Single Payer health Care

[delusionsofNORMALity]

a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

above is the dictionary definition of "liberalism". you might notice it has very little in common with the ideology presently touted by the leaders of the liberal establishment. the most glaring differences are the total lack of regard for "the rights of the individual" in favor of the will of the mob and an insistence on the necessity of "restrictions" on every facet of our lives.

.....according to you it seems that liberals have been in power for the last 50 years.....

try making it the better part of the last century. since around the time of the great depression we have been getting sucked deeper and deeper into the quagmire of the new liberalism. its hallmarks are an increasingly powerful and intrusive central government, an ideology that places the supposed good of society ahead of the rights of the individual and a nanny state mentality that allows government the right to force any individual to bend to the will of the state. does this sound suspiciously like totalitarianism? well, that is what liberalism has become.

.....I guess I'm not really sure who these liberals you keep talking about are. I've always considered myself one; I like to give generously, I'm always up for political reform and progress, I like and back movements that grant other's liberty and protect our own.....

your charitable inclinations have little to do with the present state of liberalism. while an individual may be charitable without negatively affecting those around him, a charitable government is a detriment to the citizens it governs. an individual's charity consists of that which he himself has acquired, it is his own wealth he is giving away and it is his right to do with his belongings as he pleases. government creates nothing, its funds are wrung from the citizenry. by engaging in charity, the state is essentially stealing the wealth of its citizens and redistributing those funds while denying the individual his innate freedom of choice.

the "moral" duty of the individual is the betterment of those around him and the society in general. the "legal" duty of government is the protection of the rights of the individual so that he may fulfill his "moral" duty. government's only "moral" duty is to carry out its "legal" duty.

.....a lot of the communist commandments have the backing of republican presidents, which are "never" liberal.....

have you been living under a rock? if you consider liberalism by its dictionary definition, the only ones that would qualify are strict libertarians. if you accept the modern version of liberalism in all its socialistically totalitarian glory, almost everyone who has attained a position of power over the last eighty years would be considered a liberal to some extent.

i'm in favor of giving this modern liberalism a new name, but the leaders of this movement are the ones who have co-opted the label. i suppose it sounds a good deal hipper than totalitarianism.

That's democracy, and that's how it works. It does limit our rights, it does strip our freedom piece by piece, but that is not due to communism, socialism, or the family destroying, resource sucking, boogy man liberals you keep talking about. It is because we elect bad people into power, people that are unscrupulous and morally corrupt.

"power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". it may seem trite, but it's true. as long as we place human beings in positions of power we will see how easily even a virtuous man may be corrupted by the trappings of authority. the flip side of this dilemma is that "bad people" are attracted to positions of control and no amount of scrutiny can entirely weed out the bad from the good. the founders of this country understood the fallibility of mortal men and they set up a series of limitations on government's power over the rights of the individual. for over two-hundred years our representatives in the government have been undermining that system in order to fulfill their thirst for power and they have done quite a good job of it. they have redefined liberty, they have added and subtracted rights to curry favor with their supporters and punish their detractors, they have side-stepped the innate power of the people within a free market through regulation in the name of the common good. each step we take toward absolute control by the state is another nail in the coffin of the constitution

[headshake]

DOR, DAMN! do you right books? if not you might think about starting.

very nice.

"you must spread some rep.........."


-shake