[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[Jed S. Baer]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 01:34:09 -0400
Angelo Bertolli wrote:

> > around". I note only that Democrats seem to be more open about it.
> > But IIRC the concept of national health care has bi-partisan support.
> >   
> 
> I like the concept too.  It's the implementation I worry about.  And
> I'm guessing you're already convinced there could be no good
> implementation that would work?  Whatever we're doing right now isn't
> working, and both parties still don't seem to have a clue about how to
> make it work.

That's correct. Again, read basic economics. There's no way for a
centralized control agency to keep track of all the variables that would
required for socialized anything to be made to actually work. Just look
at what's happening with nationalized health care already. In England,
the government is sending NHS doctors to non-NHS doctors for treatment. I
won't spend the time to re-find all the articles. Just recently I read
about a veteran having some incredibly long wait (3 weeks, IIRC) to get a
simple office visit through Tri-Care (what OCHAMPUS morphed into).
Examples of rationed health care abound, in states where health care is
nationalized. Examples abound of Canadians coming to the U.S. for
treatment they can't get in a timely fashion up North. Our health care
system is already being dragged down by the government, and people still
advocate that more government is the solution? Sorry to be blunt, but
that's just wishful thinking, the result of being blinded by socialist
rhetoric.

> > http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/09/13/constitution_day
> 
> I don't understand what you mean.  Maybe I'm not the primary audience 
> for this link, but how are are things like welfare and pork-barrel 
> spending "contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and 
> subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is 
> founded?"  Does it specifically restrict this kind of thing?

And right there is the fundamental misunderstanding of how U.S.
government is supposed to work. And right there in that article are the
arguments. From James Madison himself: "I cannot undertake to lay my
finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to
Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their
constituents." The U.S. government is supposed to be one of enumerated
powers. It isn't, "that which is not prohibited is allowed", but the
exact opposite. The Tenth Amendment was supposed to make that clear. But
politicians ignore this. Regrettably, so does most of the U.S.
population, who continue to vote for these rascals, who care not one whit
for whether the government has the power to do all the things it's
currently doing. If you really want to get into how we got here, do some
research on the Wickard v. Fillburn case, which was a distinct turning
point in the exercise of federal power. But people have grown accustomed
to this perversion of the intent of the Constitution, that they ignore
the original.

> What roles do you think government should take in society, and how can 
> it enforce them?  I mean after all, isn't it just a way that we all 
> agree to live together?

What's wrong with people agreeing to live together by respecting each
other's property rights?

> I don't see the inherent flaw in giving money 
> to something that we think benefits us as a society.

Fine. Then do so, of your own volition. But don't pass laws which empower
the government to force me to pay for things I don't want to. In the case
of the left-wingers, they want me to pay for all sort of social
benevolence. But what happens when it's something else? What about all
those "not in my name" protests that happened at the start of our current
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, you don't want your tax dollars
to be used for purposes you don't support? But when it's purposes you do
support, it's okay to take MY money and use it? But this is what the left
calls "fairness". Bull!

The flaw is in thinking that what you like is what I like, and calling
that "good". The flaw is in thinking that you can use the threat of force
(this is, in the end, how all government are able operate) to force me to
support what you think is good.

> And you'll never 
> ever get 100% of the people to agree on everything, so we should just 
> have nothing?

Capitalism has hardly left us with nothing. You want to see people who
have nothing? Go find some pictures of people in the Soviet Union waiting
in long lines for food, clothing, and other staples.

jed