Liberal free for all coming to an end

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I know this was addressed to Tracy but if I may interject.

I am happy with things like food safety regulations but alot of times when there is federal involvement it usually goes from equality of opportunity where there is a level playing field and people are free to make whatever of the opportunities given to them , to determining the outcome for everyone. It is when the fed starts determining the outcome for everyone through programs is when things start becoming problematic. When things are localized, there is more responsibility placed on the individual entities and people. Things become alot more apparent upon a closer view than when looked upon with a broader view.

States and even individual cities have proven themselves capable of balancing budgets and funding programs that accomplish the same if not more than the Federal Government. Why then should the individual states not be able to determine things locally?

The problem that alot of libertarian or conservative types is not the programs themselves but the concentration of power at the highest levels and programs like those are more often than not just a way to increase power. History has proven that when there is a concentration or centralization of power, the likelyhood of corruption and favoritism exponentially increases. The reasoning for states rights is the same reason why businessess have a board of directors rather than one guy calling the shots. At higher levels where there is less familiarity with the people and what they are actually doing, the more potential there is for abuse. When you keep things at a lower level and more spread out, there is alot more responsibility placed on the individuals.

If there is a program such as Social Security or Obamacare that voluntarily allows for me to put in my money, I am all for it. Unfortunately, especially at the federal level, it no longer becomes voluntary and becomes mandatory. If people want to voluntarily put money into a program, let them. Do not threaten them with jail time or fines or increased taxes because they do not want part of your healthcare or whatever program is being pitched.

I am not saying get rid of all the regulation, just get rid of the ones that don't fall within the scope of the powers of the federal government. If states want to regulate commerce between themselves, let them determine their policies. The one-size-fits-all mentality of the fed will only benefit those who can fit in that certain "size" so to speak and only determines outcome instead of opportunity.

The thing that people don't get is that by having a blanket policy of universal healthcare, you do not get Mayo clinic treatment; you get something more along the lines of Soviet Union-esque treatment. There is a saying within the federal government and the military of "Made by the lowest bidder." If that type of policy is rampant among federal institutions, and I ask people honestly, what makes you think that "universal healthcare" would be any different. What is to stop them from handing you Ibuprofen for all your medical ailments and then telling you to go kick rocks? Afterall, they did give you treatement for your medical condition right? Beware what you wish for because you just may get it. There is no checks and balances with federal policies, once instituted you would have a better chance turning lead into gold than getting a policy or program rescinded. Governments are never known for their ability to limit their powers, only their expansion.

Just because it is well intentioned does not mean there is possibility for abuse.


Albert Camus

The use of "lowest bidders" is also common in the private sector. Curious you mention the military, seeing as how the US has the most advanced forces on the planet. Need I continue?

As for the tyrant quote, I must call its use absurd. I do not know what the context of it is (though I would hazard that it is referring to REAL tyrants and not democratically elected presidents), but nearly all evil people will try to cover up what they do as being for the good of the people. It is not reserved for what are deemed "liberal policies." And the briefest glance at the rest of the modern Western world will show that you are wrong about doing such things "for the good of the people" inevitably leads to tyranny or are the result of tyranny. Americans are not the sole Keepers of Liberty.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The use of "lowest bidders" is also common in the private sector. Curious you mention the military, seeing as how the US has the most advanced forces on the planet. Need I continue?

As for the tyrant quote, I must call its use absurd. I do not know what the context of it is (though I would hazard that it is referring to REAL tyrants and not democratically elected presidents), but nearly all evil people will try to cover up what they do as being for the good of the people. It is not reserved for what are deemed "liberal policies." And the briefest glance at the rest of the modern Western world will show that you are wrong about doing such things "for the good of the people" inevitably leads to tyranny or are the result of tyranny. Americans are not the sole Keepers of Liberty.

The gov. likes to spend money on stupid high speed shit but does not like to spend the extra dollar on its peons. The cost to get every service member a quality rifle in a better caliber, new ammunition and the training for a new platform would cost less than one F-22 Raptor fighter jet. Look up the DoD statistics in the cost of an F-22 versus the projected cost of purchasing, retooling and training for a new weapon. Why then do they insist on giving soldiers and marines an outdated weapon (M4) that has reduced range, accuracy and killing power, yet they will spend billions on a single fancy airplane?

I have seen the quality of government run healthcare both on active duty and through the VA hospital and it isn't pretty. Their method of helping you is by prescribing pills regardless of your injury and telling you to walk it off. If you think that is bad, you should wait until you you get operated on! Before, soldiers could not sue the doctors at the military hospitals but a lacksadaisyical attitude has become so commonplace that there have been an overwhelming amount of complaints and soldiers can now sue the military for inadequate care and malpractice. Google "Walter Reed Medical Hospital" if you do not believe me. The VA has been having the same shit go on for decades. If they show so much disregard for those that took an oath to serve their country, what makes you think that their attitude towards civilians would be any different?

Again I ask the question. Why is it so wrong to let people decide what kind of healthcare they want instead forcing them to partake in a government healthcare plan?