What’s needed to stop an American dictatorship?

You started with a flawed premise, of course:
That I ever said or implied "All people are equal, have equal abilities, and were born and are living in equal circumstances." Doh. That's right up there with the top lamest things ever said; nice move.

It's pretty f'ing obvious that not all people are equal. Do you feel you had a spellbinding revelation there?

And now you're also a magic mind reader. You can see into my mind what I believe and that I "disregard many of life's obstacles"? Congratulations on your mystical powers. If only I could be so clairvoyant...

 

Oh, here I was so looking forward to not hearing from you again, which is what you said you would do. Well, never mind. I also notice you can't be bothered to provide references for your claims- that makes me suspicious right there.

Now I am not going to invest the to do the legal research from original sources, but I believe you are wholly misleading to the extent of bordering on dishonesty. Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions, but based on what I've seen of you, I think it would not be surprising. I reference and quote authoritative, albeit not primary, sources, a process that you snottily sneer at. Fits with an intent to obfuscate.

Justia's summary of Burwell vs Little Sisters (Ref 1) notes:

The appeals before the Tenth Circuit in this opinion concerned the regulations (as a part of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA")) that required group health plans to cover contraceptive services for women as a form of preventive care ("Mandate"). In response to religious concerns, the Departments implementing the ACA (Health and Human Services ("HHS"), Labor, and Treasury) adopted a regulation that exempted religious employers (churches and their integrated auxiliaries) from covering contraceptives. When religious non-profit organizations complained about their omission from this exemption, the Departments adopted a regulation that allowed them to opt out of providing, paying for, or facilitating contraceptive coverage. Under this regulation, a religious non-profit organization could opt out by delivering a form to their group health plan’s health insurance issuer or third-party administrator or by sending a notification to HHS. The Plaintiffs in the cases here were religious non-profit organizations. They argued that complying with the Mandate or the accommodation scheme imposed a substantial burden on their religious exercise. The Plaintiffs argued the Mandate and the accommodation scheme violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and the Religion and Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. While Tenth Circuit recognized the sincerity of Plaintiffs’ beliefs and arguments, it concluded the accommodation scheme relieved Plaintiffs of their obligations under the Mandate and did not substantially burden their religious exercise under RFRA or infringe upon their First Amendment rights.

I suppose for statists like yourself (and those you might influence) I should point out that the cause of liberty requires that nobody, no just religious non-profits, should be obliged to provide contraceptives, abortifacients, or, frankly any other kind of medical insurance. Such obligations are an affront to the freedom to contract and liberty in general. [Historically, I believe linking medical insurance with employment was a WWII scheme to get around price controls, and it became a perk that labor unions liked]. Now I believe it is particularly outrageous to require it of religious organizations that object to a particular practice of medicine on religious grounds, but the entire requirement is wrong.

Trump, to his credit, has expanded the exemption to a wider range of organizations (see Burwell vs Hobby Lobby Stores Inc) but the answer is to eliminate the requirement in its entirety, which I suppose can only be done by repealing or modifying the ACA.

Nancy Pelosi provided a particularly galling, albeit sophomoric, reaction to Little Sisters of the Poor vs Pennsylvania (as quoted in the Washington Examiner on 8 JUL 2020 (behind a paywall). To quote the arrogant statist, who thinks she has some sort of right to tell others how to live their lives. the ruling

enable[d] the Trump administration's brutal assault on women's health, financial security, and independence.

Of course, Pelosi's fatuous "reasoning" not withstanding, there was nothing brutal about it, but it did in some small way, strike a blow for liberty, which was all too much for the leader of the Democrats in the House. Golly, when I was young, I had to pay for my own contraceptives (well, ok, you could argue I had a choice- but that was the choice I made and I didn't notice men exactly clamoring to pay their fair share of that form if our recreational activities. Oh, how my "rights" were violated by not having the taxpayers pay for my private pleasure).

You have a precious argument when you try to belittle the Sisters' claim that

the Little Sisters said that filling out the form would constitute "material cooperation with evil".


I submit it does exactly that. The Sisters do not want to be forced into cooperating with evil and they should be not forced by an overbearing state to do so. I suppose, given your reasoning. the I.G. Farber Corporation- parent of BASF- bore no responsibility for the murder of millions of men, women, an nearly two million children. After all, they merely manufactured Zyklon B, they didn't actually use it on anyone. And that is an all-too-frequent consequence of the doctrine that you espouse, which holds that some people can be forced to act in ways that the government wishes. Free minds and free markets work, sir. Anyone else is a form of slavery.

For all his transgressions and limitations, bless Trump. We have today a freer America than we would have had with President Hillary, or will have with a senile Biden propped up by the leftists surrounding him.


1. Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, No. 13-1540 (10th Cir. 2015)

 

You start off well, but your argument soon goes off the rails, because you think in false, simplistic stereotypes.You see political actors as divided into "lefties" (bad guys) and "righties" (good guys). That's obviously not accurate. "Left" and "right" are borrowed from the seating arrangement in the eighteenth century French National Assembly. The parties favoring privilege, the monarchy, and the clergy sat to the right. Those favoring the common man and equality to the left. But it was a continuum, not a black and white dichotomy."The left" today embraces a spectrum including hard left Marxist-Leninists, democratic socialists like Bernie, Progressives like Elizabeth Warren, and center-left liberal types like Joe and Kamala. Their programs range from redistributive to Obama-style or Clinton-style modified status quo. And "the right" ranges from Neo-Nazi and identitarian populist to conventional conservatism. The Trumpism you're defending is a greater departure from traditional Republican values than is the liberal centrism of Biden and Harris, which is why so many Republicans like George Will and John Kasich have decided to vote for Biden-Harris.

 

I submit you're a typical right wing fanatic ideologue who thinks only you and yours have rights. The dear Little Sisters weren't being asked to provide anything other than the act of opting out. TheTenth Circuit was correct in concluding the accommodation scheme did not substantially burden their religious exercise under RFRA or infringe upon their First Amendment rights. Trump was pandering to his religious base, and his appointees to the Court were pandering to him. Not quite the same as manufacturing Zyklon B. Your hyperbole is working overtime again. Get a grip!

 

But have you got the fishing rights and permits?

In the UK most rivers and lakes are owned by the person owning the land and people have to pay to fish those rivers. Those that can pay or have inherited a river have an advantage to fishing that others don’t have - try fishing in such places without a permit and you can be fined. In the past people were sent to prison for what was called poaching.

Then in fishing a boat can be a great advantage over someone stuck on shore, if you haven’t got the resources then you are stuck, renting one is more expensive in the long run, buying one a bit cheaper but if you inherit one that gives an even greater advantage.

Then you need regulations to protect from overfishing and environmental laws to protect against pollution etc and so on.

Thing is slogans are simple but can be simplistic when they have to match reality.

Like most lefties I do believe in the idea of teaching someone to be able to help themselves – that is why I believe in free and well-funded education and training from kindergarten to University

 

Sorry mate but I’ve lived on a number of what we call in the UK ‘council estates’ public housing projects, I have friends that still live in them, we were over at one only the other week for a curry (a lovely single mother with two wonderful kids).

Many are well run and maintained but that is because the council has the funds to do so even after years of neoliberal policies aimed at selling them off (limiting the number) and defunding such estates so they can then be portrayed as ‘breeding grounds for all sorts of ills’.

You are basically just continuing the myths of 19thand early 20th century social Darwinists about poverty and slums, which when laws were passed to improve such places became good places to live thing is that such places are not inevitably bad but they are often made to be bad by bad policies.

 

Trud

Sorry but we have been through a lot of this stuff before why can’t you address the already outstanding criticisms of your ideas rather than just repeat the same stuff, forcing mto repeat the same stuff?

Well a lot of what you posted was rhetorical guff so I’ll concentrate on the core philosophy (again).

I’ll ask again – how do you give an equal chance to everyone in an unequal society?

How to you give equality of opportunity where some have advantages that give them greater opportunities to succeed than others?

But many do not generate advantage they inherit it - a baby born into wealth gains a great advantage it didn’t earn.

How is it obviously better when you never seem able to address the criticism of it?

LOL - Well it seems by just ignoring the many outstanding criticism of it.

 

As someone said to me - that sounds like Wall Street

 

That is simply an ignorant, ugly, baseless calumny. In my book that makes you a rather despicable liar.

I care about many things. I do have to budget my concerns. You know nothing about me, which is no bar to you to making the most scurrilous of claims about me.

I have tithed- or better- essentially my entire adult life. I give back to my community- but the way I define "my community" is mine to determine. But i do NOT want to be obliged to act upon any cause that I have not agreed to act upon. That is an essential difference between those who cherish liberty and those, like yourself, who seek to shackle people with obligations to act in a cause for which, as competent adults, they never agreed to.

All people have the same rights that I do. Those rights can be abridged (e.g. you or I can be imprisoned for violating the rights of others). We all have the obligation to refrain from a range of actions that infringe on the rights of others. As I've mentioned before on this thread, defining the interface where my right to move my fist must necessarily end where your nose begins is not always a simple matter.

Clearly, the concept of liberty is one that is alien to your spirit.

 

Did a child born into advantage earn that advantage?

Did they purchase from the fruits of their labour the advantages they have received just by been born?

So is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

So you would be in favour of a progressive inheritance tax with say nothing before 100,000 then say going up to say 99.9% of the wealthiest 1%? To make is more likely that everyone would have to work for what they have?

 

You're frothing at the mouth again. Get a grip! Your students might think you're rabid.

 

Guys, guys...

What is with all the jealousy and envy for those with the advantage of being born into an accomplished family??? Nobody chooses their parents. Clearly your embittered reactions to wealth disparities indicate to me that your biggest disadvantage was not being born into a Christian upbringing which would teach you to be grateful and that where you put your treasures is where your heart is (heaven or earth). You are completely mistaken if you believe that somehow wealth brings happiness. It seems that wealth often brings despair, if it's not coupled with the love of Christ and shared accordingly. If you think freedom is about hoarding money and wealth, you've got some discovering to do. You're going on and on about disparities, wealth, background, intelligence, religion, height, weight, strength, speed, coordination, visual and hearing acuity, genital prowess, attractiveness, ... there's no end, guys. And no fix. Accept that you suck. Embrace your advantages. Be thankful for what you have and make the most of it. Find a church where you're welcomed, learn to pray for understanding and contentment. There's only so much sand in the hourglass... Peace. What happened to peace? May the peace of our Lord be with you.

 

Let's reframe it then.

Let's say you go through school and graduate with a "B" or better average. You stay out of trouble with the law. You stay away from drugs and drinking. You don't go having any children.

Are you going to be able to get a job which pays well enough to afford a place to live and sustain yourself?

 

*8 people have more wealth than 350 million of the poorest people. That's fair. I'm sure Jesus would agree with that. I'm sure the 350 million are just basically lazy.

 

The only real christians that I have ever met in my life were those that never mentioned that they were christians, but lived like they were. They never blabbed about being such. Those earned my true respect.

 

An American "dictatorship" will never happen.

 

We're about to find out if it's possible,IMO.