The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process. That is what HR-2 does and I rise in opposition to it, and I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives, and we recognize that 40 million plus are uninsured. Can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their 14th Amendment rights, and their right to equal protection under the law? This bill is constitutional, and it protects the constitutional rights of those who ask the question, "Must I die, must my child die because I am now disallowed from getting insurance?"
Apparently, medical insurance has been Constitutional right all of this time (see here). For consistency sake, would not car insurance also be a Federal Right? After all, it was the Left that compared the two to begin this debate. Why stop there? Why not insure every home owner? In fact, don't I need a home, and therefore the government should buy me one?
Whether you are Prolife or Prochoice, if she is going to be consistent, why does she stand with the party that takes away the Fifth Amendment rights of unborn children. So apparently, the Media and the Left get to control the frame of the debate by arguing that it is unconstitutional to repeal Obama Care. So if it is repealed, does that mean she could take the Right to court because the Constitution is being violated?
It is quite ironic that the number of murdered children in this country that could have received proper medical care, the right to due process and the right to life, reached 53 million as opposed to her made up number of 40 million uninsured. But as my friend likes to say, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument."
But all of this only critiques her own inconsistencies. The fact is, the Left can't even begin to justify their assumptions and presuppositions. For instance, why is Caesar Lord? Where did the Right to Life come from? How did the State become the source for the right of insurance or life? Why do insurance companies have to insure anyone?
What is stopping Left-wing owned companies from doing the very things the Left wants the government to do? I have a friend who believes that companies should do business differently by doing things like profit sharing, etc. That's fine. So why not start a business doing just that instead of forcing by law his ideas of how things should be? Why is it just assumed the government has the right to do what the Left wants and force the rest of us by the power of taxation to pay into their giant insurance scheme? (which would be illegal in any legitimate company)
But in all of this, my same friend can't even begin to explain why government has the right to exist. It is just assumed because to attempt to justify his position would bring him to a reality that he must suppress. The answer is simple. God exists, but we don't like God. Since man is an idolater, we must replace God at all costs. In this case, it is with the State.
I have heard arguments similar to your friends. That the worker is being exploited and has a right to equal share of the bounty that his labor produces. When you simplify the question for them they get tripped up fairly easily. If a plumber starts a business and has worked for 10 years to save $200,000 so he could buy his own vans, equipment, advertising, etc... Then he hires his first employee, should he split the profit 50% / 50% with his first new employee?
ReplyDeleteYour friend will answer of course not. He just means that this should only apply to the big evil coorperation (despite the actual fact that larger coorperations pay much higher wages then small companies). So then you ask at what point (at what size) does a company need to be before it must devide its profits equally? When? after the 6th employee is hired? the 60th? the 600th? 6,000th?
The absurd logic of these lefties (no more calling them liberals, thats what we are) comes from a place of ignorance about wealth and the creation of it. They dont understand that wealth is created. It is unlimited as to how much can be created, but since they see it as finite, it must be shared from the richest to poorest.
Your points about what gives the government a right to exist is valid, this is why you need to leave behind concervatism and become libertarian. You cant argue that government doesnt have the right to take your money and give it to someone else (which it doesnt) and yet say that government has the right to define what marriage is, or who should be able to take what drugs legally, or if prostitution is legal. I am not saying these things are moral or right, they are not. What I am saying is that you cant say the government doesnt have the right to try to create equality, but it does have the right to prevent people from using cocain and somehow think your being logically consistant.
1) "(no more calling them liberals, thats what we are"
ReplyDeleteI agree. Robert Bork's Slouching Towards Gommorah makes a similar argument. Most of us Conservatives are really just "Classical Liberals".
2)As for your consistency argument, I agree that I still have some things to work through. But so far, I have to agree with Ronald Reagan when he argued that Libertarianism and conservatism in many ways are working towards the same ends.
3) "yet say that government has the right to define what marriage is"
I think this argument over simplifies the Conservative's position. It is true that many Christian conservatives have totally confused the Two Kingdom model and therefore actually believe we can "save" our country through political means.
I do not believe for a moment that the government has the right to define marriage. In fact, I know of other conservatives that wonder if married people should really get a married tax rate. However, I struggle with the idea of some kind of morally neutral state. Can the State really be neutral about this issue? If the state stayed out of the debate, I would love it, but I find Caesar just won't.
Also, as for drugs, I have said as much when it comes to the Libertarian position and have said so publicly. So again, we agree.
4) In conclusion, my argument about why the government should exist does not presuppose the abandonment of Conservatism, at least in the role of certain moral issues such as abortion and slavery. My argument is that although Dan and others tell me I'm wrong about abortion and other issues that do not belong to the government (where his right and wrong come from must be outer space), he is not able in the slightest to justify why the government exists or what its God given role is because he does not believe in God.
In other words, they appeal to some moral authority or emotionally driven moral paradigm, yet refuse to explain why I should grant them their assumptions. This is mainly because they have never been challenged to defend their presuppositions. Their arrogance is too great to stoop to having to question their own authority (just watch Dan's latest Bill Maher video link).
I should also add that I think if Republicans start doing their typical nonsense during the next 2 years, it's time to go full bore Libertarian/Constitution Party or something else. Perhaps an actual Tea Party?!
ReplyDeleteSo I guess you are more Libertarian than I thought. (been a while since we discussed the specifics)
ReplyDeleteIt really is doing Gods law justice when you acknowledge that the best way to preserve Gods law is to not look to the state to support it. We will do a far better job following Gods law when we are self governing again.
As the Libertarian saying goes:
The left wants small government (or liberty) when it comes to personal freedoms, but large government (or little liberty) when it comes to economic freedom.
The right wants small government (or liberty)when it comes to economic freedom, but they want big government (or little liberty) when it comes to personal freedoms.
The above statement has some flaws and varies from person to person, but does have a foundation of truth. The main difference is that since (by my theoretical statement above) the Right wing are the ones that agree with Libertarians about economic freedom, so thus there is far more alignment. This is because economics effect our actual every day lives far more then personal freedoms. Our income, our ability to prosper, our choice to work what job we want. These all come from economic freedom not personal freedom.
Things like illegal drugs and government defining marriage actually have very little effect on day to day lives of the average person. So Reagan is not right in theory (its actually about 50/50 in actual alignment between Libertarians and concervatives), but in the actual effects to our every day lives (thus in the actual results) Libertarians and concervatives are quite aligned. But as in your post here, it is extreemely important that we are logically consistant, thus the libertarian is far more logically consistant. I watched Stossel make a fool out of Anne Coulter while discussing drugs. She had to resort to saying the reason they cant be legal is because of the welfare state. If it were not for that she might agree. Pretty lame arguement.
As far as abortion goes, the libertarians are pretty split. I see it as the libertarian is all about personal right to life and liberty. So how can you logically be for a 6 month old babies right to liberty but not a person in a womb? It is logically inconsistant. So as a libertarian you must be pro-life (otherwise your saying we have the right to life except......and now your treading on illogical basis)
I actually heard a lecture from a libertarian (who was pro choice) who was trying to use the ability to learn a foriegn language as a basis somehow for defining life and who is entitled to rights. it was actually a bit more complicated than that, and he was trying to establish a case for sentiance, but what he didnt realize was, he was technically defining mentally handicapped and 1 year old baby as not a person and hence we should be able to kill them (of course he didnt say this).
This is all another good reason for Christians to jump ship and become libertarians.
I dont however think we should abandon ourselves as Republicans. Not only because the best chance libertarians have is to hijack the R party, but becuase the origonal Republican (Thomas Jefferson) was a libertarian in the truest sense of the word.
I am finding myself very interested in correcting the definitions back to their actual true meaning. I am sick of the twisting that progressivism has brought on. I believe one of the ways we will defeat it is to bring back true meaning of words and terms from their distortions by progressives.
their main argument for calling themselves liberals is that they argue that things like want for food, want for housing, want for clothes, want for money. All of these things remove liberty by their definition. At the surface it can seem like a logical arguement. The logic is easily defeated by just asking them - If you fill that want without them having to actually earn it, who does it come from? and what does that do to that persons liberty?
But by framing the debate into defining "need" as a removal of liberty, they can always argue that the person you take it from still doesnt have "need" (since they are rich), so now both people have liberty.
ReplyDeletethis is why all the more important to insure they cant twist the definition of liberty into "a freedom from need", and make sure the true definition of liberty remains "you can do whatever the hell you want as long as you dont harm anyone else"
1) "So I guess you are more Libertarian than I thought"
ReplyDeleteI am a believer that God intends governments to be local all around the world as man goes forth to subdue the earth. There should and ought to be different cultures everywhere.
So the biggest problem or difficulty I see with Libertarianism is the fact that if our government were merely local, you know darn well that some other government will again rise to power like the Soviets or Hitler. without a strong National government that has gotten into Europe's affairs (and Japan's), I have no doubt we would have been forced into a Third World War.
So I struggle with that.
2) "The right wants small government (or liberty)when it comes to economic freedom, but they want big government (or little liberty) when it comes to personal freedoms."
Although I think this is an overstatement, I agree and have said this many times in general. Prohibition more than demonstrates this. Clearly pastors attempt to go beyond their authority to preserve a "Christian" culture or a Christian America by using unbiblical methods. This is the problem when men, especially pastors, confuse Jesus' Kingdom, which he clearly teaaches is not of this world/age, with the kingdoms of this world.
I hate the stupid argument that we have to listen to every year when Focus on the Family or some other group wants to deliver us from Walmart's "Happy Holidays". It really is stupid to think that men's hearts are changed when we force them by law to act "right".
However, the Sctripture is clear that government is instituted by the Creator to restrain the evils of men. So Libertarians that do not see the Creator/creature relationship as the basis for government, will fail to see the proper role of government.
3) It is my opinion that since the Left really doesn't understand the Creator/creature relationship or the foundation for the purpose of Government as ordained by their Creator, since man must have some kind of idol when they do not believe in God, they must look to government in a way that meets their religious longings. And as we all know what religious imposters do, they seek power over the lives of others. The very thing they fear from the "Religious Right" they seek to do themselves. All you have to do is look at the McDonald's Happy Meal lawsuit to see that or even the stupid electric cars by Government Motors. ;-)
If you read the Book of Revelation (I highly suggest the commentary by Johnson), John makes this all too clear.
As for the abortion issue, I have debated people over the years and have found no abortion argument that can stand. In fact, my friend Dr. White has tried to find Abortionists who will debate the topic publicly in a moderated debate format. They know they will lose everytime and so hide behind their emotional rhetoric and judges. This is why they go through the courts and skirt the "normal means" of legislation. In fact, your now deceased Senator used to admit as much. No debate. Just men in black robes issuing their decree.
ReplyDelete