On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:15:05 -0500, Shay wrote:

>>>> Employees still have power.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>> With 9-15% unemployment?!!
>> 
>> Sure, I know people who have quit their job and taken other jobs in the
>> last couple of weeks.
> 
> And I know a dozen who have been laid off. The numbers are the numbers,
> our individual anecdotes are nearly worthless.

Sure, but my point is to demonstrate that employees still have control.  
That's not to say it doesn't have to be exercised more carefully right 
now.

> We have excessive lifestyles and a large population of indigents. *My*
> healthcare is excellent. Hell, as long as we're giving healthcare away
> to indigents, why stop at the border? What is other industrialized
> nations "provided" healthcare to non-citizens? Should we then?

We're not talking about just indigents.  But the homeless living in our 
cities spread disease and they can't get treated.  Helping the 46 million 
people without health care (many of whom are part-time workers who are 
ineligible for benefits) is a good idea.

There was an episode of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days that showed what living 
on minimum wage is like.  That comes without health care.  These are hard-
working people, but they have to decide between eating and going to the 
hospital for necessary care.

You think it's reasonable to just let them die?

> My being forced to pay for your healthcare isn't competition or the free
> market, it's the tyranny of the majority, the specific threat our
> Constitution was authored to protect us from. This is why, beyond a few
> quips (and maybe even before that), this argument becomes very dull. A
> statist will never see the most powerful entity in the country as a
> potential threat and will therefore never understand the value of a
> Constitutional Republic over a pure Democracy.

If you pay insurance premiums, you pay for other people's health care 
NOW.  I really wish the right would stop saying that what we have is "the 
best in the world" and BS like that.

>>> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free"
>>> alternative. This is why we have the tenth amendment.
>> 
>> I don't see how this relates.  There's nothing in the 10th amendment
>> that says anything about the government not being able to provide
>> services to the people.  By that same logic, the TSA shouldn't be
>> controlled by the federal government, nor should the FCC, nor should we
>> have a federal highway system.
> 
> Do you statists hate the Constitution so much that you can't bear to
> read it?

First, I've read it.  Second, I understand it.

> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3

You cited the 10th amendment, not this article before.  Please make up 
your mind.

Cherry-picking parts of the constitution is like cherry-picking parts of 
the bible.  If you are referring to:

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, 
and with the Indian tribes; " - that's one of many items listed as a 
responsibility of the legislative branch.  Again, this has nothing to do 
with the topic at hand unless you mean to read this clause as being the 
only thing Article 1, Section 8 is about.

> In instances where the TSA, FCC, etc. extend beyond this authority, yes,
> they absolutely should be stopped.

And I suppose you think the post office ought to be stopped, too.

Jim

Post a reply to this message