Freedom of choice or government entitlements and regulations?
seperation of white house + christianity? the q is too vague, however, our trendsetting governmental re-regulations are becoming more commonplace than ever before, in general that is...
I don't find it vague at all. The 2 sides of the "either-or" are not opposites and that is the seductive lie being sold us. Tyranny is wrapped in a sweet package.
The separation of white house and Christianity can only happen when government doesnt dictate morals. When governments make laws contrary to Christianity, they define religion for all of us meaning we are no longer free.
Freedom of choice, personal regulation and entitlement, is what makes nations great. Freedom of choice offers citizens the right to choose what they want to be, what belief they want to embrace and help establish laws that maintain freedom of choice. Government entitlements create leming citizens who select leaders based on what they offer as a entitlement. Control comes from what we have to do to get the entitlement. Entitlements are given to those who have the most voting power soon we are enslaved by the government who no longer supports freedom of choice. A sad state of affairs.
What we forget is our beginnings. Man was created with freedom of choice by a God who understood its value. This freedom included a choice contrary to what was good. It wasn't an entitlement which would have enslaved humans to our Creator.
Freedom of choice ! Our constitution was written on this premise and I personally do not feel we are entitled to anything beyond freedom of choice. speech, and the right to protect our home and family.
It was also based on the premis and with the knowledge that it "would only work if, and only if" the People prove themselves to be Ethical. Well, the People have shown themselves incapable of that. So, the rest of the Constitution kicks in.
Better read that document again. How 'bout I choose to stick one of NRA's precious guns in yours or any one else's back, and take your money so that I can fill my belly for the first time in 3 days. And...who polices the police? Themselves? HA!
So what you are saying is you don't believe in #3: Conditions for quarters of soldiers or #6:Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, read them here http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html. If you still don't believe, then I'm sorry.
My Esoteric, the government isn't ethical, despite what you think, government writes laws to benefit the corporations. Listen to Thomas Jefferson my friend
I wasn't talking about gov't, I was talking about the People. John Adams, et al, made it clear that the Constitution would only work if the People of America, as a group,and hopefully as individuals, acted ethically. Otherwise,this experiment fails
Freedom of choice, but let it not violate another person's right. Hence, we also need government to come in and ensure law and order.
And small government can do that quite nicely. Municipal, county, state governments doing the heavy lifting while a nimble national government sets the stage for our liberty. Too bad America has lost that.
No 'freakin' way. When the cat's away, the mice will slay. Willie Francis? Rodney King? No Mayberry "nimby" "old-fashioned values" are gonna be forced down THIS throat by some local bully in blue who breaks the rules he decides with gung ho smug.
Hey Stan, You'd rather have the federal bully come down on you?
Yes, because at least he's consistent, has MUCH more directly and formally articulated rules, and Joe asshole with a badge can't go trippin' off of his blue collar power and choose his targets. Damned RIGHT fed beats rule by whimsy and prejudice!!!
There is a fine balance between freedom and rights. When rights become the law of the land, freedoms are forgotten as the rights dictate and enslave. Protecting freedom yes, not man made rights
Rights are () but freedom *spoken*. The flipside of law's coin is the ()GL's code of restrictions/prohibitions - which, if not specifically and Oxford's Unabridged-level ARTICULATED!, are Void for Vagueness *at* *least*, and morally reprehensible.
Government "interference" is what provides freedom to us. Without a strong central government, we would never have many important freedoms. Slaves would still be slaves, women still couldn't vote, businesses could abuse children, food manufacturers could adulterate food.. the list goes on and on.
Libertarian ideals are the province of fools.
LoneStar - Obviously you disagree with PC and history. Do you really believe that the plantation owners wouldn't be putting the lash to the back of their slaves in the South today if it weren't for the federal gov't?
Lonestar, you HAVE to be kidding! Everything Pcunix wrote is as true as it gets! Yeah, I totally see your point that killing millions of jews (and we fags and other brokens) is the same as mandating obedience to decency. You prefer whipping posts?
Entitlements and regulations are not the same thing as 'interference'. Entitlements breed dependence on handouts rather than self sufficiency. Your 'interference' is simply the government doing its job by protecting and defending its citizens.
KK, entitlements and regulations are interference in the the market place and usually push prices up and do the opposite as intended. This also eliminates competition and quality services.
Government interference is very much like satan's interference in the Garden of Eden. The promise of real freedom to be like God was a lie that enslaved us to sin with the intent to control mankind for satan's benefit. Slavery's beginning
Nice graphic. May America NOT rest in peace, but may we instead rise up peacefully to throw off the yoke of tyranny that has ever-so-gradually tightened its noose on us -- starting a little over a century ago.
Those who want government to do their compassion for them are lazy and arrogant. I used to fit into that boat, but now I realize that it's a trap. You cannot legislate compassion. When this is attempted, those in power merely use it to gain more wealth and power, stripping more of the middle and lower classes of their rapidly dwindling wealth.
Entitlements are the seductive drug. Corporations are the pushers. Corporations seduce congressmen and presidents with campaign support. They then have congress and presidents seduce the people with entitlements, while they jockey back and forth nudging more and more tyranny into place. When they meet with resistance, then they sweeten the pot with entitlements.
The last 2 presidents have trashed the Constitution and Bill of Rights openly. 9/11 made that possible. What about their Oaths of Office? Like Bush said, the Constitution is just a G**-damned piece of paper. Is it really? What arrogance. What Treason!
Regulations? Why not let the marketplace regulate? If a company gets out of line, then customers can boycott and bring them around. No more bailouts. If a corporation has been stupid, let their death be a lesson to us all.
Small government can only help with transparency. A small government is easier to manage. On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld held a news conference to admit with some chagrin that the government had lost $2.3 TRILLION! I can't help but wonder with some irony if those funds might have been used for the next day's big event. False flag operations, like Operation Northwoods, are expensive ventures.
What is the connection between corporations and entitlements? Can you give me some examples?
Government has become insurance for big business. They are able to write regulations and pay off politicians to pass them.
... and the pols are delighted to peddle the influence.
Recent examples include the funding of solar energy in the billions as an alternative to current energy. Why, they donated millions to campaigns of those who approve their cause at the expense of those they represent. Think of Enron........
So many interesting replies...Freedom of choice. A strong governing body was supposed to be elected from the people , by the people, for the people to help orchestrate and implement the PEOPLE'S choices - not to mandate changes that some feel necessary of beneficial, for that matter.
Au contraire, the founders went to great lengths to assure that there could be no strong governing body of the United States. They built checks and balances six ways from Sunday. Their system has been largely dismantled, and that is a problem for us.
Actually those changes that are 'mandated' by Congress are precisely its job as laid out in the Constitution. We may not always agree with them, but those are our elected reps and we have to take responsibility for our votes.
KK, we might vote for these people, but they are chosen by the elite ruling class, and don't really have much of a choice. They are friends behind the scenes.
The purpose of the founders was to reduce the power of government enslaving its citizens with taxes and rules to enrich those in power, The king of England. Many died to provide us the understanding of what freedom is and a way to protect it
SportsBetter, I bet all of those Tea Partyers in Congress will disgree with your implication of them being simple puppets of the elite ruling class.
How many of you realize there was no gov't regulations or personal entitlements from our 1797 until 1908 (for regs) and 1933 (for personal entitlements); any attempts to do so by Congress during times of great suffering during one of the many depressions, most of you will be happy to know were vetoed by conservative presidents. Also, there were no gov't regulation of the financial industry until 1937. Regulating monopolies began with Teddy Roosevelt in 1901, regulating the financial industry began with Franklin Roosevelt (damn those Roosevelts, they destroyed this country didn't they) in 1937, and the environmental regulation of business began when(?) in the late 1960s, early 1970s. Personal entitlements began in 1933 to improve the lives of those devestated by the Great Depression and done in such a way to try to prevent such depravation from ever happening to hard working Americans again, provisions many of the commentors here I feel would like to see go away because it makes people lemmings. Real entitlements, as we know them today began in the late 1960s.
How about corporate welfare? Well that started in 1797, with the first bribe and lobbying effort at the local and state level, primarily, and later at the federal level when it finally had power enough to actually help then get a leg up on somebody else when given enough money.
Now, did you know during the period 1812 - 1933, America suffered a depression or major, 2008-sized or larger recessions every "5-6 years" with the 1929-type human misery under the kind of government most of you want to live under - boggles my mind, maybe most of you are masochists, I don't know.
The kind of government I prefer is the one following WW II where we had no depressions and a small to mild recession once every 7 - 8 years, none even close to the 2008 recession in economic decline and only unemployment being worse in the 1981 - 1983 Reagan recession. I like that period much better than yours.
You do realize that corporations write those regulations, and pay off government to pass them.
I think, Sportsbetter, that is what my second para said. During the EPA period, however, that didn't happen so much; that is why our air and lakes got cleaner. Nevertheless, I personally watched what you are talking about during my time with DoD.
*Not* a fan of your politics, but you either have a natural and admirable command of America's political history, or you sure did due diligence to the research. I'm voting you up, and kinda hope you have car issues or something on super Tuesday!
Your position is well stated and thought out. Thank you for contributing to this discussion.
Let's face it: the US Constitution is dead as the men who wrote it. The legacy of both the retardican establishment erected in 1860 and the demwit establishment founded in 1930 is a centralized nation-state unlimited in its power but by the competition of politics. That makes government's policies supreme, a condition that in turn kills freedom of choice dead as that Constitution. We the people no longer have it except by permission of the national state, permission that can be, and is, extended and withdrawn at the whim of a ruling political class dependent for its own power, wealth and status on its entitlement and regulatory systems. It will not abandon them. It will not so much as accept serious reform of them. It cannot and still survive. Think about that, and about its implications.
The Constitution isn't dead. It is the people who have become complacent in their understanding of freedom which now has a cost of enslavement and eventual death of a free people.
Not even close. The purpose of the Constitution is to provide for the People Life/Liberty/Happiness/etc; of govt it is to carry out the mandate of the Constitution; of Supreme Court it is to make sure Congress stays in line. It hase worked well.
That's the broadest possible reading of the US Constitution as a living document. It is an opinion, not a fact. Every state has a constitution; it is constituted as it is. The US has a Constitution; the nation-state is not Constitutional.
Come again? When the 9, then 13 States ratified the Constitution in 1787-8, and agreed to live in federation with the federal government governed by the provisions of the Constitution. Where do you get your American history, Rush Limbaugh?
So, here come the smears, along with a cutoff of further discussion. Ain't that always the way when talking with an establishmentarian? Good job, ME.
I'm hoping that with the steady encroachment of government that has been thrust upon us, Americans will begin to open their eyes to what our country was founded on. A government of the people, by the people. I have been shocked by what I see as unprecedented use of power in the present federal government .
I wonder why so many rich reds (not saying you're rich or accusing you of being conservative) never remember "..and FOR the people". There it is in black and white/ those on the left are in the right!
Where you and I differ is that I don't think Government knows what is best FOR their people. Just ask China. The right is for the rights of the individual. The left believes the individual is unable to make it without HELP from the Government.
Help from the government is the reason we have so many problems.
All governments claim to be "FOR the people." They justify all sorts of tyrannical conduct that way. SOME of the people always buy it, or at least think it's to their advantage, so they go along never stopping to think their turn may come next.
Bewre th logical fallacy! H'ler drnk H2O. Dsn't mke it wrong. Our foundng arc/tects knw ths vry wll. "Bad" cntries/l'drs may have prpagndzed "4 the p'ple". Dsn't nullify th real m'ning. I hold our gov to that. Req law+ordr = dty to srve ALL.
Government is very good at persuading the people that they are needed. Most people forget our founders were against government, that is why they started a revolution and wrote a constitution.
Really, Attikos?! How petty. Ya play snarky grammar cop, too? Fine. Bin Laden drank water. Wrong? No. As does Charles Manson, Romney, & did "Pontius Pilate ". The point's the same: false analogy. "For the people": good. Past misuse? In
You know, Stan, they sell Valium right down the street.
SportsBetter, not quite right. the Founders who voted AGAINST ratification of the Constitution were AGAINST a federal govt, just as you say, BUT, those Founders who voted FOR it, were obviously FOR a stronger federal govt than they had a the time.
That's why the Federalists got Jefferson out of the way by sending him to France, hijacked the Constitutional Convention, ignored the limits of its charter, and did what they wanted.
Attikos, you apparently don't think very highly of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin then, do you, two main principals of the Constitutional Convention who kept it on track. BTW, do you know who was in France with Thomas Jefferson and why?
The US government was being hijacked since our founding. Look up the Bavarian Illuminati
I'm not especially fond of their ideas, but the Federalists were pikers compared to today's nationalists. As for who was with Jefferson in France, at the time of the Convention, Martha and Sally. Do you know who returned for it while he stayed there?
Darn, I was going to say John Adams, but I was off by a couple of years for he was ambassodor to England in 1787, while Jefferson performed the same duties in France. Franklin had come back from France in 1785.
Alas appears the tactic of last resort, when you cannot account for the oops of a non sequitur or other logical fallacy, you make the cheap joke to divert so you don't lose face to your barfly buddies. Your citing of past "for" misuse *still* inapt.
Government is encroaching on our freedoms daily as leaders work to pass laws to keep themselves in power not empower people who with freedom find more power in themselves from the decisions they make good or bad.
Personally, I am sick of subversive rhetoric that doesn't offer viable solutions. You are always barking up the wrong tree.
The free market offers viable solutions, not government. No one asked you to answer the question.
Does it? For absolutely *every* citizen??? It's a little difficult for a quadraplegic to pull him/herself up by the (gag! hurl! puking out my intestines for the arrogance of the finger-wagging utterance of...) bootstraps.
Subversive rhetoric isn't what this is. It is the freedom of citizens to discuss the role of government in our lives and help all of us make choices so we truly are a free people who make decision and suffer the consequences, important to freedom
Loaded question framed as a false dichotomy.
Does your "freedom of choice" include same-sex marriage and a woman's right to choose an abortion? What about "regulations" like silly voter ID bills and unconstitutional immigration bills?
I'm curious about your moniker...are you a sports bettor or do you like sports better?
Silly, unconstitutional, bettor or better? Talk about loaded ...
Yes you would have the right to get married with contract laws. Anyone would be allowed to make a contract with anyone. So if a gay person wanted to get married they would write a marriage contract. Abortion would be dealt with by the state.
You're a keen observer, Attikos.
Does freedom of choice include freedom from religion?
I agree, the question poses false equivalences. You either choose freedom or government entitlements and regulations. Why can't you have both? You can have social security, medicare and still regulate financial markets and still be free.
Social Security may be helping people, but younger generations won't receive anything because the fund is bankrupt they stole the money. Medicare pushed prices up and less and less people are able to receive healthcare.
LWN sez: "Does freedom of choice include freedom from religion?"
From it? In your own personal life, sure. You can believe whatever you like, though government is working to bring back sedition law, so enjoy it while you can.
...and Shura's law triggers: when desperate, those trapped in an argument's corner will cite THE most extreme (often inapt) nonexample of an alleged apocalyptic consequence of his opponent's position, and monger said position as THE catalyst.
Freedom of choice allows for individuals to make their own decisions within the context of preserving humanity and the continuation of our right to worship God who gave us the ability to know what is right and wrong not dictate it as government does
Your question is rather wide open. I suppose you did that on purpose, but then again, the query does -- in that form -- act as a kind of Rorsharch. What do you mean by 'freedom of choice'?
I suppose you mean this as the opposite of 'government entitlements and regulations. Let's take healthcare, since the Supreme Court recently upheld so-called Obamacare. First of all, from my point of view it didn't go nearly far enough. I am disappointed that the public option went by the wayside, and so forth.
The Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4 upheld the 'mandate' part. I'll assume you know what that is. The way I understand it, various government subsidies will be provided for people whose job doesn't provide insurance or otherwise cannot afford to buy it on their own.
Presumably, this 'mandate' part interferres with a person's 'freedom of choice' not to buy health insurance. But tell me: Does anyone really CHOOSE not to buy something like health insurance like one would choose between having coffee or tea? Or is it more accurate to say that people who 'choose' to go without insurance are makind said 'choice' under the duress of not being able to afford it?
If the government wasn't involved in healthcare, as they have been for the last 40yrs, prices wouldn't be so high and there would be more competition.Obamacare will raise costs more, and Govt won't have enough money to pay for it. Then inflate.
Actually, prices are so high for healthcare in the United States because, for one reason, for example, unlike the governments of every other advanced industrialized nation, the U.S. federal goverment not allowed to negotiate drug prices.
There's a reason. The lower price negotiated by a big purchaser with extramarket leverage, e.g. government, isn't applied in a vacuum. A higher price to unprivileged buyers, e.g. consumers, is the result. This policy is meant to protect them.
I'm not sure I understand your question because I don't think these things are mutually exclusive. Those government entitlements you refer to are the things many people must have in order to survive, such a Medicare. Try living without them!
To make a society work, there has to be compromise and everybody needs to pitch in and do their part, even though they may not feel at the time that they want to do that.
It's just how the game is played.
Medicare might sound good, but it actually pushed medical costs up because govt had to inflate to pay for it.This is why so many ppl can't afford healthcare.Before ppl were able to afford costs because prices were low.It causes more harm than good.
Medicare may be essential to survival now because it is what government wants us to believe. Laws enslave and the more entitlements or laws are in effect the more beholden we are to government and less to what is real, freedom of choice
If you dump Medicare, what happens to people who use it? If it hadn't started, what would the lives of those it was designed to help be like?
My Esoteric, you can't cut off the people who are dependent on Medicare. You end all the wars and save the money that way to pay for those people. To get off of Medicare we stop having people put money in and transition out of it.
Esoteric, there wasn't a need for it. There were many churches that gave free healthcare. Also the cost was very low because the government didn't inflate the cost yet.
The way I remember it, many elderly were having a very rough time of it because the communities were not supporting them.
Also, health costs were low then because most healthcare was non-profit then; their focus was helping people, not making money.
Well if we're going to call Social Security an entitlement, we've passed a point of no return where logic and reason are lost. X Amount of your paycheck is called Social Security and goes into your Social Security fund. Y amount of your paycheck is Federal Income Tax. That money is the government's income that it can use however it wishes. Social Security is yours, but we call that an entitlement now because the government wants to steal it and use it for other discretionary purposes? If they want to get rid of the Social Security deductions, I'm fine with that. I'll just pay the measley Federal Income Tax. But don't deduct the same amount of what used to go into Social Security and make it an additional Federal Income Tax. If they do that, I had better receive some benefit from those taxes other than crappy defense that can't win wars anyway.
by Kathryn L Hill23 months ago
What would the US be like under President Sanders? What do the Millennial's find so attractive about his political ideas?What do you believe are the consequences of his agenda as far as the future of the Nation?Does it...
by Petra Vlah5 years ago
Through our working years we all paid for Social Security and Medicare, so why are they considered entitlements when in fact we contributed our own money into the system?
by Mark Lees4 years ago
Do you feel current party political systems are truly democratic?Party political systems are dominant in nearly all western democracies but does the limit of choosing from a small selection of parties represent true...
by Laura Schneider10 months ago
Why do so many people feel "entitled" and "deserving" these days?This seems especially apparent in younger people and children.
by lady_love1583 years ago
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/03/1 … consumers/Want to know why your bank fees are rising why your free checking isn't free anymore and why debit card purchases may be limited or even eliminated in the...
by shazz011098 years ago
Any people who are part of the TEA Parties here, what is your issue/complaint with either or both of the major Parties?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.