His fundamental change would most likely be dogooders telling us all what is the best for us. Authoritarians enforcing their utopia on others. In fact, that is what he actually proposed doing with health care reform. His own (most likely jaded and false) statistic showed it. If 70% of people are for something, then that means you are imposing that "change" with force on the other 30%. The thinkers of old warned harshly against this kind of tyranny. The basis of liberty and freedom is that we make our own choices with the crap of this life. That we write our own fate as best we can with the meager abilities and positions allotted to us. Utopia planers are the scariest of people to me because their methods are almost always control, force, and a blind-eye to the evils they do in order to obtain their "good".

I upvote this based on his realization of the delusion that Obama is anything other than a politician.

^GeeSussFreek - I'm am sick and tired of hearing from these libteratian/right-wing nuts who suggest Health care is tyranny.

Do Canadians live under a tyrannical government? A yes or no will suffice.

Do the Brits live under a tyrannical government? A yes or no will suffice.

Does most of the western world live under a tyrannical government? A yes or no will suffice.

Don't be a chump - answer these 3 questions, please.

Yes, yes, yes. You mistake what is normally a single tyrant for a group of tyrants. Is 60% of people telling the other 40% of people tyranny...yes. If your utopia was something people actually wanted, then it isn't something that would have to be done at the point of the gun/law. Just because England and Canada don't have a problem telling their citizens how to live doesn't mean it is any less a force, a force by gun point. If someone didn't want to pay for a persons health care...as in didn't want to pay part of their taxes to do so, they would be forced, by force to do so. If someone here in the US didn't want to give to the United Christians children fund because it isn't a charity they wanted to fund for whatever reason, they would face no jail time or harsh government penalty. But this is a forced charity that one may or may not want to do. Are you telling me that health is something that ALL people should care about. I don't take care of myself, should I be fined? This is a personal moral decision. There Is no decision more personal than health. It is the thing that is LEAST like a utility, it is only for the benefit of one person. So, essentially, what you have, is people telling me to aford the care of others that I don't afford for myself...at gun point.

yes, this is tyranny. While more extreme forms of it exist is the cruel history of this world, it is still what it is, forced charity.

In other words, yes, mob rule is tyranny. Read up on some Plato and Socrates.

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.

Plato

" If 70% of people are for something, then that means you are imposing that "change" with force on the other 30%"

But if you decide not to implement the change then that would be imposing the will of the 30% onto the 70%. Unless you live in isolation or with a very small number of like minded individuals, I don't see how it is possible for humanity to exist without some form of tyranny. As far as I can tell, there can't be a perfect solution for large numbers of people living in a society, so isn't democracy one of the better compromises?

I don't think impose means what you think it means.

Impose : to establish or apply by authority

Not having something done at the point of a gun isn't imposing something, it is simply not having it. More over, that doesn't prohibit it from happening out of voluntary free will. Example, there are free clinics and hospitals in the US provided by various charities. I am not quite sure why there hasn't been a non-profit insurance company ever emerge yet, I would sure like to see it happen, the market is ripe for it. I only ever bank at credit unions on the same kind of logic.

Have been considering it lately in the current climate, how many actuaries would you need for such a thing? Maybe the time is now to make it happen
Only people, you and me, can put the care in health care.

And the basis of the social contract is reason, not tyranny. We both benefit from the knowledge that we are not going to knock each other over the head in the night and make off with each others booty (heheh I said booty). Classical liberalism and civil liberties were the cure for dictatorships and mob rule, I see moving back to this as foolish and not something you actually want to live in. What might be the dominate trend today will be the victim tomorrow...is that really a place you want to live in? The "majority good" will nearly always come back to haunt you at some point, and it flies in the face of the ideals of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson.


Freedom is the right to live as we wish.
Epictetus

That's why I voted for a REAL liberal, Ron Paul.

... wait, what? Constitutional Conservative you say? The hell...

Hahaha! So much fun, so little embarassment.

So, Canadians, Britains, and the rest of the western world lives under tyranny. It's dumb bullshit like this thats tells people not to take you seriously. FYI I have read Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle ad nauseum, but to be perfectly honest I prefer Rousseau.

You're argument reminds me of this woman.

Nice Plato quote - here's one of my own: He who trivializes terms like 'tyranny', has no understanding of the world beyond his own national borders, and throws around terms like "gun-point" with ease is a rigid idealogue who probably thinks kids should be home-schooled and that society would be so much safer if everyone carried a gun.

Check this out - I dedicate it to you.

It is ad hominem argumentation like that that makes me respect you ideas very little, Throbbin. You make no actual legitimate arguments. You haven't actually said anything, there is nothing you have communicated about the ideals of you position. I am pretty tired of this same old tired diatribe that liberal people like yourself degrade themselves to when they run out of logical space to maneuver.

More over, people who believe in authoritarian are MORE similar to Hitler and Stalin than I

Legitimate arguments? Like the Government of Canada being a tyrannical government?

Logical space? Like equating health care reform with mob rule?

Trying to have a conversation with you is like arguing with a dining room table.

GeeSussFreek,

Impose: enforce compliance with.

If 70% want something changed and 30% don't, then not making the change is denying the wishes of the 70 and is enforcing them to comply with the 30. If you want something and are denied it at gumpoint then the gunholder who doesn't want you to have it is most definitely imposing his will upon you. (Speaking of guns, it seems that the ones that don't want change are the ones waving them around and threatening to use them to force their wishes).

The free clinics and hospitals you mention are not a viable alternative for many, otherwise there wouldn't be such a drive for health care reform. The way I see it for people to put the care in health care is to be civil at town hall meetings and to rationally discuss what changes are to be made without devolving into shouting matches and bully tactics and hope the elected representatives will take those concerns into account.

As far as the basis of the social contract being reason, we have all seen that a great many people are not ruled by reason therefore the social contract can't be very binding. I also don't see where you get the idea that we won't knock each other over the head in the night. It happens already and I would imagine would happen a hell of a lot more without the tyranny of law.

I'm not a student of political sciences so I can't argue very effectively about classical liberalism, Locke or Plato, but I like to think that I understand human nature, and being the cynic that I am, I don't think it's possible to even come close to some form of idealized utopia without infringing on the wishes of the many who would want something other.

Ahh ok, you are at least being reasonable and putting forth arguments, I will continue this thread.

First, we are confusing language here I believe. Let us try it a different way.

Making something a law OBLIGATES you do to it. That obligation has to come from something, some kind of reasonable position. In the US, it was understood from the start that the powers not spelled out in the constitution were reserved for the people. Some people didn't trust the government with that, and the bill or rights came to being. All of that is just to say that there was a real concern from the start about the government sticking their nose in where it didn't belong.

So, to make a law promising health care is out of place. It has no foundational presence in the federal charter of the land, it is merely something a large group of people want. As such, there is no place for it as a federal system. Just because a bunch of people want something doesn't mean that is should be so, if it violates the main tenants of the land, it should not be. So one has to ask, what are those main tenants? What are those core, foundational rights that we signed up for when we accepted this social charter. Simple, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Any law that isn't trying to uphold those tenants is invalid.

However, as a legislative body, what you are trying to do is not promote those things, merely stop others from robing people of them. For instance, murder violates those core ideals, slavery violates those ideals. Any arrangement made that violates those shall be void or not enforced.

In other words, laws are for negative rights. The right from something, as has always been their nature for thousands of years. However, in recent moments, we have moved away from preventative, to causative laws. So, instead of you having a right of something not done to you, now it is a right TO something...a very drastic shift. Now, people are owed things. This type of right systems is not something the US was setup for...it violates the idea of freedom.

How so? Well, if you have the right to something, it has to be provided somehow, and as we don't yet have robot slaves doing our every bidding, those things have to be provided at the cost of others. This basic notion undermines liberty and freedom. This is so because there is no real prove of natural rights; of what you are entitled to. The list grows as your own personal convictions change, and they change from person to person; they are completely subjective.

What you end up is in an argument over 60% vs 40% with both having only subjective reasons to back their side up. One side wants prayer in schools, or one side wants free toothbrushes proved for all, or one side wants TV's as a minimum standard of living for all, the list of personal moral convictions is endless. And moreover, all those come at the cost of someone else's personal moral convictions. If I am forced to pay for federal health care you, me and everyone else, then I am forced not to give to a selection of charitable organizations that I find to be better. Maybe I don't believe that the body is all there is to a person, so healing it without some spiritual message is futile to me...however, I am unable to practice that as the state can't have anything to do with religion. So I am forced to do something in a way I don't do it.

However, with voluntarism, people can choose to do what they want, both the 60% AND the 40% are free to do with their monies as the see fit. It is free, it is fair, and it isn't morally dubious.

THAT is the problem I see with ALL social legislation's, they only cater to a portion of the populations moral convictions at the cost of the others. It violates the ideas of freedom...and hell, of charity. As a person, I believe in Universal truths, however, I don't think they can be shown in a logical way as to what they are...is it life, is it justice, is it freedom, who is to say? One thing is for sure, I don't want the government, and visa vi, you telling me what is the most important thing in life. (and by telling, I mean forcing me to pay taxes to fund things of the sort)

Sorry this is long winded, I just think we were chasing each other around in circles Thanks for the reasonable conversation, they are harder to get now a days, if you would however, like me to address directly what you mentioned in your comment, I can, just ask

(up-voted your comments for peacefulness

edit: I would like to add I don't believe in perfect systems. People suck, it is one of my core ideals in viewing a system that is the most free of government as the better of systems you can choose from. People who expound about "greater goods" are the utopia builders, I am trying to say those ideals are foolish (I means this as a form of ignorance, not stupidity) and come at the price of peoples own personal utopias they want to build for themselves, or/and their families. When considering a system, I want it to enforce fairness (lets call it justice) and consistent. As such, it can't cater to the whims of the majority...no matter how "Good" it may be. The realm of "the good" has to be a personal affair and not a government one; it is what it means to be free to determine what it means to be good.

O, and you mention your a cynic, I recommend reading up on the father of cynicism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynic

Cynicism: This meant rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, health, and fame, and by living a life free from all possessions. Diogenes has some great one liners, read about when he is talking to Alexander the great...its lolzable.