Constitutionalist Liberals?

[Morgan Brykein]

Are there any Ron Paul supporters out there, who believe in small federal government and an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but who don't have the same views regarding state-level politics? For example, people who support public health care at the state level, but oppose it at the federal level.

 

[AmericaFyeah92]

Most people aren't capable of that level of intellectual subtlety and complexity

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Perhaps the elitist pseudo-intellectual left could do such mental gymnastics, but I've never heard this kind of logic from the left-liberals I've met/chatted with

 

[anaconda]

Are there any Ron Paul supporters out there, who believe in small federal government and an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but who don't have the same views regarding state-level politics? For example, people who support public health care at the state level, but oppose it at the federal level.

I think most of the Ron Paul supporters want the income tax to be federally unconstitutional. So the funding of the hypothetical state health program would have to be determined and subsequently approved by the voters. I am also tempted to believe that if one state had an onerous rationed inefficient socialist health care system that the residents of that state would simply visit another free market health care state for any medical concern of a pressing or serious nature. I think the socialist health care system in that particular state would fail due to this interstate competition, assuming of course that the Feds were not involved.

Great topic. What do you think?

 

[South Park Fan]

Kirkpatrick Sale and Thomas Naylor of the Second Vermont Republic seem to fit that description.

 

[Major_C_Natural]

That description would apply to me. Namely, I do believe, for various reasons, that there should be universal health care a la Singapore style on the federal level but a Constitutional amendment would be needed since there is no provision that allows Congress to establish welfare programs.

My personal views and Constitutional interpretation are wholly separate. Adhering to the Constitution is the most important duty a constitutionally-established government should follow.

 

[osan]

That description would apply to me. Namely, I do believe, for various reasons, that there should be universal health care a la Singapore style on the federal level but a Constitutional amendment would be needed since there is no provision that allows Congress to establish welfare programs.

My personal views and Constitutional interpretation are wholly separate. Adhering to the Constitution is the most important duty a constitutionally-established government should follow.

But you advocate alteration of the Constitution that conforms to your statist belief in welfare. Interesting.

I know this is perhaps a futile question, but my sense of morbid curiosity has gotten the upper hand here: on what basis do you justify governmental welfare, understanding that financing such programs necessitates violence and the threat thereof against the citizens in order to force them to pay for what they may not want?

 

[Major_C_Natural]

But you advocate alteration of the Constitution that conforms to your statist belief in welfare. Interesting.

I know this is perhaps a futile question, but my sense of morbid curiosity has gotten the upper hand here: on what basis do you justify governmental welfare, understanding that financing such programs necessitates violence and the threat thereof against the citizens in order to force them to pay for what they may not want?

Because I do not have faith in private charities as a long-term solution. Because charity is voluntary and costs the consumer more than it benefits them, it presents a free rider problem. What would happen if society becomes largely amoral or Randian (not to link the two)? Who would provide care for the impoverished people then?

 

[Slutter McGee]

That description would apply to me. Namely, I do believe, for various reasons, that there should be universal health care a la Singapore style on the federal level but a Constitutional amendment would be needed since there is no provision that allows Congress to establish welfare programs.

My personal views and Constitutional interpretation are wholly separate. Adhering to the Constitution is the most important duty a constitutionally-established government should follow.

I have been arguing that a Federalist and Constitutionalist approach CAN reach those of liberal views, whereas a libertarian approach may not. And you are exactly right. The consitution is a changing document. But it should change through amendments to it, rather than change in interpretation.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[specsaregood]

Because I do not have faith in private charities as a long-term solution. Because charity is voluntary and costs the consumer more than it benefits them, it presents a free rider problem. What would happen if society becomes largely amoral or Randian (not to link the two)? Who would provide care for the impoverished people then?

That is an ironic question. As our society you seem to support is amoral. You think it is moral to get the govt to take via force what I have (theft) and give to others? Which moral is that?

 

[Elwar]

Vermont is a good example of how a liberal can get what they want under a Constitutional Republic.

Vermont and New Hampshire are like a Yin and Yang.

 

[djdellisanti4]

Vermont is a good example of how a liberal can get what they want under a Constitutional Republic.

Vermont and New Hampshire are like a Yin and Yang.

I know about the Free State thing in New Hampshire, and somewhat about a similar movement in Vermont. Could you mind explaining further though, I'm a little confused.

 

[Acala]

answer

Because I do not have faith in private charities as a long-term solution.

Private charity is far more sustainable in the long term than any government-operated health care plan. The Federal government currently operates two health care programs - Medicare and the VA. Medicare is currently about $70 TRILLION underfunded. It is bankrupt several times over and the unavoidable result will be that the promises of benefits that were made WILL be broken. This is long-term solution government style.

Putting aside the VA's reputation for low-quality of service, the cost alone makes it unworkable. For the most part, the only vets who use the VA are those who have no other choice. But ignoring that for the moment and assuming that all eligible vets use the VA for all their healthcare services, if you extrapolate the cost per covered person to the entire nation, the cost of VA care would be around $2 trillion annually. For marginal care. And that is an extremely conservative estimate. How would you possibly pay for that?

Or is there some reason to believe that the Federal government's unbroken track record of failure in healthcare (and most everything else) will somehow be broken if we just make the program big enough? I would be interested to hear it.

But you might spend your time more profitably trying to understand how government has created the huge problem we now have with healthcare. Hint: the high cost of health care results from restrictions on supply and subsidy of demand.

Because charity is voluntary and costs the consumer more than it benefits them, it presents a free rider problem.

And yet Americans have a history of giving generously to charity - even while the government is siphoning off vast amounts of wealth and wasting it on war etc. Could it be that giving to charity has a benefit that does not show up in your cost/benefit analysis?

What would happen if society becomes largely amoral or Randian (not to link the two)?

It really is a bit misleading to talk about "society" wanting this or that. Only individuals have morality and intention. But for the sake of responding to your question, which is a legitimate one, what would happen if society became "amoral" is that society would have exactly as much charity as it wanted. If society no longer cared about the poor then the poor would not be cared for. Of course you personally would be free to sacrifice yourself for the poor to your heart's content. But your concern is that other people would not share your morals. Unfortunately your solution of using violence to force everyone else to act on YOUR morals is itself morally depraved.

Who would provide care for the impoverished people then?

You, and me, and anyone else who cared or felt guilty or could, with your eloquent pursuasion, be made to care or feel guilty. And it would be enough even if it was less than you thought appropriate because YOUR values have no authority beyond your life. There is no justification for you, or me, or anyone else, to deem their values MORE VALID than the values of anyone else such that our values can be imposed by force.

Besides, government doesn't help the poor. Government nurtures poverty to perpetuate and expand its own power. Understand the difference?

Oh, and here is the bonus question: who profits from the food stamp program ostensibly designed to "help the poor"? Hint: someone gets paid to administer the program.

 

[Ekrub]

Are there any Ron Paul supporters out there, who believe in small federal government and an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but who don't have the same views regarding state-level politics? For example, people who support public health care at the state level, but oppose it at the federal level.

Mitt Romney isn't a Ron Paul supporter but he is going to make this argument next year when people start drilling him over Romneycare.

 

[JaylieWoW]

Because I do not have faith in private charities as a long-term solution. Because charity is voluntary and costs the consumer more than it benefits them, it presents a free rider problem. What would happen if society becomes largely amoral or Randian (not to link the two)? Who would provide care for the impoverished people then?

Interesting...

While I am not so naive to think "free riders" don't take advantage of charitable organizations, I also believe that because a charities resources are limited they have to be more cautious about who they do and do not help. Additionally, I believe local charities have the ability to better weed out the freeloaders because they are closer to the community. And, charities tend to be populated with volunteers who really believe in the cause they are serving, thus are more effective. I doubt very seriously you would visit a charitable organization populated by minimum wage workers who only work there because they have to have a job. Nor would I imagine, a charitable organization willing to "settle" for such workers.

In a "perfect" world I would envision charitable organizations actually having to compete with one another for donations (they do now to some degree). This would have the added bonus of forcing charities to find ways to spend far less in administrative costs and passing along a much higher percentage of donations to the people who really need the help. Think about it, would you rather donate to a charity that passes along 70% of donations or would you rather donate to a charity that passes along 30% of donations? Quite simply, the charities that do a better job managing their donations will be the charities that succeed. I'd take that any day over a government run institution where you take a number and wait for someone to say, "next, please". Warm and truly caring is the key (in my opinion) for better managing the care of the impoverished.

Though I cannot envision a completely "Randian" society as any sort of potential reality, but lets say something like that did happen in the future. Would it necessarily be bad if every person was 100% responsible for themselves? They "selfishly" attend to themselves first so they aren't a burden to others? Or, in other words, what kind of world can you imagine if ever charity or welfare were no longer necessary?

 

[Elwar]

I know about the Free State thing in New Hampshire, and somewhat about a similar movement in Vermont. Could you mind explaining further though, I'm a little confused.

Vermont is super crunchy hippy liberal. Back in the 60s it was like all the hippies decided to move to Vermont to take it over in much the same way that the Free State is working in New Hampshire.

They have an outwardly socialist senator, they have a constitutional right to trespass on anyone's property if there is no fence, they banned all billboards, they have nine district environmental commissions that must approve land development, they were the first state to have civil unions and then same sex marriage.

They're more principled liberals who actually do stupid things for a reason as opposed to the liberal democrats like the rest of the country.

 

[AuH2O]

I frequently tell people that if we would just resort back to states' rights, I'll have a choices of nice conservative/libertarian states and all the liberals can make their own socialist utopia in Massachusetts or something. If they really want to achieve that ideal, they could get it faster on a state level.

 

[Major_C_Natural]

That is an ironic question. As our society you seem to support is amoral. You think it is moral to get the govt to take via force what I have (theft) and give to others? Which moral is that?

I am aware that my views may also be (libertarian-wise) amoral but also a necessary evil. Ironies aside, you still have not answered the question of what would happen.

Private charity is far more sustainable in the long term than any government-operated health care plan. The Federal government currently operates two health care programs - Medicare and the VA. Medicare is currently about $70 TRILLION underfunded. It is bankrupt several times over and the unavoidable result will be that the promises of benefits that were made WILL be broken. This is long-term solution government style.

Putting aside the VA's reputation for low-quality of service, the cost alone makes it unworkable. For the most part, the only vets who use the VA are those who have no other choice. But ignoring that for the moment and assuming that all eligible vets use the VA for all their healthcare services, if you extrapolate the cost per covered person to the entire nation, the cost of VA care would be around $2 trillion annually. For marginal care. And that is an extremely conservative estimate. How would you possibly pay for that?

Or is there some reason to believe that the Federal government's unbroken track record of failure in healthcare (and most everything else) will somehow be broken if we just make the program big enough? I would be interested to hear it.

But you might spend your time more profitably trying to understand how government has created the huge problem we now have with healthcare. Hint: the high cost of health care results from restrictions on supply and subsidy of demand.

I agree though the United states health care system is mismanaged, poorly designed, and broke. But have you checked out Singapore's health care system lately? Aside from a few aspects which I have reservations about like price controls, it is a largely free-market driven health care system.

And yet Americans have a history of giving generously to charity - even while the government is siphoning off vast amounts of wealth and wasting it on war etc. Could it be that giving to charity has a benefit that does not show up in your cost/benefit analysis?

What happens in the past does not equal to the future. I am speaking hypothetically that in the future that most people will become amoral or Randian and no longer donate enough to sustain charities.

It really is a bit misleading to talk about "society" wanting this or that. Only individuals have morality and intention. But for the sake of responding to your question, which is a legitimate one, what would happen if society became "amoral" is that society would have exactly as much charity as it wanted. If society no longer cared about the poor then the poor would not be cared for. Of course you personally would be free to sacrifice yourself for the poor to your heart's content. But your concern is that other people would not share your morals. Unfortunately your solution of using violence to force everyone else to act on YOUR morals is itself morally depraved.

I used the word "largely." Of course, it is up to the individual to decide their morals and intentions but I am talking a out a society where the significant majority of individuals no longer cared for the poor, to the point that private charity cannot sustain itself and fails. So you say that "if society no longer cared about the poor then the poor would not be cared for," excuse me if I speak in extremities but then those people should be left dead?

You, and me, and anyone else who cared or felt guilty or could, with your eloquent persuasion, be made to care or feel guilty. And it would be enough even if it was less than you thought appropriate because YOUR values have no authority beyond your life. There is no justification for you, or me, or anyone else, to deem their values MORE VALID than the values of anyone else such that our values can be imposed by force.

Besides, government doesn't help the poor. Government nurtures poverty to perpetuate and expand its own power. Understand the difference?

Oh, and here is the bonus question: who profits from the food stamp program ostensibly designed to "help the poor"? Hint: someone gets paid to administer the program.

You, me, and a few others sometimes cannot be enough to cover ALL of the poor. I know it violates the non-aggression principle but it is a necessary evil so that you, I, or anyone else do not involuntarily and unnecessarily receive death, the ultimate robber of freedom.