Obama '08?

DrewDad wrote:

I'm not really advocating for happiness for being the standard; I'm trying to get a rational reason from Foxfyre as to why maximizing personal liberty should be the highest goal of a society.

Frankly, maximizing personal liberty would also mean abolishing a host of laws and programs that I think make life better. Everything from the FDA to local law enforcement would be affected.

It's a silly, hyperbolic statement of hers.

DrewDad wrote:

I would say that the goal is not solely to maximize personal liberty, but to balance personal liberty with societal safety. And that balancing point is different for different people.

Why is my 'goal of maximizing individual liberties' any more hyperbolic than your 'balacing personal liberty with societal safety'? What does that mean anyway? And who is authorized to define it?

For me, individual liberty was the intent of the Founders who looked at unalienable rights as whatever does not violate the Constitutional or legal rights of anybody else. In other words, your individual liberties; i.e. unalienable rights require no participation or contribution by anybody else and do not affect anybody else's unalienable rights.

Obama's universal healthcare plan presumes to 'increase societal safety' by requiring every citizen to have healthcare insurance whether they want it or not. But if that scheme should result in less access to healthcare, less competent healthcare, less variety of options, and/or less affordable healthcare, is the 'safety' of having healthcare worth giving up the liberty to choose what kind of healthcare options best fit our individual needs?

You might argue that this issue is where the 'balance' comes in. The problem comes in who gets to choose what is 'balanced'.

Individual liberties do not presume there will be no law, no regulation, no restrictions in the social order. But a free people adopt their own social contract to decide what will or will not be socially acceptable and what collectively supported services will best benefit the whole.

When an authoritarian government presumes to decide for the people what they should want, what they should have, what they should not have, what they are required to have, etc. and takes away the right of the people to decide such for themselves, then you can maximize safety and say that 'public safety is 'balanced' with individual liberties, but those who value liberty over the 'nanny state' will not agree that there is any 'balance' at all.

So without you being explicit about what 'balance' looks like, I still still go with individual liberties as the highest goal however hyperbolic you might consider that to be.

4 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

okie wrote:
Free Duck, if you would listen to your own advice, you would conclude that many of the Democrat's and Obama's socialistic policies are therefore the wrong road to follow.

And if you would listen to my advice then you would conclude that the last Republican administration did more to destroy personal liberty in this country (and elsewhere) than any social program you decry.

Give me a break, Duck, get serious, Bush did more to destroy personal liberty than social programs? I think that is very very wrong and very very poor reasoning. You are providing absolutely no historical context whatsoever, and you are ignoring the fact that the one really big job given to a president is to protect the country. Shoot, even Abe Lincoln had reporters arrested for sedition, FDR rounded up tens of thousands of Japanese and other citizens and placed them in camps, the government opened letters during WWII to check for sensitive information, I could go on and on, but what Bush did is extremely minor and of little consequence to our rights, it was a total liberal spin to demonize an honorable man that took his job seriously. Airport security is far more intrusive than checking a few phone calls to foreign countries, but few people disagreed that we should do that, things like take away fingernail clippers from 85 year old gray haired grandmas. Do I agree with all of Bush's policies, no - not at all, but do I respect him, yes.

Quote:

okie wrote:

And you still haven't explained what you are and why. Solutions to problems and issues are determined by applying basic principles, and therefore you must have some foundational principles to solve problems.

I am a Chronic Contrarian. Does that satisfy you? I think you may have missed my last post in that discussion.

I guess that explains it, but I guess what you are saying is you are highly inconsistent with your opinions and each issue sort of exists in a political vacuum? I don't agree, but thats why this is America, we can disagree, isn't that great?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Cohen, who writes opinions in my local paper the Washington Post is very hawkish. He was still for the invasion of Iraq long after there were no WMDs and has written some rather foolish columns (IMO and many other others both Repub and Dem.) I could send you some various columns but you can look them up yourself. I would rather read Krauthammer and that is saying a lot!

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Give me a break, Duck, get serious, Bush did more to destroy personal liberty than social programs? I think that is very very wrong and very very poor reasoning.

Certainly no poorer than an absolute declaration of wrongness.

okie wrote:

I don't agree, but thats why this is America, we can disagree, isn't that great?

Fan-*******-tastic.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

So how do you feel about the FDA? Should the government be involved in regulating food safety? Automobile safety? How about air and water quality?

All of those things impact individual liberty, in that people aren't allowed to fire up coal-powered generators in their back yards, or sell snake oil nostrums.

How do you feel about flood insurance?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Individual liberties do not presume there will be no law, no regulation, no restrictions in the social order. But a free people adopt their own social contract to decide what will or will not be socially acceptable and what collectively supported services will best benefit the whole.

....

So without you being explicit about what 'balance' looks like, I still still go with individual liberties as the highest goal however hyperbolic you might consider that to be.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me. Perhaps you don't even know yourself.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

I am disagreeing with you that social safety is more important or as important than individual liberty if that is what you intended to say. If that is not what you intended to say, then I left you the opportunity to clarify.

I am asking you what you think 'balancing individual liberties with social safety' would look like and who you think is the best judge of how that would be defined and who would have the responsibility to achieve it?

And, since this is a thread dedicated to Obama, perhaps you could include whether you think Obama's strategy is to achieve a 'balance between social safety and individual liberties' and why you think that.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

When an authoritarian government presumes to decide for the people what they should want, ...

Well, but people had/have the individual freedom to elect such a government?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

The Founders wanted authority of the federal government to be quite specifically limited and quite specifically defined. They did not intend that people be elected to government who would override the intent of the Constitution and significantly expand the powers, authority, and scope of the federal government.

The Constitution was intended to protect us from leaders who would campaign promising one thing and then govern quite differently from their campaign promises. When such leaders are elected, however, and the limitations built into the Constitution are ignored, the government can and in this case does presume to dictate to the people what they should want, what they need, and what they shall have, and the people accept it as inevitable, then the people give up important freedoms. And as history has proved over the decades and longer, it is not beyond possibility that the people will give up them all.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I think each individual has to find their own balance, and I think each society has to find its own balance. You have a right to vote your conscience, as do I, as does every voter in America.

I don't see that Obama's goals are any further off-kilter than any other recent administrations. Right now, the cost of caring for the uninsured is hidden. Facing up to the fact that a) medical care is going to happen whether people have insurance or not and b) things would be much smoother if everyone had insurance seems like rational thinking to me.

Bush certainly pushed for fewer civil liberties. Extraordinary rendition, the PATRIOT Act. He flew back early from vacation to sign a bill affecting a single hospital patient, for god's sake.

Clinton's administration did pretty well, IMO. I think Bush I did OK, too.

Foxfyre wrote:

I am asking you what you think 'balancing individual liberties with social safety' would look like and who you think is the best judge of how that would be defined and how that would be achieved.

Seems to me the US is achieving it pretty well, although the Guantanamo Bay detention center scares the crap out of me. As do some provisions of the PATRIOT Act and extraordinary rendition.

On the other hand, I approve of lots of other agencies and regulations imposed by the Federal government (e.g., the FDA).

You seem to think we should tip further in favor of individual liberty. I'm asking how far you want to tip things, and you don't seem to want to answer the question.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

DrewDad wrote:

I think each individual has to find their own balance,

But how does one do that apart from maximizing individual liberties being placed at the top of the list of goals?

Quote:
and I think each society has to find its own balance. You have a right to vote your conscience, as do I, as does every voter in America.

If individual liberties are maximized, I would agree. But what if whatever our conscience dictates is not allowed because a freedom has been taken away? And we are not allowed to vote our conscience?

On the conservatism thread yesterday, for instance, a short debate ensued in which one side argued that a doctor who treats government insured patients should not have the right to refuse to do any legal procedure the patient requests. The other side argued that not allowing the doctor to refuse to do what he personally felt morally wrong or not in the best interest of the patient would be a serious violation of individual liberties.

So it is necessary to define what we mean when we use a term like 'individual liberties' or a term like 'societal balance'. I still believe that only through defense and promotion of individual liberties can a society achieve the societal balance that it wants.

Quote:
I don't see that Obama's goals are any further off-kilter than any other recent administrations. Right now, the cost of caring for the uninsured is hidden. Facing up to the fact that a) medical care is going to happen whether people have insurance or not and b) things would be much smoother if everyone had insurance seems like rational thinking to me.

I don't quarrel that things would be smoother and less complicated if everyone had insurance. But whether that is best achieved via individual liberties and a free market system or whether it is best achieved via a mandated system decreed by an authoritarian government is really the debate isn't it? Anytime the government tells you that you must do or buy anything that does not necessarily affect any other person, you have lost an individual freedom to choose that for yourself. And if enough such individual liberty is taken away, it is not conceivable that eventually the people will have no individual liberties.

Quote:
Bush certainly pushed for fewer civil liberties. Extraordinary rendition, the PATRIOT Act. He flew back early from vacation to sign a bill affecting a single hospital patient, for god's sake.

Clinton's administration did pretty well, IMO. I think Bush I did OK, too.

Bush 43 certainly pushed to take away the ability of bad people to deny Americans their individual liberties. He made a lot of bad decisions and some we'll be paying for in decades to come, but violation of individual rights of the people was not one of them. Even his dubious No Child Left Behind initiative left room to accept the consequences of less federal money and opt out. (While I initially supported this, I have come to see this as a terrible program, but so far neither Obama nor the current Congress have taken any steps to stop it though there has been some talk about renaming it.)

Certainly Bush 43 did no worse than Clinton or Bush 41 in the area of individual liberties.

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I am asking you what you think 'balancing individual liberties with social safety' would look like and who you think is the best judge of how that would be defined and how that would be achieved.

Seems to me the US is achieving it pretty well, although the Guantanamo Bay detention center scares the crap out of me. As do some provisions of the PATRIOT Act and extraordinary rendition.

On the other hand, I approve of lots of other agencies and regulations imposed by the Federal government (e.g., the FDA).

If the Guatanamo Bay detention center was such a bad idea or a terrible thing, it would already be closed. Right now I am guessing that Obama would give a small fortune to be able to take back his pledge to close it.

There were some provisions of the Patriot Act that were questionable, yes, and after the first emergency of 9/11 ebbed, those have been corrected. It is important to know that the Patriot Act was passed by Congress and not something dreamed up just by George W. Bush. If the Patriot Act was such a terrible infringement of civil or individual rights, President Obama would have spoken out against it and the current Democratically controlled Congress would have long ago defunded it and then rescinded it. Neither has even been proposed which is a pretty good indication that the Act is critical to national security.

I think the bad press of both Guantanamo and the Patriot Act has been mostly anti-Bush hype with little foundation in truth.

As far as the USA doing a good job of balancing social safety with individual liberties, again I am not sure what that means. In the past, I think the USA has done a good job of exercising its Constitutional mandates and ethical and moral compulsion to promote the general welfare without violating principles of individual liberty. It was our commitment to individual liberty, in fact, that allowed much innovation and initiative that has contributed to the social good.

Again, 'individual liberty' in this context refers to that which is our Constitutionally protected unalienable rights to whatever does not infringe on anybody else's rights and that which requires no involuntary participation or contribution by anybody else.

I also think the FDA, as it was originally designed, promotes the common welfare by testing and alerting the public to potentially harmful products and banning certain use of products known to be a source of grave harm to the people. It provides a service that would be unreasonably burdensome for every citizen to provide for himself/herself. This certainly does promote the social safety without violating or reducing anybody's individual rights. If the FDA, however goes further to presume to dictate to people what they must and must not eat or provide in school lunches or whatever, it does begin to erode individual liberties and exceeds the intent of the Constitution.

The scope and authority of the Federal government should be quite limited and focused on Constitutionally mandated responsibilities. If it did that, the size and scope of the Federal government would be a small fraction of what it currently is. But that would not preclude the states, counties, cities, and other local governments from doing whatever they deemed to be in the best interest of the people they serve.

Quote:
You seem to think we should tip further in favor of individual liberty. I'm asking how far you want to tip things, and you don't seem to want to answer the question.

I think I did answer it in my immediately previous paragraph as modified by other comments.

You however, don't seem to want to answer my question about what a balance between societal safety and individual liberties would look like. As there is such a wide diversity of how our own citizens few the situation in this country--just look how differently you and I see the Patriot Act for instance--just saying that the USA achieves it pretty well doesn't tell me anything as I think our government is steadily eroding and chipping away at our individual freedoms.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

You strike me as a very confused individual.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I assume that with your desire to maximize individual liberty you support the legalization of marijuana and same-sex marriages?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I'm not really advocating for happiness for being the standard; I'm trying to get a rational reason from Foxfyre as to why maximizing personal liberty should be the highest goal of a society.

Frankly, maximizing personal liberty would also mean abolishing a host of laws and programs that I think make life better. Everything from the FDA to local law enforcement would be affected.

It's a silly, hyperbolic statement of hers.

DrewDad wrote:

I would say that the goal is not solely to maximize personal liberty, but to balance personal liberty with societal safety. And that balancing point is different for different people.

Why is my 'goal of maximizing individual liberties' any more hyperbolic than your 'balacing personal liberty with societal safety'? What does that mean anyway? And who is authorized to define it?

Foxy doesn't actually subscribe to the goal of maximizing individual liberties. She has proven that she is more than willing to sacrifice OTHER people's liberty interests when she wants to impose her views on them through the power of the state.

Quote:

For me, individual liberty was the intent of the Founders who looked at unalienable rights as whatever does not violate the Constitutional or legal rights of anybody else.

Foxy's concept of the Founder's definition of unalienable or inalienable rights is inaccurate. Unalienable rights exist without any reference to a document (the constitution) or legislative act. The founders subscribed to the concept that the people retained the entire universe of rights and that the government did not have the power to infringe upon any individual's life, liberty, or property interests unless doing so rationally served a legitimate government interest. The enumeration of some rights in the Constitution does not negate the importance of unenumerated rights retained by the people.

Quote:

In other words, your individual liberties; i.e. unalienable rights require no participation or contribution by anybody else and do not affect anybody else's unalienable rights.

Foxy fails to understand that the entire purpose of entering a social contract is for mutual protection and security. Our founders understood that individuals are social animals and they abandoned natural law (survival of the fittest) in order to band together to secure their survival individually and collectively. For individuals to function and thrive in group settings there must be ordered liberty, i.e., rules that regulate the conduct of individuals.

Quote:

Obama's universal healthcare plan presumes to 'increase societal safety' by requiring every citizen to have healthcare insurance whether they want it or not.

Universal healthcare, whether Foxy wants it or not, does not infringe upon any of Foxy's unalienable rights.

Quote:

But if that scheme should result in less access to healthcare, less competent healthcare, less variety of options, and/or less affordable healthcare, is the 'safety' of having healthcare worth giving up the liberty to choose what kind of healthcare options best fit our individual needs?

Foxy is arguing that millions of people in our society must be deprived of healthcare in order for her to have the healthcare that she perceives acceptable for herself. To hell with everyone else. But she cannot assume that universal healthcare will result in any loss to her unalienable rights. She has not identified any liberty interest that she's at risk of losing.

Quote:

You might argue that this issue is where the 'balance' comes in. The problem comes in who gets to choose what is 'balanced'.

The answer is obvious. This policy choice (whether it be good or bad, wise or unwise in your opinion) is made by our elected legislators.

Quote:

Individual liberties do not presume there will be no law, no regulation, no restrictions in the social order. But a free people adopt their own social contract to decide what will or will not be socially acceptable and what collectively supported services will best benefit the whole.

That is exactly what we're doing. Our elected representatives are in Washington right now collectively determining what public policy surrounding the issue of healthcare will best benefit the whole. So what is Foxy's beef?

Quote:

When an authoritarian government presumes to decide for the people what they should want, what they should have, what they should not have, what they are required to have, etc. and takes away the right of the people to decide such for themselves, then you can maximize safety and say that 'public safety is 'balanced' with individual liberties, but those who value liberty over the 'nanny state' will not agree that there is any 'balance' at all.

Our government makes policy choices all the time. For instance, our elected representatives determined that a system of interstate highways will promote both commerce and the general welfare of the people. Thus, they enacted a statutory scheme that made it possible for our government to provide interstate highways. That's what are elected officials do: They make decisions that become the public policy of our nation.

Foxy is simply saying that she personally does not want universal healthcare for the general welfare. She doesn't want the many millions of people that lack healthcare coverage to have what she has. Foxy erroneously believes that making healthcare accessible to millions of people somehow deprives her of the right to determine her own destiny.

It is ironic that Foxy invokes the individual right for people "to decide such for themselves," when she is the advocate for anti-choice legislation in a multitude of other realms that truly do involve individual liberty interests. She is opposed to extending the fundamental right to marry to homosexual couples. She erroneously thinks that allowing homosexuals to marry the same-sex person of their chose somehow deprives her of her rights.

Similarly, there is no merit whatsoever to Foxy's argument that extending healthcare to everyone will somehow deprive her of her rights. The government is not preventing Foxy from enjoying healthcare--the government simply wants to extend that enjoyment to everyone. And that's the crux of her problem. She is opposed to extending healthcare to those whom she believes to be unworthy of healthcare.

Quote:

So without you being explicit about what 'balance' looks like, I still still go with individual liberties as the highest goal however hyperbolic you might consider that to be.

Gag.

Foxy doesn't practice what she preaches. She has no problem using the power of the state to impose her views on other people and to deprive them of their liberty interests. Therefore, when Foxy preaches about individual liberties, she makes us retch from the foul stench of her hypocrisy.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

I assume that with your desire to maximize individual liberty you support the legalization of marijuana and same-sex marriages?

I support the people being able to decide if they want marijuana legalized or want same-sex marriages. In our democratic republic, with very few exceptions defined in the Constitution, it is the people and not an authoritarian govrenment who determine what the social contract shall be. The Constitution ensures that there will be no tyranny of the majority and allowing the people maximized liberty to develop the social contract ensures that there will be no tyranny of a minority. So long as individual liberties are not infringed, no group with an agenda should be able to override the social contract, and, so long as individual rights are not compromised, the will of the majority is the only logical means of writing that social contract.

3 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

You strike me as a very confused individual.

Perhaps, but it seems to be you who can't or won't answer questions about the statements you are making. I have a pretty good idea of what I am saying in the statements I am making.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

The biggest problem with Foxie's position is that she can't differentiate between military security and internal security; they both fall under the nation's general welfare clause. It's for all Americans, not just for those who by employment or retirement has health insurance.

Our country spends a good portion of our treasure fighting wars in other countries where we destroy their infrastructure followed by reconstruction - spending billions every week.

Spending some of our treasure for the American people is also an important national security issue - including health care.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I assume that with your desire to maximize individual liberty you support the legalization of marijuana and same-sex marriages?

I support the people being able to decide if they want marijuana legalized or want same-sex marriages. In our democratic republic, with very few exceptions defined in the Constitution, it is the people and not an authoritarian govrenment who determine what the social contract shall be. The Constitution ensures that there will be no tyranny of the majority and allowing the people maximized liberty to develop the social contract ensures that there will be no tyranny of a minority. So long as individual liberties are not infringed, no group with an agenda should be able to override the social contract, and, so long as individual rights are not compromised, the will of the majority is the only logical means of writing that social contract.

In our democratic republic, the people elect representatives who make policy choices for all of us. When our elected representatives decide to criminalize marijuana use or to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law, Foxy likes it and declares that's okay because the people decided this for themselves. However, when our elected representatives are considering something Foxy doesn't like, then she declares it to be the evil of an authoritarian government.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

You strike me as a very confused individual.

Perhaps, but it seems to be you who can't or won't answer questions about the statements you are making. I have a pretty good idea of what I am saying in the statements I am making.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know