Confed999

BS. Show me in the Constitution.
That's wrong too. What gives them the right?
I don't have to go farther back than the Constitution.
You're only two corners away...

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Bulgaroctonus

I'm looking at the Constitution right now. I'm trying to find the clauses that allow for the creation of things like the Food and Drug Administration, the Occupation Safety and Health Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and all the other agencies that protect public health.

The fact is that the government has public health as a major goal. Now, it could be that all these federal bodies are unconstitutional, but that is an off chance, considering the Supreme Court hasn't come to that conclusion.

I'll come back with more info. This isn't over with.

We elect representatives and senators. They make the choices for us. It is not a direct democracy we live in. Sometimes our elected officials make the wrong choice, but it is they that make the choices.

If you insist.

I'm three corners away. Seriously, I don't understand this one.

Confed999

You won't find one.
Only because stupid people have given up their rights through legislation. This does not make it reasonable, fair, or free.
It's not-Constitutional vs. unconstitutional. Not Constitutional meaning the government was not given the right to do these things through the Constituion. Unconstitutional would be against the Constitution.
That doesn't answer the question, what gives them the right? Then, if you answer that, where does it end? Starting to figure out the Pol Pot reference yet?
I didn't though, did I?
Then you haven't been reading my posts.

Bulgaroctonus

Article I of the Constitution grants legislative ability to Congress. Congress has in turn passes numerous acts bringing health agencies into existence. For instance:
FEDERAL FOOD AND DRUGS ACT OF 1906 (THE "WILEY ACT")
Congress had the right to do this.

Also remember my favorite amendment to the Constitution:
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The creation of things like the FDA, EPA, and OSHA was not as procduct of stupidity. It was a product of health concern and foresight. Did people really give up their rights to have their health monitored?

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot comment with absolute certainty about the distinction between these terms. It seems to me that there is no distinction. If the government passes a law that was not provided for in the Constitution, it can only be struct down (to my knowledge) on grounds of 'unconstitutionality.'

Sure, our represented officials have the right to make decisions. That is integral to the workings of our government, and it is outlined in the Constitution, Article I. The role of our federal legislature is to legislate. Article I grants Congress many powers, I'm sure you've taken a look.

So are you writing about a legal right? In that case, the legislature has rights to exercise its authority and make decisions. Or are you talking about a philosophical right?

The Pol Pot reference is silly.

Fair enough (if you insist).

I don't understand the 'two corners away' reference. What do you mean by that?

Bulgaroctonus

Gentleman, I bid thee all good night.

Confed, this argument has rivaled our earlier one over the Civil War (which I really should pick up again). Good to see a committed opponent. But for now, I desire to listen to rap music and then go to sleep. So that's what I'm doing.

Stealth fat slapper out.

Praxus

So are you writing about a legal right? In that case, the legislature has rights to exercise its authority and make decisions. Or are you talking about a philosophical right? [/quote]

Natural Rights. Man requires reason to live and rights is that which frees us from force. Force inhibits the intellect.

Confed999

It sure does, now where is the right of descrimination in the policy? Article I does not give the government the right to regulate much of anything. This was done on purpose. People gave Congress the ability to do it, foolishly I must add.
Attacking your own argument now?
They gave up their right not to have their health monitored. Now you want to use that monitoring to attach extra taxes to people.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." - Louis D. Brandeis
Unconstitutional is something that goes directly against something in the Constitution. Many state and federal laws have fallen to the restrictions on search and seizure in the Constitution, for example. You won't get rid of anything using the Tenth, not as long as there is a pro-big government Judicial branch.
Within the framework of the Constitution, you're right. Descrimination is not a power granted by the Constitution.
Not for as long as you're willing to let government decide what is good for you. It's right on the money...
Stupid Gobal Warming Alarmists I guess if you had read it when you quoted it in your next post, instead of making a silly statement, you'd have remembered it...

barrowaj

I've been away for a little while, and this conversation has digressed quite a bit from when I made my last post.

But after having read your posts, what we are really talking about here is "what is the purpose of government?" The libertarian viewpoint (which Praxus seems to argue but denies) essentially holds that the job of government is to protect people's personal property rights. That's a fine view, but it isn't sufficient for making America as good as it can be. There are plenty of other reasons for the government to regulate trade, protect the environment, and protect its citizens.

I do sympathize with Praxus's assertion that taxation is coercive, and therefore immoral. However there is no other practical way to raise the money that government needs to acheive its goals. Lotteries and taxes for people running for office would not generate enough revenue. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but they are a small price to pay for being an American citizen.

dalem

Huh? You made a post about the supposed "economic costs" of obesity. I replied to it.

If I try to entrap you you will know it.

So what? Doesn't make the concept any more relevant.

You are passing the forest by in order to count trees. Many, many human traits can be said to have "economic costs" to some degree or another, yet as part of a society we tacitly agree to sacrifice some of our inherent freedoms and uniqueness for the common good. Some of my taxes go to pay for schooling and I am childless and will remain so. I partially pay for federal programs I don't support or use, etc. Likewise, some people will always need relatively more or less medical care than I will, barring some personal trauma to me. Why should I begrudge them that? Are the people I penalize for being fat going to then be able to penalize me for lacking some piece of what people like you determine is human perfection?

Bah.

-dale

barrowaj

I see what you are saying here, but I don't think that Bulga was trying to say we should discriminate against obese people. Instead, I think it would be a good idea to encourage behaviors that will help prevent people from becoming obese. What I initially proposed was having some kind of tax credit for people who ride bicycles. This wouldn't discriminate, as presumably they would be able to still ride a bike. Unlike Praxus, I wouldn't be adverse to having a tax that is inversely proportional to the gas mileage of people's vehicles as well. People who are getting lower gas mileage are contributing more to pollution and greenhouse gasses, along with also inordinately driving up the cost of energy.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your words about health insurance. Some people are born with genetic predispositions toward different diseases, it would seem morally wrong to penalize them for that. But it seems that while obesity does seem to run in families, there aren't clear genetic factors that control it. Even still I tend to look at obesity as a disease rather than a component of diversity. I mean, if we had a good way to cure mental retardation, I would be all for it.

Praxus

None of them valid, however.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2005summary/html/p2-17.htm#5
http://www.va.gov/vetdata/Geographic...tion/index.htm

DOD- 429 Billion
DOJ- 22.2 Billion
DOVA-16 Billion

Total- Less then 500 billion, probably a little over when you factor in the cost of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President.

A 5% contract free, combined with lotteries would accomplish this type of fund raising.

Shek

State?
Homeland Security?
Transportation?
CDC?

I'm not a fan of excess bureaucracy, but there is certainly a need for more functions that what you've listed, and I've added just a few that are vital to the citizens of the United States. What is needed is someone that can clean house and eliminate the unnecessary functions within the varying bureaucracies. In the end, for me, the free market is still king in my book, but the free market needs a helping hand in some cases.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Bulgaroctonus

Before I reply to all the posts that have accumulated in my absence, I want to point out that I have created a new thread under World Politics. It is called Political and Economic Science (PES). Since we are now in a general governmental debate, it might be useful to take the debate there.

We should also consider that this thread has become very non topical to global warming. Much of that is my fault, but by transferring the conversation to PES we can allow those people who are interested in Gobal (sic!) Warming to have their thread back.

Shek

Doesn't hot air contribute to global warming? If so, then this thread is still on topic!

clegane

Since Praxus and I will never agree on the philosophical basis for taxation, and I don't have the time to carry out an arguement of infinite length, I'll let him have the last word on that one.

On obesity and Godwin's law: As much as you might not like government regulations, to get from a surtax on twinkies and tax credits for fuel efficient cars to the genocide of millions, you'd need huge leap in logic. This is why the analogy section on the SAT needs to stay.

back to the topic of the thread:
The real facts on global warming

__________________
"Its true, we add insult to injury, but... you add the injury"
-Jon Stewart to Bill O'Reilly