@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
I don't think the wars in Vietnam or Iraq were justified or moral, but I have been forced to pay for them. the Supreme Court says abortion is legal and constitutional and a majority of the country agrees, as do I. I think taxes should pay for them as part of a national health plan.. I think taxes (or money borrowed from china) shouldn't be used to pay for the elective wars we've been in. Taxes have paid for all kinds of conservative things I think are immoral but I have to pay nonetheless. Because you think taxes shouldn't pay for something you regard as wrong just doesn't cut it as an excuse, because others think it is right. Youu can kvetch all you want, but sometimes you're going to lose because others disagree with you. I am too. That's democracy.
I understand your argument, MJ. I would like to point something out here that I think makes all the difference in the point of your argument however. I think, and I think rightly so, that the constitution defines national defense as one of the primary, if not the primary intended function of the federal government. I understand that there is disagreement over what really constitutes a valid exercise of national defense, but the point stands that we vest our leaders to make those decisions about issues like Vietnam or Iraq. It is okay to disagree about those wars, and we can work them out as a nation, because they are legitimate functions of government, and sometimes we needs expect to make those decisions collectively. I do not always agree either with what we get involve into. I have questions about Libya to be honest. They are much less a national security risk for us than a I think Iraq was.
Quote:Quote: Just because Obama wants more "social justice" does not make it inherently constitutional by virtue of the fact that he might convince the majority to support his initiatives
Neither does your opposition make it inherently unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, from seeing what you oppose, I'd tend to say that your opposition to something probably means that that something is a good idea.
Here is the rub, MJ. Social Justice enters the realm of personal decisions, rights and responsibilities, which are inherently different than national defense, and I do not think are nearly on the same level of a legitimate function of government, as mandated by the constitution. Looking again at making everyone pay for others abortion, that does not at all make any sense in terms of something that government should be involved in. It is a personal decision and people should be held responsible for it personally, which includes financial responsibility. In contrast, national defense is inherently collective instead of personal. I hope you can understand the difference? These things seem so transparently clear in my mind what the intent of the founders were.
Our little discussion has wandered away from global warming, but I do think it all relates back to the central issue of collective decision making, versus those things best left to individuals. The basis of our country is individual rights, and does not emphasize any rights of "nature," or the elements of nature, such as plants, animals, etc.
