sliderule]

I'm against the American's with Disabilites Act. I also think the laws about racism, sexism, religious intollerance need to go.


Finally

And if you're so against "positive liberty" then you should also be against the Americans' with Disabilities act; I'd love to see someone rally against that here.

Since I may get my hippy ass kicked if I stay here I'm going to leave this thread, and as I do so I'd like to ask some of my naysayers to provide some sort of evidence supporting their "arguments" that isn't anecdotal.

It has everything to do with oppression, man.

I'm the hippy?