CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

Noting that not one on the left is willing to answer my question but each of those on the left continues to argue ad hominem, appeal to authority, and via aspersions on those who disagree while not one has offered an argument for why their point of view is better.

 

[Olde Europe]

So what do you call it when one person is required to contribute his labor, expertise, productivity, and/or property to another who did nothing to earn it? How can you say that you have liberty if the government says you must provide the needs of that person or else?

That's like all contributing to the pay of the police force that protects your property so that you can sleep at night, as in, forming a society. As opposed to the John Birch-inspired nightmare you'd love to foist on Americans under the guise of a depraved notion of "liberty" (and the devil eat the hindmost).



Oh, and a happy year 2015 to all. May you and yours experience fairness and many a smiling face...

 

[dblack]

So what do you call it when one person is required to contribute his labor, expertise, productivity, and/or property to another who did nothing to earn it? How can you say that you have liberty if the government says you must provide the needs of that person or else?

That's like all contributing to the pay of the police force that protects your property so that you can sleep at night, as in, forming a society.

No, it's fundamentally different. Law enforcement is inherently coercive and requires consensus and conformity to work. Societal functions that don't require consensus and conformity can, and should, be handled via voluntary cooperation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Noting that not one on the left is willing to answer my question but each of those on the left continues to argue ad hominem, appeal to authority, and via aspersions on those who disagree while not one has offered an argument for why their point of view is better.

Nothing like a massive dose of irony to start the New Year!



Let's hope that We the People get to enjoy Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all in 2015.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Thankfully, there will never be a 'new constitution,' as in fact there is no need for one.

Current Constitutional jurisprudence recognizes the authority of government to enact and administer various regulatory measures and policies as intended by the Founding Generation, while at the same time affording citizens the means by which to challenge acts of government perceived to violate individual liberty; and as also intended by the Founding Generation, the judiciary will review those challenges to determine their merits in the context of Constitutional case law, where citizens of the Republic are subject solely to the rule of law, not men.

Our Constitution is the creation of all the people, not the states – where it was the original intent of the Founding Generation to:

invest in Congress powers both expressed and implied;

render Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, and the Federal Constitution and its case law the supreme law of the land;

authorize the Federal courts to review and invalidate Federal, state, and local laws repugnant to the Constitution, and to interpret the meaning and application of the Constitution and its case law;

create one Nation where all the people are subject to one National government, citizens of that one Nation first and foremost, residents of the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to that.

These fundamental tenets – again, as intended by the Founding Generation – are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute, reflecting the wisdom and genius of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition that can never be replaced by a 'new constitution.'

 

[dblack]

Thankfully, there will never be a 'new constitution,' as in fact there is no need for one.

I couldn't disagree more. A new constitution that clearly defined the role of government would be a tremendous boon to our nation. We waste far too much political energy fighting over preferred interpretations of contested areas of the existing Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

First you say that no one is denying anyone healthcare.

I have said that the person who does what he has to do in order to be able to provide himself and his family with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare doesn't deserve to be saddled with responsibility for those who chose not to do that. If we value liberty, what we as individuals or as a society will choose to do at the state or local level for the less fortunate must be our choice to make. A new and improved Constitution would restore that concept of liberty by giving the federal government no authority of any kind to do that.

Then you go right ahead with your new constitution that would, by default, deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it because your inhumane state would just refuse to pay for it.

Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government.

It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.

I'm not sure you understand what "equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".

Amen and amen. What some of our friends don't realize that a government who can order people to provide others with healthcare (or anything else) is a government who can deny those same people anything it wishes to deny, including their life, liberty, and ability to pursue their own happiness. It could order D.T. to provide Mr. and Mrs. Foxfyre with whatever they need or take whatever it wants from D.T.

The notion that goodness comes only from authoritarian government is so flawed I don't even really know where to start. How do you correct that kind of fuzzy thinking? A tunnel visioned, rose-colored glasses view that a government given power to do 'good' would never use that same power to do evil?

And you are quite right. "equality under the law" or the 'equal protection' clause in the 14th amendment requires that the state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances. So on the theory that everybody needs healthcare, how is it 'equal under the law' that some people receive their healthcare free or heavily subsidized while others of us not only have to pay for our healthcare but also are forced under threat of fine or imprisonment or confiscation of our property to pay for everybody else who is subsidized?

I am very strong on the idea that a moral people takes care of the helpless among us, but a government that protects liberty leaves that up to the people to do.

 

[Derideo_Te]

First you say that no one is denying anyone healthcare.

I have said that the person who does what he has to do in order to be able to provide himself and his family with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare doesn't deserve to be saddled with responsibility for those who chose not to do that. If we value liberty, what we as individuals or as a society will choose to do at the state or local level for the less fortunate must be our choice to make. A new and improved Constitution would restore that concept of liberty by giving the federal government no authority of any kind to do that.

Then you go right ahead with your new constitution that would, by default, deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it because your inhumane state would just refuse to pay for it.

Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government.

It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.

I'm not sure you understand what "equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".

Amen and amen. What some of our friends don't realize that a government who can order people to provide others with healthcare (or anything else) is a government who can deny those same people anything it wishes to deny, including their life, liberty, and ability to pursue their own happiness. It could order D.T. to provide Mr. and Mrs. Foxfyre with whatever they need or take whatever it wants from D.T.

The notion that goodness comes only from authoritarian government is so flawed I don't even really know where to start. How do you correct that kind of fuzzy thinking? A tunnel visioned, rose-colored glasses view that a government given power to do 'good' would never use that same power to do evil?

And you are quite right. "equality under the law" or the 'equal protection' clause in the 14th amendment requires that the state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances. So on the theory that everybody needs healthcare, how is it 'equal under the law' that some people receive their healthcare free or heavily subsidized while others of us not only have to pay for our healthcare but also are forced under threat of fine or imprisonment or confiscation of our property to pay for everybody else who is subsidized?

I am very strong on the idea that a moral people takes care of the helpless among us, but a government that protects liberty leaves that up to the people to do.

I am very strong on the idea that a moral people takes care of the helpless among us, but a government that protects liberty leaves that up to the people to do.

48 million Americans were without any healthcare while the "moral people" such as the OP ignored their plight even though they had their "government protected liberty" to take care of them.

So REALITY tells us even if the OP's Libertarian Utopian New Constitution were to be ratified it would actually do more harm to We the People than the current ACA which is providing healthcare to at least 10 million of those people already.

Certainly the OP is whining because she is having to subsidize their healthcare but given that there are millions of retired elderly Americans who are already receiving subsidized healthcare via Medicare this is just nitpicking.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.

If I had to choose between paying taxes or living in the OP's Libertarian Utopia where everyone is at the dubious mercy of the "moral people" who ignored the plight of 48 million Americans the decision is an easy one for anyone who understands that freedom doesn't mean having nothing left to lose.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness depend upon being healthy enough to do all three. The goal of the Constitution includes the General Welfare of We the People and that covers healthcare for those less fortunate than ourselves.

 

[dblack]

First you say that no one is denying anyone healthcare.

I have said that the person who does what he has to do in order to be able to provide himself and his family with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare doesn't deserve to be saddled with responsibility for those who chose not to do that. If we value liberty, what we as individuals or as a society will choose to do at the state or local level for the less fortunate must be our choice to make. A new and improved Constitution would restore that concept of liberty by giving the federal government no authority of any kind to do that.

Then you go right ahead with your new constitution that would, by default, deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it because your inhumane state would just refuse to pay for it.

Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government.

It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.

I'm not sure you understand what "equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".

Amen and amen. What some of our friends don't realize that a government who can order people to provide others with healthcare (or anything else) is a government who can deny those same people anything it wishes to deny, including their life, liberty, and ability to pursue their own happiness. It could order D.T. to provide Mr. and Mrs. Foxfyre with whatever they need or take whatever it wants from D.T.

The notion that goodness comes only from authoritarian government is so flawed I don't even really know where to start. How do you correct that kind of fuzzy thinking? A tunnel visioned, rose-colored glasses view that a government given power to do 'good' would never use that same power to do evil?

And you are quite right. "equality under the law" or the 'equal protection' clause in the 14th amendment requires that the state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances. So on the theory that everybody needs healthcare, how is it 'equal under the law' that some people receive their healthcare free or heavily subsidized while others of us not only have to pay for our healthcare but also are forced under threat of fine or imprisonment or confiscation of our property to pay for everybody else who is subsidized?

I am very strong on the idea that a moral people takes care of the helpless among us, but a government that protects liberty leaves that up to the people to do.

I am very strong on the idea that a moral people takes care of the helpless among us, but a government that protects liberty leaves that up to the people to do.

48 million Americans were without any healthcare while the "moral people" such as the OP ignored their plight even though they had their "government protected liberty" to take care of them.

Can we "call bullshit" in CDZ? Cause this one reeks. There might have been that many people without health insurance, but - most especially for the poor and those in dire emergencies - they didn't go without health care; largely because of "moral people such as the OP".

So REALITY tells us even if the OP's Libertarian Utopian New Constitution were to be ratified it would actually do more harm to We the People than the current ACA which is providing healthcare to at least 10 million of those people already.

No, ACA is "providing" health insurance. Which has proven itself a really bad way to provide health care.

If I had to choose between paying taxes or living in the OP's Libertarian Utopia where everyone is at the dubious mercy of the "moral people" who ignored the plight of 48 million Americans the decision is an easy one for anyone who understands that freedom doesn't mean having nothing left to lose.

And that choice is exactly what a new Constitution would give us the chance to address. Let's spell out, in clear terms that we all understood, exactly what we can expect from government and then decide whether we want to be a part of that or not. All the bickering is killing us.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's spell out, in clear terms that we all understood, exactly what we can expect from government and then decide whether we want to be a part of that or not

Except that every single time I have asked you to do exactly that you have flatly refused.

So when it comes to "calling BS" you are standing in your own up to your neck.

Time to put up or admit that this is just a farcical excuse of a thread to vent your Libertarian bile on the ACA because you have nothing better to offer We the People.

So that is your cue to whine about me because you cannot make a case that will withstand real life scrutiny.

SSDY!

 

[Foxfyre]

First you say that no one is denying anyone healthcare.

I have said that the person who does what he has to do in order to be able to provide himself and his family with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare doesn't deserve to be saddled with responsibility for those who chose not to do that. If we value liberty, what we as individuals or as a society will choose to do at the state or local level for the less fortunate must be our choice to make. A new and improved Constitution would restore that concept of liberty by giving the federal government no authority of any kind to do that.

Then you go right ahead with your new constitution that would, by default, deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it because your inhumane state would just refuse to pay for it.

Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government.

It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.

I'm not sure you understand what "equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".

Amen and amen. What some of our friends don't realize that a government who can order people to provide others with healthcare (or anything else) is a government who can deny those same people anything it wishes to deny, including their life, liberty, and ability to pursue their own happiness. It could order D.T. to provide Mr. and Mrs. Foxfyre with whatever they need or take whatever it wants from D.T.

The notion that goodness comes only from authoritarian government is so flawed I don't even really know where to start. How do you correct that kind of fuzzy thinking? A tunnel visioned, rose-colored glasses view that a government given power to do 'good' would never use that same power to do evil?

And you are quite right. "equality under the law" or the 'equal protection' clause in the 14th amendment requires that the state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances. So on the theory that everybody needs healthcare, how is it 'equal under the law' that some people receive their healthcare free or heavily subsidized while others of us not only have to pay for our healthcare but also are forced under threat of fine or imprisonment or confiscation of our property to pay for everybody else who is subsidized?

I am very strong on the idea that a moral people takes care of the helpless among us, but a government that protects liberty leaves that up to the people to do.

I am very strong on the idea that a moral people takes care of the helpless among us, but a government that protects liberty leaves that up to the people to do.

48 million Americans were without any healthcare while the "moral people" such as the OP ignored their plight even though they had their "government protected liberty" to take care of them.

Can we "call bullshit" in CDZ? Cause this one reeks. There might have been that many people without health insurance, but - most especially for the poor and those in dire emergencies - they didn't go without health care; largely because of "moral people such as the OP".

So REALITY tells us even if the OP's Libertarian Utopian New Constitution were to be ratified it would actually do more harm to We the People than the current ACA which is providing healthcare to at least 10 million of those people already.

No, ACA is "providing" health insurance. Which has proven itself a really bad way to provide health care.

If I had to choose between paying taxes or living in the OP's Libertarian Utopia where everyone is at the dubious mercy of the "moral people" who ignored the plight of 48 million Americans the decision is an easy one for anyone who understands that freedom doesn't mean having nothing left to lose.

And that choice is exactly what a new Constitution would give us the chance to address. Let's spell out, in clear terms that we all understood, exactly what we can expect from government and then decide whether we want to be a part of that or not. All the bickering is killing us.

But the bickering will go on as long as some insist on dishonestly mischaracterizing points made in order to justify their own point of view.

For instance, contrary to what has been argued by some, the truth is:

Belief that the federal government is not the best way to deliver the best healthcare to the most people is NOT the same thing as an unwillingness to pay taxes nor does it deny healthcare or anything else to anybody.

Belief that helping the poor is best done at the state, local, and private level is NOT the same thing as lack of concern for the poor or that the poor should not be helped.

Belief that liberty requires the federal government to be assigned specific authority and be prevented from reinterpreting or stepping outside that authority is NOT the same thing as wanting no government at all.

Belief that liberty requires that our rights be secured so that we cannot do physical or material violence to each other with impunity, and then we will be left alone to live our lives as we choose and form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have is NOT the same thing as wanting people to be racists, bigots, selfish, hateful, or pick your uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I could go on but I'm sure those without blinders on will get my drift.

In short, until people with differing points of view are willing to see dishonest characterization for what it is and resist using it, all we will have is ugly bickering. As yet some here have yet to make an argument for their point of view and continue to accuse the rest of us of all manner of ugliness. Or they will continue to demand definitions and for us to 'spell something out' when we have been doing that for a lot of pages now. We can't even call it hyperbole because they are deadly serious.

 

[Derideo_Te]

First you say that no one is denying anyone healthcare.

Then you go right ahead with your new constitution that would, by default, deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it because your inhumane state would just refuse to pay for it.

Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government.

It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.

I'm not sure you understand what "equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".

Amen and amen. What some of our friends don't realize that a government who can order people to provide others with healthcare (or anything else) is a government who can deny those same people anything it wishes to deny, including their life, liberty, and ability to pursue their own happiness. It could order D.T. to provide Mr. and Mrs. Foxfyre with whatever they need or take whatever it wants from D.T.

The notion that goodness comes only from authoritarian government is so flawed I don't even really know where to start. How do you correct that kind of fuzzy thinking? A tunnel visioned, rose-colored glasses view that a government given power to do 'good' would never use that same power to do evil?

And you are quite right. "equality under the law" or the 'equal protection' clause in the 14th amendment requires that the state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances. So on the theory that everybody needs healthcare, how is it 'equal under the law' that some people receive their healthcare free or heavily subsidized while others of us not only have to pay for our healthcare but also are forced under threat of fine or imprisonment or confiscation of our property to pay for everybody else who is subsidized?

I am very strong on the idea that a moral people takes care of the helpless among us, but a government that protects liberty leaves that up to the people to do.

I am very strong on the idea that a moral people takes care of the helpless among us, but a government that protects liberty leaves that up to the people to do.

48 million Americans were without any healthcare while the "moral people" such as the OP ignored their plight even though they had their "government protected liberty" to take care of them.

Can we "call bullshit" in CDZ? Cause this one reeks. There might have been that many people without health insurance, but - most especially for the poor and those in dire emergencies - they didn't go without health care; largely because of "moral people such as the OP".

So REALITY tells us even if the OP's Libertarian Utopian New Constitution were to be ratified it would actually do more harm to We the People than the current ACA which is providing healthcare to at least 10 million of those people already.

No, ACA is "providing" health insurance. Which has proven itself a really bad way to provide health care.

If I had to choose between paying taxes or living in the OP's Libertarian Utopia where everyone is at the dubious mercy of the "moral people" who ignored the plight of 48 million Americans the decision is an easy one for anyone who understands that freedom doesn't mean having nothing left to lose.

And that choice is exactly what a new Constitution would give us the chance to address. Let's spell out, in clear terms that we all understood, exactly what we can expect from government and then decide whether we want to be a part of that or not. All the bickering is killing us.

But the bickering will go on as long as some insist on dishonestly mischaracterizing points made in order to justify their own point of view.

For instance, contrary to what has been argued by some, the truth is:

Belief that the federal government is not the best way to deliver the best healthcare to the most people is NOT the same thing as an unwillingness to pay taxes nor does it deny healthcare or anything else to anybody.

Belief that helping the poor is best done at the state, local, and private level is NOT the same thing as lack of concern for the poor or that the poor should not be helped.

Belief that liberty requires the federal government to be assigned specific authority and be prevented from reinterpreting or stepping outside that authority is NOT the same thing as wanting no government at all.

Belief that liberty requires that our rights be secured so that we cannot do physical or material violence to each other with impunity, and then we will be left alone to live our lives as we choose and form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have is NOT the same thing as wanting people to be racists, bigots, selfish, hateful, or pick your uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I could go on but I'm sure those without blinders on will get my drift.

In short, until people with differing points of view are willing to see dishonest characterization for what it is and resist using it, all we will have is ugly bickering. As yet some here have yet to make an argument for their point of view and continue to accuse the rest of us of all manner of ugliness. Or they will continue to demand definitions and for us to 'spell something out' when we have been doing that for a lot of pages now. We can't even call it hyperbole because they are deadly serious.

Note how the OP deflected into "bickering" instead of seizing on the opportunity provided by her fellow Libertarian;

Let's spell out, in clear terms that we all understood, exactly what we can expect from government and then decide whether we want to be a part of that or not.

None of the Libertarians in this thread are willing to "spell out, in clear terms" what exactly they want. Instead they prefer to bicker because it means that they don't have to defend their indefensible positions.

SSDY!

 

[dblack]

Let's spell out, in clear terms that we all understood, exactly what we can expect from government and then decide whether we want to be a part of that or not

Except that every single time I have asked you to do exactly that you have flatly refused.

Again, you're totally missing my point. I said "Let's" - implying a collaborative process. I'm arguing for the value in clearly defining the scope and powers of government even if that doesn't produce something I like. I could do an outline of what I'd like to see, and then you could complain about it, but that would be pointless. You want a totally different kind of government than I do. I get that. And our disagreements are just a microcosm of the political divide the entire nation is straddling. We need to address these issues seriously as a nation, and produce a binding referendum that we can all agree to. If it goes your way, libertarians can either decide to make the best of it, or leave. Likewise, if it goes my way, you might face a similar choice. More likely, it would be somewhere in between. But the hope is that it would at least be more clear, and that in the future we might spend less time with unproductive ideological disputes, and more on good government.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay let's try a little experiment here.

Each of us who has an interest in this topic, please pick one of the bolded statements below and give your best shot at defending it.

Here are the ground rules for the experiment:

--You may not comment on what any politician or political party or any other group has proposed or is currently doing or has done in the past.
--You may not refer to any politician, entity, group, or other as an authority to support your defense.
--You may not refer to 'conservatives' or 'liberals' or 'progressives' or 'libertarians' or any other form of ideology when making your defense.
--You may not refer or allude to any particular person, past or present, at USMB or elsewhere when making your defense.
--You MUST offer a convincing rationale for why you chose the statement you chose as the more accurate of the two.

Here are the two statements--please preface your comments with the line: For the experiment I chose:

1. A moral and just people will grant the federal government authority to require that every man, woman, and child in America will have access to adequate healthcare.

2. The most moral, just, and effective means of providing access to adequate healthcare for all is most often accomplished by the private sector or at no higher than community or state level.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the experiment I chose:

2. The most moral, just, and effective means of providing access to adequate healthcare for all is most often accomplished by the private sector or at no higher than community or state level.

The basis of liberty as I understand it is that each person is born with a God given right to be who and what he/she is with impunity so long as he/she does not infringe on the next person's right to be who and what he is. Further the principle extends to ability to enjoy the fruits of one's own labor, industriousness, creativity, and just pure luck without interference so long as nobody else's rights to his/her lawful activities and lawfully acquired property are infringed.

I also believe, and have witnessed with my own eyes, that a people blessed with liberty will voluntarily organize themselves into social contracts for the mutual benefit of all, and that they will almost always choose to include opportunity and provisions for the less fortunate in that social contract. And such social contract as is mutally agreed will much more often benefit the poor in tangible and intangible ways, including healthcare, than does that provided by authoritarian government edict.

It is my opinion that federally administered social programs, however noble their titles, cannot possible result in programs tailored for maximum benefit for the circumstances and culture of each person or group across this vast country. And because it requires such an enormous bureaucracy to administer such federal programs, the bureacracy itself absorbs enormous percentages of available resources just to feed itself leaving far fewer resources for those it presumes to help. There is also too much temptation for those administering the programs to divert resources for their own purposes, and this is far more difficult to discern and deal with than when administration is more local. Ultimately the program becomes government for the benefit of government much more than it is focused on its original purpose.

As its appetite grows, it is inevitable that such a massive program will chip away at the individual liberties, choices, options, and opportunities of the citizens. And as massive amounts of regulations to administer the program continue to be produced--more than 12,000,000 words as of roughly this time last year and more going on the books month by month, is there any possibility that any lawyer totally devoted to that one piece of legislation can possibly know all the rules, let alone the medical providers and the people they serve?

For these reasons and others, I oppose such large massive federal programs and believe there is every justification to trust the state and local governments and the people themselves to solve problems without federal interference and intervention that inevitably produce as much or more unintended negative consequences than what good those federal programs do.

 

[dcraelin]

First you say that no one is denying anyone healthcare.

I have said that the person who does what he has to do in order to be able to provide himself and his family with food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare doesn't deserve to be saddled with responsibility for those who chose not to do that. If we value liberty, what we as individuals or as a society will choose to do at the state or local level for the less fortunate must be our choice to make. A new and improved Constitution would restore that concept of liberty by giving the federal government no authority of any kind to do that.

Then you go right ahead with your new constitution that would, by default, deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it because your inhumane state would just refuse to pay for it.

Sure. And by they same logic (reductio ad absurdum) it also denies children loving parents, denies us nice clothes and quality entertainment. It denies us friends and family and a good job. Those reciting this slogan would have us believe we are 'denied' everything not provided by government.

It would make a complete and utter mockery of the concept of equality for all under the law.

I'm not sure you understand what "equality under the law" means. It doesn't mean "equality enforced by law".

Amen and amen. What some of our friends don't realize that a government who can order people to provide others with healthcare (or anything else) is a government who can deny those same people anything it wishes to deny, including their life, liberty, and ability to pursue their own happiness. It could order D.T. to provide Mr. and Mrs. Foxfyre with whatever they need or take whatever it wants from D.T.

The notion that goodness comes only from authoritarian government is so flawed I don't even really know where to start. How do you correct that kind of fuzzy thinking? A tunnel visioned, rose-colored glasses view that a government given power to do 'good' would never use that same power to do evil?

And you are quite right. "equality under the law" or the 'equal protection' clause in the 14th amendment requires that the state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances. So on the theory that everybody needs healthcare, how is it 'equal under the law' that some people receive their healthcare free or heavily subsidized while others of us not only have to pay for our healthcare but also are forced under threat of fine or imprisonment or confiscation of our property to pay for everybody else who is subsidized?

I am very strong on the idea that a moral people takes care of the helpless among us, but a government that protects liberty leaves that up to the people to do.

I am very strong on the idea that a moral people takes care of the helpless among us, but a government that protects liberty leaves that up to the people to do.

48 million Americans were without any healthcare while the "moral people" such as the OP ignored their plight even though they had their "government protected liberty" to take care of them.

Can we "call bullshit" in CDZ? Cause this one reeks. There might have been that many people without health insurance, but - most especially for the poor and those in dire emergencies - they didn't go without health care; largely because of "moral people such as the OP".

So REALITY tells us even if the OP's Libertarian Utopian New Constitution were to be ratified it would actually do more harm to We the People than the current ACA which is providing healthcare to at least 10 million of those people already.

No, ACA is "providing" health insurance. Which has proven itself a really bad way to provide health care.

If I had to choose between paying taxes or living in the OP's Libertarian Utopia where everyone is at the dubious mercy of the "moral people" who ignored the plight of 48 million Americans the decision is an easy one for anyone who understands that freedom doesn't mean having nothing left to lose.

And that choice is exactly what a new Constitution would give us the chance to address. Let's spell out, in clear terms that we all understood, exactly what we can expect from government and then decide whether we want to be a part of that or not. All the bickering is killing us.

I dont mind idea of a national health care plan....like medicaid and medicare...expanded..... tho having regional area /states o first would probably have been smarter. What we got with Obama/Romney care was the worst of both worlds.....public coercion for private profit. They even undid a rather good thing the bush admin did the drug plan with the "hole" in it that actually was designed I believe to instill some market discipline into drug pricing...gone...as a favor to the drug companies no doubt. referred to in the good article below.

The Trigger KUNSTLER

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I dont mind idea of a national health care plan....like medicaid and medicare...expanded..

of course 132 countries proved that socialism does not work. In fact, we estimate that capitalism would reduce health care costs 80% from current levels and extend our lifespans 10-20 years.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's spell out, in clear terms that we all understood, exactly what we can expect from government and then decide whether we want to be a part of that or not

Except that every single time I have asked you to do exactly that you have flatly refused.

Again, you're totally missing my point. I said "Let's" - implying a collaborative process. I'm arguing for the value in clearly defining the scope and powers of government even if that doesn't produce something I like. I could do an outline of what I'd like to see, and then you could complain about it, but that would be pointless. You want a totally different kind of government than I do. I get that. And our disagreements are just a microcosm of the political divide the entire nation is straddling. We need to address these issues seriously as a nation, and produce a binding referendum that we can all agree to. If it goes your way, libertarians can either decide to make the best of it, or leave. Likewise, if it goes my way, you might face a similar choice. More likely, it would be somewhere in between. But the hope is that it would at least be more clear, and that in the future we might spend less time with unproductive ideological disputes, and more on good government.

The obvious choice is a compromise which is what the Founding Fathers did originally. Now are you willing to compromise or must it be all one way or the other?

 

[Olde Europe]

For these reasons and others, I oppose such large massive federal programs and believe there is every justification to trust the state and local governments and the people themselves to solve problems without federal interference and intervention that inevitably produce as much or more unintended negative consequences than what good those federal programs do.

Nicely written, and conclusively argued, but still Birtcher crap solidly based on surreality.

Your assumption that the Federal bureaucracy is invariably bloated, power-hungry, self-serving, and costly, whereas the State governments are invariably the lean and efficient epitome of virtue, and the genuine expression of the people's will, is without merit. The assumption that a Federally administered program is more costly, requires more bureaucracy, than 50 different State-administered programs on the same subject, is equally without merit.

Finally, your assumption, or hope, that communities will, on their own volition, make provisions for the unfortunate is demonstrably wrong, as we've been made to behold during the most recent years, and your own depiction of good government focussed on securing the property rights of the haves directly contradicts that very assumption of yours.

 

[Statistikhengst]

For these reasons and others, I oppose such large massive federal programs and believe there is every justification to trust the state and local governments and the people themselves to solve problems without federal interference and intervention that inevitably produce as much or more unintended negative consequences than what good those federal programs do.

Nicely written, and conclusively argued, but still Birtcher crap solidly based on surreality.

Your assumption that the Federal bureaucracy is invariably bloated, power-hungry, self-serving, and costly, whereas the State governments are invariably the lean and efficient epitome of virtue, and the genuine expression of the people's will, is without merit. The assumption that a Federally administered program is more costly, requires more bureaucracy, than 50 different State-administered programs on the same subject, is equally without merit.

Finally, your assumption, or hope, that communities will, on their own volition, make provisions for the unfortunate is demonstrably wrong, as we've been made to behold during the most recent years, and your own depiction of good government focussed on securing the property rights of the haves directly contradicts that very assumption of yours.

Indeed, and for this reason: human nature.