Well, I’m a pro Life and Liberty conservative and Free Republic is a pro Life & Liberty conservative site.
Mandates are anti-liberty. Government involvement in these areas is socialism and or fascism. Either way, it is anti-Liberty, anti-freedom, anti-American and unconstitutional.
Government involvement (intrusion) into our personal lives and business affairs IS the problem, especially federal government.
The way to do it is to go back to the constitution and free-markets. Get the government out. Abolish medicare and social security (and the income tax) as unconstitutional big government socialism/fascism and intrusion into our private lives and affairs. Also repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.
Restore the constitutional limits on the central government by restricting them only to the dozen and a half actually enumerated powers as defined by the constitution. No stretching of the commerce or any other clauses! The limits were established for a reason! Restore the ninth and tenth amendments and return the true governing powers to the sovereign states and the people as intended. Restore self-government!
Ninety percent or better of the current federal bureaucracy should be abolished. If any of the unconstitutional functions now being provided by the federal government are truly worthwhile to the people and they are not prohibited by either the US Constitution or the state’s constitution, let the individual states and or the local people handle it. That was and is the original intent.
If a local government wishes to provide a free clinic or hospital to treat poor people so be it. That would be up to the local citizens to decide and to CONTROL. Otherwise let the churches and charities handle it.
Federal government involvement in any form is UNCONSTITUTIONAL intrusion into our private affairs and is PROHIBITED!!
I admire a man who loves the Constitution enough to defend the ACTUAL document and intent.
GO JIM!
I agree with most of your statement of general principles. Especially what you said about that abomination, the commerce clause.
Mandates are anti-liberty. However, as with most things, it is not always that simple.
Your position on abortion — and mine — for example, is to limit the “liberty” of the woman seeking the abortion, and to have the government insert itself into the matter. On abortion, the liberals suddenly become libertarian. I would also limit the “liberty” of homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior, if I could be the czar. If it was good enough for Byron White, it’s good enough for me.
Would you do away with laws requiring people to buy car insurance? That’s a mandate, too, and somewhat analogous to the mandate to purchase health insurance.
You are also right that government is the source of the problem. The government won’t allow hospitals to turn away non-paying patients. Do you think you could get even a majority of conservatives to agree that hospitals should be able to turn away people? I really don’t.
I actually think some kind of minimal “charity” care, maybe funded by states, might be a good idea. It would take care of emergencies, but would not be good enough that people would want to rely on it. If they wanted all the good care available, they would have to find some way to insure themselves.
I don’t think one man should have a “right” to the labor of another — even doctors.
But, I still think the attempt by Romney and Heritage to find a way to end the “free riding” does not make them “socialists.”
Thanks for the discussion. On to other things now.
I would add that if they really want to change the government to suit them, there's a process to do so...it's called a "Constitutional Amendment" -- not judicial fiat and certainly not just usurping the power.
(Not that I'm in favor of expansion in any way; but if they feel they must, they should use the process put in there by the founders to do so)
My biggest problem with Mitt buddy is that he seems to be too pragmatic to actually hold to that (or any other) principle.