Morality101.net

The complete ignorance of collectivists who constantly promote Force and Sacrifice on Digg has finally gotten my goat.  I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna TAKE IT anymore!

powerlineblog.com — The Democrats aretrying to rush their health care “reform” bill through Congress before anyone understands what is in it. The bill is intended to be the precursor of socialized medicine, the “single payer,” national health system that Great Britain, Canada and many other countries have tried, with uniformly awful results.  [entire Digg thread}

Extracted from 53 Comments, the communists/collectivists are in pinko:

tasine

…the issue for many of us truly isn’t solely about “health care” though we do defend the fine system we have in the states. What I believe is a bigger issue is that we want smaller, less intrusive government. Our government has grown FAR too large, dealing with things not in their realm of responsibility, things that belong to the private sector or state. The more it grows, the less efficient it is, and the less control we as a free people have. Many of us believe that is true in all countries that usurp private enterprise, including Canada. Many of us in the states resent creeping socialism, communism, marxism, and all other isms that eventually lead to tyranny. Why keep adding to that when there is no need whatsoever?

@tasine

“we do defend the fine system we have in the states.”

You mean the fine system that left my mother with no way to buy health insurance after she had cancer because my family had lost our health insurance plan due to a life threatening latex allergy that forced my father to stop practicing dentistry? The fine system that will allow a child to die if his parents make too much money to qualify for assistance (which I’m guessing you don’t want tax dollars to pay for anyway), but not enough money to pay for life saving treatment? The system that causes my grandparents endless worry about being a burden to the family when they can’t afford necessary medications?

If it’s worked well for you, that’s great. Despite my family’s problems, it has worked well for me, too, though I’ve only had one hospitalization and surgery. There are plenty of people who are doing everything right, but who get thrown off a cliff. Not that I’d expect you to show much compassion for them. You know, you can be a ridiculously partisan republican who will hate any health plan that comes out of a democratic administration, and yet still admit that we’ve got a problem with health care in this country.

tasine

EIR, I’m sorry for your family’s difficulties. Yes, people do fall through the cracks with our system and with all systems and I’m sure all of us regret that. I would never make light of your family’s problems. I’m not trying to be nasty, but what makes you believe that had we had universal health care the same things wouldn’t have happened – or worse?

“You know, you can be a ridiculously partisan republican who will hate any health plan that comes out of a democratic administration, and yet still admit that we’ve got a problem with health care in this country.”

That would be a funny comment were it not so silly. I WILL HATE ANY HEALTH PLAN THAT COMES OUT OF ANY US ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE HEALTH CARE IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS AND THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT. I do NOT WANT socialized medical care. I do not want anything socialized. Am I partisan? Yes, to the same degree most on Digg are. However, just so you know, I have resigned the Republican Party because they are so wimpy. I will carefully follow everything Obama does because I don’t trust him, I don’t like him, I don’t like his policies, I don’t like his philosophies – and it has nothing to do with the fact I was a Republican and he is a socialist. It has to do with my understanding what socialism is and what it will become eventually, NOT because I am smart, but because I know some history, I have a healthy skepticism, I follow no guru whatsoever, and I am a realist – NO health care system is perfect, and what we have as we speak, is the best in the world and I don’t want politicians trying to get votes by pandering mucking around with it. The primary problem we have in the health care industry is not a health care problem – it is a legal problem and for that reason will NEVER be solved. That problem is runaway lawsuits with no merit. What we NEED is NOT health care reform, but TORT REFORM. Know any lawyers or “legislators” willing to take a knife to that monster called ambulance chasing lotto? No, you don’t, and neither do I.

eir574

“I’m not trying to be nasty, but what makes you believe that had we had universal health care the same things wouldn’t have happened – or worse?”

Being entitled to health care is a big step forward for someone who couldn’t afford it at all. People complain about having the government decide what care you can and cannot receive, but this seems to be no worse, and perhaps better, than having an insurance company whose only motivation is profit decide what care you can and cannot receive. At least the government is technically responsible to the people. The insurance company is responsible to its shareholders. I have a better sense of what goes on in those companies since the only thing my father could do after losing his dental practice was to work in insurance.

“NO health care system is perfect, and what we have as we speak, is the best in the world”

It may be the best in the world for those who have access. If you don’t have much access to it, then it’s most certainly not the best in the world. Some like to paint those who don’t have access to good health care as lazy fools who aren’t motivated enough to provide for themselves. I wouldn’t call my parents lazy, though — just victims of circumstances that occur all the time in this country.

Did you know that a 2007 study showed that we rank 41st in maternal mortality among 171 nations studied (http://www.seattlepi.com/national/335391_maternal1 … )? One in 4800 women die from pregnancy complications, which ties us with Belarus and just barely edges out Serbia. Ireland came in first, with only one death in 47,6000. And that doesn’t even include other types of bad outcomes. Is that really such a fine health care system? Perhaps for the women who don’t die in childbirth.

The cost of lawsuits is a problem, of course, but you can’t get rid of them completely as some of them are quite valid. My sister once had complications after a surgical procedure to place a metal plate in her head, and the surgeon who went in to fix things up said he would support a malpractice claim. There were muscles that had been cut and hadn’t been sutured properly, there was a thumb print on the plate (??), and there were various other problems. Some claims are indeed valid. But, even if tort reform lowers the cost of health care, there will always be people who can’t afford the care they need for themselves and their families, and it will not always be the case that they’re simply lazy fools who would prefer to do nothing while someone else supports them.

Striker101

Everyone, that is, who works and can write a check, can choose to buy health care.

Those who don’t work are not entitled to have someone else pay for it. That is what our private property rights are all about. Survival of the fittest is supreme natural law.

eir574

“Everyone, that is, who works and can write a check, can choose to buy health care. ”

Patently untrue. Did you not read my post above? After my mother had cancer, insurance companies no longer wanted her business. But, you’d probably say she deserves to die after having had cancer.

_____________.

Oh, maybe I get it. You think that once my mother became virtually uninsurable at nearly any price, she should just have become a high powered CEO or something so that she could afford health care out of pocket. Does the same go for children?

i cannot believe that people can be so easily duped into thinking that they don’t want free health care…I realize a lot of money is being spent to confuse people but seriously, how feeble minded do you have to be to believe that we are better off with out the same health care system that every other civilized nation gives to their citizens? Meanwhile we have the highest mortality rate of any of the first world nations…go figure.

Hate to tell you, sweetie, but there is no such thing as free health care. Even if it is a free clinic, a free ward, a free health fair, etc. IT IS NOT FREE. SOMEONE pays for it. If you work you will pay for it with taxes. If you don’t work you probably get your health care ‘free’ anyway, courtesy of the taxpayers.

Don’t believe for one second that any nation “gives” free health care to their citizens. Governments do not have any money except that which they extract from people’s pockets which they can then give to others and that buys them votes in the next election.

Is there some particular reason you believe it is more fair for me to pay for your health care than it is for you to pay for your health care? Inquiring minds want to know why so many Americans feel no responsibility for themselves. Have we wimped out this far? Maybe our wimpiness is what has resulted in what you call the “highest mortality rate of any of the first world nations.”

BillE3

Considering how poorly the government has done with running its own affairs, I can not fathom how congress is going to do a better job of running healthcare. What I can fore see is how the bureaucracy will eat up a lot of the money allotted for healthcare. Government payroll will take precedent over actual medical treatment. A government run system is going to be top heavy with administrations and administrators which will be paid for before any money goes to patient care. The same amount of care and quality of care are a matter of time and the government is going to make it go so slow, it will not be good. I guess to offset the problems of providing care, congress can pass a national suicide assist law and give us all an option.

Striker101

Not to be buried in 3rd-level response where most of my effort would be lost in the fog.

@eir574 “Oh, maybe I get it. You think…” You have no clue what I think, and you cannot frame any argument based upon whatever you think that I think.

Other than that you are “A 31 year-old person who joined Digg on May 21st, 2007″, who looks like a cat in a box, and who has written 6322 comments to date but has never submitted an article. Your comments are rarely if ever on top-level, your “thing” is stalking and attacking others for your Collectivist cause — a reactionary, IOW don’t act, react.

So next you move to “oh pity me” “…my mother became virtually uninsurable…” which is to be blamed on the fact that you don’t qualify to be some “high powered CEO”? What really happened — your folks didn’t read the policy, or didn’t pay the premiums, and became “virtually uninsurable”? So that justifies shifting the blame and responsibility shifts to that “fine system”, which would mean that millions of other citizens (including myself and everyone else here on Digg) should be FORCED to SACRIFICE their property, and thus perhaps their lives, for your family, while letting their own family go without or even die? Are your parents somehow more important than mine, or your neighbor’s, or your mechanic’s?

Now I will TELL you what I think — I think that all of your whining is disgustingly immoral and evil. So before you start sticking labels on me, know that I am not Republican or Democrat, left or right, conservative nor liberal, because such labels cannot be clearly defined. I was not poured from a mold; I am ME; I insist upon individual sanctity. I think for myself and I am responsible for my own life and for the results of my own mistakes. I have no health insurance, but that’s not your problem. I refuse to be responsible for you, make that your problem.

http://morality101.net/blog/morality

Okay, that’s all for this one, you either get it or you don’t!

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved.

Following is the complete article from Original URL

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government–that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically–is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy–a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government–needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature–the elective body there being the House of Commons–and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the “excesses of democracy” and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled “Constitutions.” Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts–next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his “Notes On The State of Virginia” written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . .” (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called “Constitution”–in reality a mere Act of that body:

“All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice.”

This topic–the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority–is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the “excesses of democracy” The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America–the people at large of that period–who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the “excesses of democracy,” were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards–in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)–for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

“The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period.” (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

“Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current.”

It is correct to say that in any Democracy–either a Direct or a Representative type–as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949–indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to–is the very antithesis of–the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only “just powers” (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution–adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment–with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term “the people” means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention–especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose–to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government–of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ “Autobiography” commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

“By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act.”

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the “Essex Result” (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called “Constitutions” adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully – it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only “just powers,” limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the “snob-rule” of a governing Elite and the “mob-rule” of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights–to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here–as follows:

“As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.” (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label “Republic” has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused–for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling–having essential characteristics of–a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to “the ancient republics,” but in any such connection the term was used loosely–by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy–often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his “Thoughts on Government” and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.

read more | digg story

Yesterday’s news of the oil producing nations upping the production output of oil, in order to avoid economic calamity comes as no surprise to this author. After all when the looters are running the show, what else can you expect.

What are we to make of this?

Who is really in control?

Is this any kind of a free market economy, or what do you call it, when a few control the means of production?

There are those of you out there who believe, we live in a wonderful world of supply and demand, when actually it should be called corporate fixes, and control.

We need more than a tax strike to change the tyranny we live under!

We need a strike against the very system that controls us. Stay tuned for further developments, as this author proposes a peaceful non violent strike against the very economic machine that enslaves and uses us like so much grease on a chain.

One day you will realize this is the only way to change our destiny of subjugation, and misery.