Shay wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Shay wrote:
>>>> Without looking at a specific case, I can't say which way I would vote.
>>>
>>> IOW, *no* guaranteed protection?
>>
>> Amendment to allow individuals to hold slaves. Amendment to allow 
>> currently-owned slaves to go free. Which way would you vote?
> 
> Amendment to allow currently-owned slaves to go free.

What if the slaves are in the majority?

>> Why? Whose rights would you protect?
> 
> Because the entire point of the amendment process is to grant the 
> powerless freedom from the tyranny of the powerful, 

So, doctors and insurance companies are powerless, and the little old lady 
with cancer is powerful?

> A question back: would you ignore this amendment for the benefit of the 
> majority?

I'm not arguing either way in general. I think a government having limited 
powers is clearly beneficial over one having extraordinary powers. I don't 
think you'll ever prevent an entity with a local monopoly on force from 
eventually expanding to where those outside that monopoly are uncomfortable 
with it, which was my attempted point earlier. No amount of rules will make 
the enforcers of those rules obey the rules.

In any case, you seem to be alternating between "don't take my money to fund 
this" and "it'll hurt people because it's uncompetitive", unless I'm 
misremembering. I've been trying to get your take on a "public option" 
that's neither required nor funded by those not taking advantage of it, but 
I didn't actually get an answer.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message