I think what's needed here is a time machine. Folks who feel that everything should be by the precise letter of the constitution would be given the opportunity to travel back in time for a spell to see how they enjoyed living in that period.
This is a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy. There is no question that the conditions of life were harsh in that period. But it does not follow that the reasons for that were that they lacked the kind of central planning we "enjoy" today. In fact, I would argue the opposite -- that the conditions of liberty that prevailed at that time gave rise (eventually) to the tremendous wealth of our society today. That's the major reason why I wish to protect those conditions.
Doesn't the "or to the people" sort of invalidate the notion that this is something the government can't do? I mean, the government represents and was put in office by the people. In fact by a majority of people. A majority of people who want healthcare reform. So while these people can't necessarily all get together in the same place to hash all this out, their representatives can. Oh... And have.
No, what you end up with then is simple majoritarianism, or mob rule. Many people today think that majoritarianism is the same thing as democracy, but this is not the case. As I've said earlier, our system was set up specifically to protect against this, and it is always the minority opinion that needs protecting (as you eloquently demonstrate). The US system was set up for the express purpose of preventing the majority from squashing the minority with their view of the good life, so that we can all define that for ourselves.
You don't need to worry about the social order. The poor will still be poor at the end of the day and the rich will still be rich. The middle class will still be there too. Your nation can afford it. Easily.
If you think that is my concern, then you don't understand my arguments at all. It's fine that you disagree with me, but try to understand what I'm saying.
Previous Topic
Index
