John Locke’s “The Second Treatise of Government” is well established to contain the foundational philosophical principals underlining the creation of the
“It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power to do so, to give anyone or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate’s hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of Nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him [government power] to make a prey of them when he pleases;” John Locke 1690
“For I have truly no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure.” John Locke 1690
Each person owns that which in which they rightfully labor to acquire.
That becomes their property.
People institute government to protect their freedom to their life, liberty, and property.
That government instituted by the common agreement of the people to represent such interests does not have the authority to do what no one can give them the authority to do.
I have no rights to the property or life or liberty of another.
I cannot give up rights I do not have to a government who only gains its authority by the consent of the governed.
Thus it is outside of the bounds of my rights to give to the government the authority to take property from others and do with it what they choose even if they deem it necessary for the good of others no matter how well endowed those people are. Therefore the government can never have such a power without usurping the rights of the people they are entrusted to protect.
Such a government that oversteps its bounds in this manner ought not be trusted.
24 comments:
Let me guess: you're an anarcho-capitalist who's horrified by the thought of the government making any provisions for getting health care to the uninsured...
I am concerned about the costs of the loss of freedom for the nation in order to provide this care. I think that the poor need help and should be looked after, but I think there are better ways to go about it.
karla said: I am concerned about the costs of the loss of freedom for the nation in order to provide this care.
Loss of freedom?
karla said: I think that the poor need help and should be looked after, but I think there are better ways to go about it.
Which would be?
Cyber said "loss of freedom?"
Yes what is being proposed is a plan that would bring the government in to regulate the health care system. It will be taken from the private sphere which allows choice of the individual regarding their health care needs and takes that freedom away by placing the control in the governments hands. Not over night, but the plan will allow for this as it grows.
Other options?
Ask the doctors in our nation to come up with a plan that can keep health care private and at the same time increase access to the public sectors. Ask the community to voluntarily support their hopsital with contributions so that the area hospitals can afford to help the poor. Also if we stopped using health insurance for every day needs prices would be driven down by competition and quality would increase due to the competition. These are just some ideas off the top of my head, and if I can come up with those few ideas I'm sure there are many others much more qualified than I to provide some solid ideas that could fix the problem. In fact, I'm in meetings right now where people are discussing this very thing.
The government providing a public option actually increases choice and freedom, especially for those who have no health care because the private system has priced them out. Do you even know how much health care costs? And, what specifically do you think is so great about a system where the incentive of the providers is solely to make money? They make more money by not paying out than by paying out for claims?
On the subject of Locke, I find it interesting that he seems to not be invoking a deity.
GTC, I agree that health cost are greedy and need to be reduced. No argument there.
As for Locke, I hadn't gotten to that yet. Stay tuned.
So, what is so great about an over-priced system that is exclusionary, results in people not being covered (which very well may drive up cost further) and has disincentives built in against helping people actually get better? How does this increase freedom?
GCT, the system needs a great deal of reform and changes. No question of that. But I don't think a government run health care system would improve things. They couldn't even effectively run the cash for clunkers program.
But I do think the American people could come up with a better plan and that its the people that need to be asked and encouraged to help develope one.
What other entity would you suggest for setting up a better plan? The government is the only entity that I know of that isn't motivated by profit, with the exception of charity or non-profit organizations. Of course, I know of no non-profits that are equipped to handle something so large as health care.
Secondly, the government runs all kinds of things that seem to run well enough for us. Picking one example, which only is problematic because they underestimated how popular the idea would be is not really representative.
Thirdly, a public option is using the people to come up with a plan, or did you miss the part about us living in a representative democracy?
I think something more grass roots in nature can provide some solutions. The government may still need to pass some reforming legislation, but that would be different than running the system themselves. The government is in place to enhance and protect the freedom of the people, I just want to see that freedom protected while at the same time addressing a very urgent problem of the current health care situation.
I'm got a lot of ideas stirring on some things I'll be writing about soon on my blog. I have a very busy week, so how much I can do or respond to this week is unknown.
It would seem public opinion is divided on the issue of health care-- just see the town hall meetings -- people are concerned and aren't happy about what they are hearing. I just want to see things slowed down so that the people have some time to get involved in providing alternative plans.
"The government is in place to enhance and protect the freedom of the people, I just want to see that freedom protected"
I don't see where healthcare for all takes away your freedom.
Ali, care will have to be rationed in order to be provided and the government will choose what kind of medical procedures, medicines, etc. can be given to a person. Without having a government health care plan, a citizen can choose to spend money on say cancer treatment for whatever procedures they want to expend the costs on. They most likely won't have that freedom to make their own health care choices under the proposed plan if it gets enacted.
Even now there isn't enough money for the social security plan and I see a news update scrolling across the top of my screen telling me that the checks are to be decreased by 2010. What happens when there is no money left? And if that can't be funded anymore, what happens when their isn't enough money in the pot for health care?
Typically when a business is in debt up to its ears people don't trust that business -- why would we put our hope in a government that is swimming in debt.
I think most certainly the health care in this country needs a drastic overhaul to make it more ethical and less about money in people's pockets and more about caring for the sick. But I just don't think the government plan is going to fix these problems in a way that will be best for our country in the long run.
"Without having a government health care plan, a citizen can choose to spend money on say cancer treatment for whatever procedures they want to expend the costs on. They most likely won't have that freedom to make their own health care choices under the proposed plan if it gets enacted."
Ah yes, all private health care will be removed over night!
I'm sorry, but I can use the NHS or go private or even mix the two, it's all open to choice. The best part is, I can afford to go private funded, but my Nan can't, yet will still both get treated.
"I think something more grass roots in nature can provide some solutions."
Such as?
"It would seem public opinion is divided on the issue of health care-- just see the town hall meetings -- people are concerned and aren't happy about what they are hearing."
Sure. Right wingers that are opposed to Obama no matter what he says are up in arms. What else is new? He could nominate Jesus for secretary of the world and people would complain and spread false facts and information, such as...
"Ali, care will have to be rationed in order to be provided and the government will choose what kind of medical procedures, medicines, etc. can be given to a person."
When there are others that uncritcally eat up the vicious lies and propaganda that is spewed into the debate, no wonder there is dissent. If you want to let the republican attack dogs lie to you and uncritically accept it, then what do you care about your freedom? It seems you've already given it away. Next, you'll be telling us about how the health bill will be used to force euthanization on the elderly.
Actually regarding President Obama, I saw a lot of support for him amongst conservators as our leader regardless of differences, until some of the recent developments of his plans. Regardless of my disagreement with his plans, I still speak well of him and with respect. I still seek to go to the primary documents and not just believe what I hear from the media. I have pulled up the actual health care bill and waded through some of it to see what was really there. I don't like the direction of it for reasons I have already stated.
Ali, it's not what happens overnight that concerns me, it's what happens in the long run. What this plan could open the door to and set into motion. We have to think about the whole picture and not just the current needs. This legislation will drastically change things if it is enacted in its current form. I think we can slow down, take our time, and really check this all out before rushing it through.
"Actually regarding President Obama, I saw a lot of support for him amongst conservators as our leader regardless of differences, until some of the recent developments of his plans."
What alternate reality do you live in again?
"Regardless of my disagreement with his plans, I still speak well of him and with respect."
Sometimes.
"I still seek to go to the primary documents and not just believe what I hear from the media. I have pulled up the actual health care bill and waded through some of it to see what was really there."
And yet you are still claiming falsities.
"I don't like the direction of it for reasons I have already stated."
Which are not true.
"This legislation will drastically change things if it is enacted in its current form."
Yes, it could create more equality. Oh, the horrors.
GCT "Yes, it could create more equality. Oh, the horrors."
Are you talking about financial equality? If so, could you expound on why you think that is necessary and why the government should have the right to enforce it.
"Are you talking about financial equality? If so, could you expound on why you think that is necessary and why the government should have the right to enforce it."
No, I wasn't talking about financial equality, but if you want to talk about that, I'm up for it.
The government does have an obligation to ensure some level of financial equality, else we end up living with robber barons and lords with serfs. Having a progressive tax structure surely makes sense, as the people who end up paying more taxes are more dependent on the use of government than those that pay less. Finally, do you really believe that strict capitalism is beneficial, fair, or makes sense? How does it make sense that someone can inherit large sums of money and never have to work to earn it in a capitalist system? That's the fallacy of it, that it depends on everyone having the same starting point and rising solely through ability and hard work, yet that's not even close to the situation we have in reality. Those who have money to start with get more opportunity than those who do not. If the government attempts to level the playing field, it actually creates a system whereby hard work and ability give more chance to succeed, which is what you probably claim you want.
To employ that man has to give up more freedom than we can give. I can't give anyone the right to take property that belongs to someone else no matter how good I think my reasons are. So I can't give to the government a right I don't have.
"To employ that man has to give up more freedom than we can give. I can't give anyone the right to take property that belongs to someone else no matter how good I think my reasons are. So I can't give to the government a right I don't have."
How did that person obtain their property in the first place? Do you really think that the government had no part in it or that the person didn't obtain that through the toil and help of others?
Do you really think that a system can possibly function without government support? Anarchy, quite simply can not work for nations or groups that are beyond a certain size. Governments always form in order to maintain order. In order to finance that government and in order for that government to actually work, it must be funded, and those that use its services the most end up paying the largest burden. It's not taking, it's paying for services that one uses. This is a common error that people make in that they think taxes are theft by the government of someone's hard earned profit, when in reality it is that person paying for the services that she used in order to make that profit in the first place and in order to keep it.
I'm okay with limited government. That is necessary in this world. I don't argue against that. But the government is to govern to enhance our freedom, not to usurp it.
"I'm okay with limited government. That is necessary in this world. I don't argue against that. But the government is to govern to enhance our freedom, not to usurp it."
How limited? How do you square it with your anti-taxes stance? How do you square it with the obvious problems it causes? Etc. etc. etc.
And, you have yet to show how the government is usurping your freedom or anyone else's. Griping about it isn't the same as showing it.
Post a Comment