Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[Sun Devil 92]

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

Breaking moronic laws is a time honored tradition. When our government becomes lawless, tyrannical, and otherwise too big for it's own britches, the people most certainly do have the right to rebel. Then again, there are those among us who are submissive to a fault. For these, no matter what is being done to them, they prefer to just whimper in anguish under said oppression. See hundreds of passengers lining up to have their bodies scanned, all for the .0001 percent chance that someone might be carrying a dangerous pen knife or... shock, a bottle of water.

You raise a good point, I'd like Fox to address....

You mentioned government gone bad.

She talked about a bad law.

People rebelled (disobeyed the law) and it was repealed. There was no attempt to change the government.

In my mind, this raises the question or issue of just what is she talking about.

If government passes a bad law, did they break a contract or just pass a bad law ?

If it is the first, what is the response ? The colonies first rebelled against the laws (i.e. the Boston Tea Party) and as the government attempted to squeeze them into submission, they eventually rebelled against the government.

In the case of prohibition, I don't know the history. But the states would have had to FIRST VOTE FOR THE AMENDMENT.

Somehow they miscalculated.

And the law got changed.

I am all for rebelling against Obamacare. If you ever get an organized rebellion going, let me know.

We need to keep our form of government and throw the morons who are in there out.

We'll replace them with people who will eventually become just as corrupt and moronic. Hoepfully, we won't wait so long.

Let me know on that rebellion thing .

 

[Foxfyre]

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

Breaking moronic laws is a time honored tradition. When our government becomes lawless, tyrannical, and otherwise too big for it's own britches, the people most certainly do have the right to rebel. Then again, there are those among us who are submissive to a fault. For these, no matter what is being done to them, they prefer to just whimper in anguish under said oppression. See hundreds of passengers lining up to have their bodies scanned, all for the .0001 percent chance that someone might be carrying a dangerous pen knife or... shock, a bottle of water.

THANK YOU (and also Sun Devil) for at last addressing the question in the OP.

The topic is not the pros and cons of Obamacare or any other such issue--there are a gazillion other threads out there to discuss that. Whether or not Obamacare is 'good law' is not the issue. Obamacare is just a real life example that is being used to illustrate the question of whether we the people are required to accept and endure a law when it violates the social contract and is forced on us against our will.

And yes, people do tend to become timid, most especially as the government becomes more and more authoritarian and less and less submissive to and/or representative of the people. There is real fear that the government will retaliate in serious ways via IRS audits or other unpleasantries. There is a growing sense that the government can and will do whatever it wants to whomever it wants and, unless you have a whole boatload of money, you have almost no defense against that.

And then there is human nature that makes most people unwilling to be a martyr. The government has made most Americans dependent on government in some way, and even those receiving a small benefit are reluctant to risk it or voluntarily give it up or risk it without some assurance or at least hope that it will result in change for the better.

And there is no clear picture yet--to me anyway--as to what the most constructive solution is.

But for sure nobody is going to gain courage and those who deplore the breach of social contract are not going to find a solution if we do not talk about it or even acknowledge it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

I know there are those who would say the government has no role in this. I just think they are wrong.

A very fundamental difference.

But I don't think it has to carry the kind of rancor it seems to.

I am not saying it is from you. I am speaking generally.

Certainly a fundamental difference. Rancor is one of the reasons I think I am right and they are wrong. If there was no rancor, then we would probably be able to work together to develop a society which did not require government. But people are going to act like people no matter what.

The rancor is a direct result of the overindulgence of democratic power.

I think there has always been disagreement--a free people given unalienable rights to express their opinions and convictions freely will always disagree on this or that. But there is healthy and unhealthy disagreement. Social contract does not require all to agree on every point, but only that compromise be achieved so everybody feels they were heard, reasonably accommodated, and can live comfortably with it. It took the Founders eleven years of airing their strong disagreements and working out compromises all could live with to achieve the Constitution that we have. Had one side or the other seized the power and forced it on the others, it would not have resulted in the magnificent document we got.

The unhealthy rancor I see these days is a direct result of government overreach and violation of the social contract. But overindulgence of democratic power? Is that what you meant by that comment? If not, could you elaborate on what you meant by that?

 

[RKMBrown]

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

Breaking moronic laws is a time honored tradition. When our government becomes lawless, tyrannical, and otherwise too big for it's own britches, the people most certainly do have the right to rebel. Then again, there are those among us who are submissive to a fault. For these, no matter what is being done to them, they prefer to just whimper in anguish under said oppression. See hundreds of passengers lining up to have their bodies scanned, all for the .0001 percent chance that someone might be carrying a dangerous pen knife or... shock, a bottle of water.

THANK YOU (and also Sun Devil) for at last addressing the question in the OP.

The topic is not the pros and cons of Obamacare or any other such issue--there are a gazillion other threads out there to discuss that. Whether or not Obamacare is 'good law' is not the issue. Obamacare is just a real life example that is being used to illustrate the question of whether we the people are required to accept and endure a law when it violates the social contract and is forced on us against our will.

And yes, people do tend to become timid, most especially as the government becomes more and more authoritarian and less and less submissive to and/or representative of the people. There is real fear that the government will retaliate in serious ways via IRS audits or other unpleasantries. There is a growing sense that the government can and will do whatever it wants to whomever it wants and, unless you have a whole boatload of money, you have almost no defense against that.

And then there is human nature that makes most people unwilling to be a martyr. The government has made most Americans dependent on government in some way, and even those receiving a small benefit are reluctant to risk it or voluntarily give it up or risk it without some assurance that nothing will change for the better.

And there is no clear picture yet--to me anyway--as to what the most constructive solution is.

But for sure nobody is going to gain courage and those who deplore the breach of social contract are not going to find a solution if we do not talk about it or even acknowledge it.

Fox, "whether we the people are required to accept and endure a law when it violates the social contract and is forced on us against our will" is a decision that each of us makes individually. I for example come from the view that I'm a free man and this is my country. I see government employees, elected or not, as employees who are also free men living in this country. I see the laws of this land from this very simple perspective. I see laws that are designed by some simple majority to arbitrarily harm my family as bad laws that I will not put up with in any shape, fashion, or form. I see laws that are designed to defend people from harm as good laws that I will defend with my life.

I'm good with constructive tools to fix bad laws, but after a time my patience wears thin and my rhetoric... well you know.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people who lack such power to influence Congress and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

Are you suggesting we can somehow "nullify" Obamacare on the basis (that you claim) that we were lied to in order to pass it ?

If you are making that claim, I would be very interested to know you think that is supposed to work.

We can nullify any law just by repealing it. The reason for doing this could be on whatever basis we choose. The current trend in the legalization of marijuana is a case in point.

I don't see that happening with the ACA though. I could be wrong, of course, but the primary argument against it is not that something like it wasn't needed (both parties were claiming it was needed at the time) but that it was created in an environment of partisan politics. All attempts to repeal so far have been done in such a way as to insure failure. Insisting on repeal while carefully making sure it isn't repealed. Personally, if there was any violation of the social contract in the ACA was in the fact that it didn't go far enough.

I agree that no more than a handful of the Republicans in Congress actually want to repeal ACA. But the "not far enough" defense always perplexes me. In my view the problem was never with how far ACA went, but what it did. How far would we want to go in giving the insurance industry control over our health care spending?

solution: single payer system

case closed

 

[PratchettFan]

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

I know there are those who would say the government has no role in this. I just think they are wrong.

A very fundamental difference.

But I don't think it has to carry the kind of rancor it seems to.

I am not saying it is from you. I am speaking generally.

Certainly a fundamental difference. Rancor is one of the reasons I think I am right and they are wrong. If there was no rancor, then we would probably be able to work together to develop a society which did not require government. But people are going to act like people no matter what.

The rancor is a direct result of the overindulgence of democratic power.

I think there has always been disagreement--a free people given unalienable rights to express their opinions and convictions freely will always disagree on this or that. But there is healthy and unhealthy disagreement. Social contract does not require all to agree on every point, but only that compromise be achieved so everybody feels they were heard, reasonably accommodated, and can live comfortably with it. It took the Founders eleven years of airing their strong disagreements and working out compromises all could live with to achieve the Constitution that we have. Had one side or the other seized the power and forced it on the others, it would not have resulted in the magnificent document we got.

The unhealthy rancor I see these days is a direct result of government overreach and violation of the social contract. But overindulgence of democratic power? Is that what you meant by that comment? If not, could you elaborate on what you meant by that?

The level of rancor today is no greater than it has been in the past. What is different today is the technical capacity to express that rancor.

There is no government overreach, no violation of the social contract. We are living in one of the highest levels of personal freedom in our history and certainly the highest level of ability for the individual to make himself heard.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

I know there are those who would say the government has no role in this. I just think they are wrong.

A very fundamental difference.

But I don't think it has to carry the kind of rancor it seems to.

I am not saying it is from you. I am speaking generally.

Certainly a fundamental difference. Rancor is one of the reasons I think I am right and they are wrong. If there was no rancor, then we would probably be able to work together to develop a society which did not require government. But people are going to act like people no matter what.

The rancor is a direct result of the overindulgence of democratic power.

There is no external cure for it.

And if the individuals who practice it realized just how much they are damaging the process (by driving people out of the process thus leaving more power in the hands of fewer individuals), they might consider disciplining themselves.

I can't stand the self-righteous attitude of people like Rachael Maddow or Sam Brownback.

What about Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity (just include most all of FOX News) and MSNBC?

 

[Foxfyre]

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

Breaking moronic laws is a time honored tradition. When our government becomes lawless, tyrannical, and otherwise too big for it's own britches, the people most certainly do have the right to rebel. Then again, there are those among us who are submissive to a fault. For these, no matter what is being done to them, they prefer to just whimper in anguish under said oppression. See hundreds of passengers lining up to have their bodies scanned, all for the .0001 percent chance that someone might be carrying a dangerous pen knife or... shock, a bottle of water.

You raise a good point, I'd like Fox to address....

You mentioned government gone bad.

She talked about a bad law.

People rebelled (disobeyed the law) and it was repealed. There was no attempt to change the government.

In my mind, this raises the question or issue of just what is she talking about.

If government passes a bad law, did they break a contract or just pass a bad law ?

If it is the first, what is the response ? The colonies first rebelled against the laws (i.e. the Boston Tea Party) and as the government attempted to squeeze them into submission, they eventually rebelled against the government.

In the case of prohibition, I don't know the history. But the states would have had to FIRST VOTE FOR THE AMENDMENT.

Somehow they miscalculated.

And the law got changed.

I am all for rebelling against Obamacare. If you ever get an organized rebellion going, let me know.

We need to keep our form of government and throw the morons who are in there out.

We'll replace them with people who will eventually become just as corrupt and moronic. Hoepfully, we won't wait so long.

Let me know on that rebellion thing .

So far as the 18th Amendment goes, there were a number of forces at work. Thirty-three states already had similar laws on their books and in the non-dry states, numerous communities or counties passed ordinances prohibiting alcohol sales. But folks who wanted to legally drink--and that would include a lot of folks who wanted their state or town to be dry--just went to neighboring states or another county to buy their booze. But before prohibition, the history indicates that alcohol consumption had been decreasing for years. Had the federal government left it alone it likely would have become much more an uncommon thing.

But with prohibition, whether it was a backlash of resentment at being dictated to or whatever. There are conflicting opinions whether alcohol consumption increased dramatically--some say yes, some say no--but organized crime was profiting enormously trafficking in booze and were encouraging people to drink, bootleggers were making a fortune, and it became popular to make your own booze (bathtub gin et al.) By some accounts, alcoholism, health problems from excess consumption and other uglies increased signficantly. It was a huge example of good intentions producing unintended bad consequences.

People being people, when they are given the power to choose and order their own lives, will more often choose the better thing. People told they can't do something that affects only them and they therefore see as their business will tend to be defiant. And the subsequent rebellion did result in changing government via the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Since the 21st amendment allowed the states and local communities to set their own laws re alcohol sales and consumption, many peacefully retained dry status for some time. Interestingly enough, Utah, arguably the most dry state in the union, voted to ratify the 21st amendment.

With Obamacare, it should be easier since we aren't dealing with a Constitutional amendment but only a law that our elected representatives can change today if they choose to do so. Resistance is made more difficult since the law is enforced by automatic confiscation of wages, confiscation of tax refunds, and other provisions for penalty etc. for those who do not comply

So I'm still figuring out the most effective way to rebel. .

 

[Foxfyre]

I know there are those who would say the government has no role in this. I just think they are wrong.

A very fundamental difference.

But I don't think it has to carry the kind of rancor it seems to.

I am not saying it is from you. I am speaking generally.

Certainly a fundamental difference. Rancor is one of the reasons I think I am right and they are wrong. If there was no rancor, then we would probably be able to work together to develop a society which did not require government. But people are going to act like people no matter what.

The rancor is a direct result of the overindulgence of democratic power.

I think there has always been disagreement--a free people given unalienable rights to express their opinions and convictions freely will always disagree on this or that. But there is healthy and unhealthy disagreement. Social contract does not require all to agree on every point, but only that compromise be achieved so everybody feels they were heard, reasonably accommodated, and can live comfortably with it. It took the Founders eleven years of airing their strong disagreements and working out compromises all could live with to achieve the Constitution that we have. Had one side or the other seized the power and forced it on the others, it would not have resulted in the magnificent document we got.

The unhealthy rancor I see these days is a direct result of government overreach and violation of the social contract. But overindulgence of democratic power? Is that what you meant by that comment? If not, could you elaborate on what you meant by that?

The level of rancor today is no greater than it has been in the past. What is different today is the technical capacity to express that rancor.

There is no government overreach, no violation of the social contract. We are living in one of the highest levels of personal freedom in our history and certainly the highest level of ability for the individual to make himself heard.

I strongly disagree. I think we are living with the worst violations of social contract since the Constitution was ratified in 1789.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I know there are those who would say the government has no role in this. I just think they are wrong.

A very fundamental difference.

But I don't think it has to carry the kind of rancor it seems to.

I am not saying it is from you. I am speaking generally.

Certainly a fundamental difference. Rancor is one of the reasons I think I am right and they are wrong. If there was no rancor, then we would probably be able to work together to develop a society which did not require government. But people are going to act like people no matter what.

The rancor is a direct result of the overindulgence of democratic power.

There is no external cure for it.

And if the individuals who practice it realized just how much they are damaging the process (by driving people out of the process thus leaving more power in the hands of fewer individuals), they might consider disciplining themselves.

I can't stand the self-righteous attitude of people like Rachael Maddow or Sam Brownback.

What about Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity (just include most all of FOX News) and MSNBC?

I can't stand Rush or Sean......they are terrible commentators.

However, they are not as smug as the other (from what I've seen.....it's not like I waste a lot of time on them).

I enjoyed Greta when I watched her show.

Just to be clear....I REALLY can't stand Rush or Sean.....I think they do nothing for positive discussion.

Maddow used to be pretty good about talking a hard look at issues. But her attitude really went downhill. She spins with her show...not her stories.

I also think Ann Coulter is pretty bright (she has slipped as of late).

If Maddow and Coulter razored up both sides with equal vigor, I think they'd be we wonderful.

 

[PratchettFan]

A very fundamental difference.

But I don't think it has to carry the kind of rancor it seems to.

I am not saying it is from you. I am speaking generally.

Certainly a fundamental difference. Rancor is one of the reasons I think I am right and they are wrong. If there was no rancor, then we would probably be able to work together to develop a society which did not require government. But people are going to act like people no matter what.

The rancor is a direct result of the overindulgence of democratic power.

I think there has always been disagreement--a free people given unalienable rights to express their opinions and convictions freely will always disagree on this or that. But there is healthy and unhealthy disagreement. Social contract does not require all to agree on every point, but only that compromise be achieved so everybody feels they were heard, reasonably accommodated, and can live comfortably with it. It took the Founders eleven years of airing their strong disagreements and working out compromises all could live with to achieve the Constitution that we have. Had one side or the other seized the power and forced it on the others, it would not have resulted in the magnificent document we got.

The unhealthy rancor I see these days is a direct result of government overreach and violation of the social contract. But overindulgence of democratic power? Is that what you meant by that comment? If not, could you elaborate on what you meant by that?

The level of rancor today is no greater than it has been in the past. What is different today is the technical capacity to express that rancor.

There is no government overreach, no violation of the social contract. We are living in one of the highest levels of personal freedom in our history and certainly the highest level of ability for the individual to make himself heard.

I strongly disagree. I think we are living with the worst violations of social contract since the Constitution was ratified in 1789.

And because we are living in an age of unprecedented personal liberty, you are free to disagree. If you have never experienced pain in your life, I expect a paper cut would seem like an emergency.

 

[Foxfyre]

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

Breaking moronic laws is a time honored tradition. When our government becomes lawless, tyrannical, and otherwise too big for it's own britches, the people most certainly do have the right to rebel. Then again, there are those among us who are submissive to a fault. For these, no matter what is being done to them, they prefer to just whimper in anguish under said oppression. See hundreds of passengers lining up to have their bodies scanned, all for the .0001 percent chance that someone might be carrying a dangerous pen knife or... shock, a bottle of water.

THANK YOU (and also Sun Devil) for at last addressing the question in the OP.

The topic is not the pros and cons of Obamacare or any other such issue--there are a gazillion other threads out there to discuss that. Whether or not Obamacare is 'good law' is not the issue. Obamacare is just a real life example that is being used to illustrate the question of whether we the people are required to accept and endure a law when it violates the social contract and is forced on us against our will.

And yes, people do tend to become timid, most especially as the government becomes more and more authoritarian and less and less submissive to and/or representative of the people. There is real fear that the government will retaliate in serious ways via IRS audits or other unpleasantries. There is a growing sense that the government can and will do whatever it wants to whomever it wants and, unless you have a whole boatload of money, you have almost no defense against that.

And then there is human nature that makes most people unwilling to be a martyr. The government has made most Americans dependent on government in some way, and even those receiving a small benefit are reluctant to risk it or voluntarily give it up or risk it without some assurance that nothing will change for the better.

And there is no clear picture yet--to me anyway--as to what the most constructive solution is.

But for sure nobody is going to gain courage and those who deplore the breach of social contract are not going to find a solution if we do not talk about it or even acknowledge it.

Fox, "whether we the people are required to accept and endure a law when it violates the social contract and is forced on us against our will" is a decision that each of us makes individually. I for example come from the view that I'm a free man and this is my country. I see government employees, elected or not, as employees who are also free men living in this country. I see the laws of this land from this very simple perspective. I see laws that are designed by some simple majority to arbitrarily harm my family as bad laws that I will not put up with in any shape, fashion, or form. I see laws that are designed to defend people from harm as good laws that I will defend with my life.

I'm good with constructive tools to fix bad laws, but after a time my patience wears thin and my rhetoric... well you know.

I agree each person must search his/her own conscience as to whether he/she will choose to obey the law.

If we believe in unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and if we believed that the Constitution was social contract to recognize and defend those unalienable rights, then nobody can quarrel with laws that provide consequences for those who violate the rights of others. Laws prohibiting and providing consequence for murder, theft, burglary, assault, battery, rape, extortion, kidnapping, and other crimes that violate the rights of people are considered necessary and just laws and nobody, liberal or conservative, have a problem with those laws. We give up our right to commit such acts with impunity in return for personal protection from such acts.

But then you get into the area of 'blue laws' or prohbition against sale or publc consumption of alcohol, strip clubs, adult bookstores, et al and we aren't really dealing with prevention of violation of anybody's rights but rather what we as a society will be. Here is where social contract requires agreement and sometimes compromise. Those who want a more open and tolerant society that allows such things can choose to have them. Those who want a different kind of society and aesthetics can choose not to have them. But as long as the people agree and have the right to choose, then social contract works quite well.

But then when government imposes a law on the people that restricts their liberties in an area they see as their business alone, and they were given no opportunity to agree or disagree with the law, there is resentment. And if the law turns out to be damaging or destructive to those who resent it, I wonder how much will there is left among we the less free people to resist?

Our healthcare certainly is a matter in which we should have free choice. And when much of our choice is taken away from us to our detriment, I certainly resent it. Single payer would pretty well take away all of our choice and I do hope the people will continue to push back against that.

But if the push back isn't sufficient to resist it, won't we then have returned to totalitarianism that gives government complete power to do anything it wants to us all?

Or are we already there?

 

[dblack]

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people who lack such power to influence Congress and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

Are you suggesting we can somehow "nullify" Obamacare on the basis (that you claim) that we were lied to in order to pass it ?

If you are making that claim, I would be very interested to know you think that is supposed to work.

We can nullify any law just by repealing it. The reason for doing this could be on whatever basis we choose. The current trend in the legalization of marijuana is a case in point.

I don't see that happening with the ACA though. I could be wrong, of course, but the primary argument against it is not that something like it wasn't needed (both parties were claiming it was needed at the time) but that it was created in an environment of partisan politics. All attempts to repeal so far have been done in such a way as to insure failure. Insisting on repeal while carefully making sure it isn't repealed. Personally, if there was any violation of the social contract in the ACA was in the fact that it didn't go far enough.

I agree that no more than a handful of the Republicans in Congress actually want to repeal ACA. But the "not far enough" defense always perplexes me. In my view the problem was never with how far ACA went, but what it did. How far would we want to go in giving the insurance industry control over our health care spending?

solution: single payer system

case closed

Yep. The best shot at that was when Democrats were in control, but they didn't want it. So, the case is closed indeed. We're stuck with a corporatist feeding trough.

 

[dblack]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

 

[dblack]

A very fundamental difference.

But I don't think it has to carry the kind of rancor it seems to.

I am not saying it is from you. I am speaking generally.

Certainly a fundamental difference. Rancor is one of the reasons I think I am right and they are wrong. If there was no rancor, then we would probably be able to work together to develop a society which did not require government. But people are going to act like people no matter what.

The rancor is a direct result of the overindulgence of democratic power.

I think there has always been disagreement--a free people given unalienable rights to express their opinions and convictions freely will always disagree on this or that. But there is healthy and unhealthy disagreement. Social contract does not require all to agree on every point, but only that compromise be achieved so everybody feels they were heard, reasonably accommodated, and can live comfortably with it. It took the Founders eleven years of airing their strong disagreements and working out compromises all could live with to achieve the Constitution that we have. Had one side or the other seized the power and forced it on the others, it would not have resulted in the magnificent document we got.

The unhealthy rancor I see these days is a direct result of government overreach and violation of the social contract. But overindulgence of democratic power? Is that what you meant by that comment? If not, could you elaborate on what you meant by that?

The level of rancor today is no greater than it has been in the past. What is different today is the technical capacity to express that rancor.

There is no government overreach, no violation of the social contract. We are living in one of the highest levels of personal freedom in our history and certainly the highest level of ability for the individual to make himself heard.

I strongly disagree. I think we are living with the worst violations of social contract since the Constitution was ratified in 1789.

I agree. And, to repeat myself, it IS a direct result of expanding the scope and reach of democratic power over our lives. When we eliminate limits on government power, democracy becomes unstable. The more power government has to dictate how you live, the more important it is to control it. And the more frightening it is to see those who don't share your values gain control.

 

[Foxfyre]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

The insurance companies were brought on board by promising them a mostly100% guarantee that they would only benefit and would not be hurt by Obamacare at least for the first few years. What company would not jump at the chance to acquire millions of new policy holders required by law to have the more expensive insurance policies along with a guarantee by the government to cover almost any losses they might incur in the process?

If that is not a violation of social contract I can't think of a more flagrant one.

 

[PratchettFan]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

No Republicans voted for it because it was being put forth by a Democrat. If McCain had won the election and presented the very same bill, it would have been the Democrats who would not have voted for it.

What other means of financing was available prior to ACA which is not available now?

 

[PratchettFan]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

The insurance companies were brought on board by promising them a mostly100% guarantee that they would only benefit and would not be hurt by Obamacare at least for the first few years. What company would not jump at the chance to acquire millions of new policy holders required by law to have the more expensive insurance policies along with a guarantee by the government to cover almost any losses they might incur in the process?

If that is not a violation of social contract I can't think of a more flagrant one.

Not even vaguely a violation. If you kept the insurance companies in you couldn't require them to accept pre-existing conditions if you did not also require the coverage for everyone. Otherwise, I would simply not have health insurance until I got sick. It would be like requiring auto liability carriers to accept claims that happened before the policy was written. That was a rational solution to the problem short of a single payer system. And while such a system would be more effective, it wasn't politically viable.

If your purpose in this thread was to attempt to show the ACA is a basic violation of the governments duty to the citizenry, you are failing.

 

[dblack]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

No Republicans voted for it because it was being put forth by a Democrat. If McCain had won the election and presented the very same bill, it would have been the Democrats who would not have voted for it.

I have no doubt. I was just saying I found the claim that the compromises to the claimed goals of Democrats were because of Republicans. The Democrats, as a party, made their own bed when it came to ACA.

What other means of financing was available prior to ACA which is not available now?

Anything anyone wanted to try.

 

[dblack]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

The insurance companies were brought on board by promising them a mostly100% guarantee that they would only benefit and would not be hurt by Obamacare at least for the first few years. What company would not jump at the chance to acquire millions of new policy holders required by law to have the more expensive insurance policies along with a guarantee by the government to cover almost any losses they might incur in the process?

If that is not a violation of social contract I can't think of a more flagrant one.

Not even vaguely a violation. If you kept the insurance companies in you couldn't require them to accept pre-existing conditions if you did not also require the coverage for everyone. Otherwise, I would simply not have health insurance until I got sick. It would be like requiring auto liability carriers to accept claims that happened before the policy was written. That was a rational solution to the problem short of a single payer system. And while such a system would be more effective, it wasn't politically viable.

If your purpose in this thread was to attempt to show the ACA is a basic violation of the governments duty to the citizenry, you are failing.

Not by my estimation. In my view, it was the element of deceit involved that qualify it as public fraud. The flim-flam regarding whether or not it was a tax increase was designed to give the Democrats who voted for it "cover", and the ability to convincingly lie and claim they weren't voting for a tax hike.