When was the last time you were actually excited about a candidate for public office who
a) wasn't a third party candidate.
and
b) was on the final election ballot?
For me that last time was the 1982 election for House of Representatives in the state of Utah. I was an enthusiastic supporter of Francis Farley who lost by an extremely narrow margin.
For me, its been 25 years since I stepped into a Ballot box during final elections excited about a candidate who I thought might win. I won't say I've always been voting for the lesser of two "evils" because the word evil is too strong. I've seen candidates who were competent even OK on the final ballots but never one who I thought was outstanding who I could really be excited about voting for.
Now I realize that my politics are more than a little left of center so it is perhaps not surprising that main stream candidates don't excite me, but I am surprised at how many people seem to feel the same way.
Every election it seems that half the elegible voting population doesn't care enough about either candidate to even show up to the polls. Of course, that could mean many different things. Perhaps those people simply aren't interested enough in political issues to show up if Jesus was running against Adolf Hitler.
So I'm asking you Jatraqueros, when was the last time you were genuinely excited about a democratic or republican political candidate who made the final election ballot?
Do you think there are any changes in our election system that would be more likely to put exciting candidates on the ballot?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
If Jesus was running against Hitler, I guarantee that some people would vote for Hitler because "he has more political experience..."
*sigh*
I haven't been excited about any democratic or republican candidates ever since I started voting 5 years ago. I've been sufficiently excited against some of them to vote for the other guy, but that's as far as it's gone for me.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
College. It's been more than 8 years since I've been excited about a candidate for public office. Like KQ says, I've actually been more interested in seeing some candidates losing, than vice-versa.
I was quite content to see our Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, elected and re-elected. I would not say I was actually excited, however. She's just been even-keel and a pleasant change from our last, ahem, governor, Bill Graves.
(And I just resisted name calling there, for which I'm not proud. For what it's worth, that's one of the worst aspects of the political process in this country. Political discourse seems downright dismal in many avenues.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am very excited and please with both my Senators and with my Congresswoman. I was very excited to campaign and vote for Obama in his sentate campaign and glad for the opportunity to do both (and donate) for his presidential campaign.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I was very fond of Kerry. It helped that it was also the first presidential election where I was old enough to vote, but I really wanted him to win. I was moved by his ability to see shades of gray and think both in details and elegant logic.
I was very upset that more people didn't see his skill as a thinker and world leader just because he lacked "political charm."
I was excited about Obama but that interest is waning. Sometimes he really does suprise me but then I get paranoid that he's just as hypocritical as Clinton, but better at hiding it with smart speeches.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I was excited to vote for Jesse Ventura for MN governor, and quite pleased that he won. I would have voted for him for a second term had he decided to run again.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
This is the first presidential election I am truly excited about and am following closely.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: I was excited about Obama but that interest is waning. Sometimes he really does suprise me but then I get paranoid that he's just as hypocritical as Clinton, but better at hiding it with smart speeches.
I would describe Clinton as opportunistic not hypocritical. The OED defines hypocrisy as: the assuming of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, with dissimulation of real character or inclinations and opportunism as: the practice or policy of exploiting circumstances or opportunities to gain immediate advantage, rather than following a predetermined plan; the ability or tendency to exploit circumstances in this way. Clinton is an opportunist in the worst possible sense of the word in that she exploits every opportunity to increase her own power with little evidence of any other guiding principle.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I was excited about Bradley in '00 and Dean in '04.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"Clinton is an opportunist in the worst possible sense of the word in that she exploits every opportunity to increase her own power with little evidence of any other guiding principle."
Wow, harsh. Provide a few examples? I see this accusation and the nods of assent that treat it like it's commonly accepted knowledge, but I really don't see it. Moving to and running in the New York senate race was opportunistic, I'll give you that, but I'm not convinced it was an evil or deceitful act. The people of New York voted for her, twice, so I'm guessing at least a majority of them are okay with it. But what else? I've yet to have anyone explain to me where this feeling is that she's out for power for the sake of power and naught else.
I like both my Senators, but I'm not super excited about either of them. I was very excited though to vote for Governor Granholm. I think she's just what Michigan needs right now, and if the Republicans in the state house don't derail her, she'll get this state back on track.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I was excited about Bradley in '00 and Dean in '04.
They don't meet my the criteria of "on the final election ballot".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Senatorial race for our neck of the woods turns out to be Ken Salazar v. Pete Coors.
Ken Salazar is obviously good. Pete Coors is obviously worthless. As time goes on more information comes out. Ken Salazar is obviously good. Pete Coors is outright terrible. It's not a battle for the lesser evil. Sadly, I realize that if Coors wins it will grate on me for the next few years. I suck it up and become little mr. idealistic street-team campaigner.
In the end it is a positive thing because it allows me to ignore the utter farce that is the presidential election and I'm going to be glad that Bush wins anyway because it assures Bush an ignominious presence in history!
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I was excited about Arnold. Not because I thought he would do a good job, just because he's the freaking Terminator! And the Kindergarten Cop!
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: I was excited about Arnold. Not because I thought he would do a good job, just because he's the freaking Terminator! And the Kindergarten Cop!
And Conan! Don't forget Conan!
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
My heart dies a little every time I see the current candidates for both parties that are running. They ALL stink. I can't believe we can't find one decent human being to run for such a high political office. So sad.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I like Obama a lot, but he isn't going to get the nomination, and I can't stand Hillary Clinton. I'm so tired of always voting against candidates, and never voting FOR anyone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What I absolutely cannot figure out is this whole "Hillary Clinton is going to get the nomination" crap.
Who coronated her? And why? Who would even consider voting for her in the primary? I haven't met one person in real life who'd vote for her over any of the other Democratic candidates, so where are these people coming from?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
" can't believe we can't find one decent human being to run for such a high political office."
Teh people get the leader they deserve, so they say.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Bradley was on my final ballot in '00.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What I absolutely cannot figure out is this whole "Hillary Clinton is going to get the nomination" crap.
Who coronated her? And why? Who would even consider voting for her in the primary? I haven't met one person in real life who'd vote for her over any of the other Democratic candidates, so where are these people coming from?
I completely agree. Who are they polling?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I find it odd that the declared frontrunners for both parties and the 3rd party "dark horse" Bloomberg are all from New York. I think it's just a media blind spot. I guess we'll see on Super Tuesday.
I'm officially excited about McCain. I remembered finding him very interesting in 2000.
I was not convinced by Hillary's forgiveness of Bill Clinton. It's funny because I was talking to a friend about a historical novel I was writing about a time when a woman would not have automatically divorced her husband for committing adultery. She wondered what possible benefit that would be to anyone today, when any woman with a brain on her would kick out an adulterer. I sense a deep distrust of Hillary among the liberal women I know.
P.S. The news polls I've participated in seemed very biased. I was contacted for one during the '98 fracas and there was no question asked in a way that I could express my deep disapproval of Bill Clinton.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Maybe I'm just a skeptic, but I think that they're (yes, the mysterious "they") putting that out there so that people will think the other candidates don't have a chance and that she's a lock.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: When was the last time you were actually excited about a candidate for public office who
I was in grade school and everyone was very excited that he won by the biggest landslide in history. The nation was really pumped up at the time; you could feel it.
Too bad he blew it all.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ouch.
"Because of you..."
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
(I was too young to vote)
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I can't believe we can't find one decent human being to run for such a high political office. So sad.
The more I read his papers and see his interviews, the more I am convinced that Ron Paul is a decent human being. His fund raising is moving him to the top tier.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Sadly, the more I read about his actual positions, the more I am convinced that Ron Paul is a complete lunatic. He seems like a great guy to have a beer with, but I wouldn't put him in charge of the country if every other presidential candidate committed simultaneous seppuku on the capitol steps.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I like both Ron Paul, and also Huckabee. However, I don't feel at this point either of them have a snowball's chance in hades...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ron Paul reminds me of Perot- on paper, at least, with the gold standard thing. I haven't seen him talking.
The media loves lunatics. The primaries are coming, though. I'm genuinely excited by the sporting aspect of it. But how many of these guys are going to wind up like that downhill skier who didn't win any medals?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's a funny thing about historical representations of Nixon. I thought he was considered a bit of an amoral opportunist since the fifties, way before the incident. I know we've elevated the hungry, smash and grab, take-what-you-can ethic into a bit of a national virtue, but was Nixon really considered a "good person" throughout the fifties and sixties?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What I absolutely cannot figure out is this whole "Hillary Clinton is going to get the nomination" crap.
Who coronated her? And why? Who would even consider voting for her in the primary? I haven't met one person in real life who'd vote for her over any of the other Democratic candidates, so where are these people coming from?
I know people who are very excited about Hillary Clinton as a Presidential Candidate. There's a Hillary for President student organization on my campus. They take field trips to NH to canvas and stuff envelopes.
I also attend her alma mater. She came here last week to kick off a campaign to court the college age vote. The house was packed, though not everyone there was 100% for her, they went because it was Hillary Clinton (and profs canceled classes). I went because I was curious and I knew that her going anywhere usually interrupts everything, so I might as well take the gift wrapped opportunity to visit. I was pretty satisfied with her platform.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: It's a funny thing about historical representations of Nixon. I thought he was considered a bit of an amoral opportunist since the fifties, way before the incident. I know we've elevated the hungry, smash and grab, take-what-you-can ethic into a bit of a national virtue, but was Nixon really considered a "good person" throughout the fifties and sixties?
Sure, by all the people who thougth JFK was just a pretty face.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Sadly, the more I read about his actual positions, the more I am convinced that Ron Paul is a complete lunatic.
Sadly, the more I see that every other viable candidate will spread this very expensive war that is costing us billions of dollars in debt a month and will allow the Feds to continue printing money that devalues our currency, the more I am convinced they are lunatics.
It seems everyone from Cheney to super models are dropping the dollar, and yet we are on a course to expand our debt and and money supply.
Our current trajectory is lunatic and the fiscal consequences are starting to be felt.
[ November 09, 2007, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay, whatever else we want to say about American politics, doesn't the fact that Cheney isn't running say something not entirely bad?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd say it proves he has at least a moderate grip on reality to realize that if he ran, he probably wouldn't even get the nomination.
And I'd love to vote for Obama, and if he were on the ballot even for the primary here, I'd gladly vote for him. But since Hillary is the only democrat on the ballot, I have to vote for her. I'm not sure if you can write in candidates on the primary vote or not, but then it might not even matter if Dean continues to rob me of my vote.
All in all, it's likely that Hillary will be a choice in the general in 08, and I'll vote for her and be quite pleased with the decision. I think she's more than capable, and brings a lot of good ideas to the table.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
Whoa, there is no other democratic candidate on the ballot? That doesn't strike me as democracy at all. If more people are running, I'd think that they would at least be required to be on the ballot. Don't you think?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Different states have different requirements to get on the ballot.
I have always had a loooot more choices for every state and national office here in CA than I did in TX-- I think it's much easier to get on the ballot here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I was pretty satisfied with her platform.
Which version of her platform did she give you?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
The one for college-age voters.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Whoa, there is no other democratic candidate on the ballot? That doesn't strike me as democracy at all. If more people are running, I'd think that they would at least be required to be on the ballot. Don't you think?
To the best of my knowledge, every Democratic candidate except for Hillary has had their name removed from the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot. I was going to write Obama's name in, but I've decided I'm too disappointed with him to do that, and Hillary will get my vote. Or I may just not vote at all. This is one of the few situations where I really don't see the point in going through the effort.
Tom -
How many different versions have you heard? And which planks?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Just a little update for everyone who thinks Paul doesn't have a chance.
So far this quarter he was raised over 8 million dollars.
Q1 almost 64,000 Q2 2.4 Million Q3 5.3 Million Q4 over 8 million so far--after a 4.4 million money bomb in one day on November 5th.
Considering there is another money bomb planned on Dec 16 (Boston Tea Party Anniversary), we can expect to see him easily pass 12 million.
There is every reason to believe the Dec 16 money bomb will raise more money then the Nov 5th fund raiser.
What we see here is momentum...the polls are not far behind. You can't have an average of 40 dollar donations raising that kind of money and not have real support.
The GOP is fractured and demoralized enough that this dark horse could rise. All the other candidates are splitting the pro-war vote. Or as Dr. Paul told Leno, "There is a real risk I could win."
eee...*happy dance*... I am excited about politics for the first time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The GOP is fractured and demoralized enough that this dark horse could rise. All the other candidates are splitting the pro-war vote. Or as Dr. Paul told Leno, "There is a real risk I could win.
Yeah, and with that money he'll get the word out on what he stands for...at which point people let out a collective "wtf?"
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't think Clinton is a lock for the nomination. Dean was too, back in the day...
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I don't know, everything about this election gives me a crummy feeling. It's like the non-existent "they" have decided who the candidates will be, and since so many people are pessimistic and believe it, it's gonna be self-fulfilling. -_-
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Vastly different situation.
I mean, I agree with you in princple, she doesn't have a LOCK on the nomination. If or one of the others can take a strong second place showing, or even win, one of the early three or four states outside of Hyper Tuesday, they could get a bit of momentum going into February, and that's all you need.
But Hillary was a favorite even before the election started. Dean was unknown outside of Vermont before the election started. Other than the fact that they were/are both front runners, not much else matches up.
Besides, Clinton had a horrible debate the other day and it was a huge story for a day, then petered out. Hillary is a seasoned national figure, and extremely unlikely to self implode like Dean did. If she loses, I think it'll be because someone knocked her off her perch, not because she gave it away.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I would vote for Ron Paul if he didn't have such extreme policies on certain issues. I like his foreign policy and I like the general idea of reducing spending. I don't like the idea of eliminating the Fed, CIA, FBI, IRS, etc. The attacks on the Fed always puzzle me, especially since many of them seem to imply that the Fed is just a massive conspiracy to make money. The Fed progressed a huge amount under Greenspan and has shown that it can effectively control inflation and soften recessions.
EDIT: 2008 will be the first presidential election I can vote in!
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
This is the first time I can vote in a presidential election too, and I am voting for Ron Paul.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I would vote for Ron Paul if he didn't have such extreme policies on certain issues. I like his foreign policy and I like the general idea of reducing spending. I don't like the idea of eliminating the Fed, CIA, FBI, IRS, etc. The attacks on the Fed always puzzle me, especially since many of them seem to imply that the Fed is just a massive conspiracy to make money. The Fed progressed a huge amount under Greenspan and has shown that it can effectively control inflation and soften recessions.
EDIT: 2008 will be the first presidential election I can vote in!
I know what you're saying. There are a ton of Ron Paul's positions that I disagree with. Besides the ones you've mentioned, I strongly disagree with his stance on the funding of scientific research. That said, I still intend to support him. I do believe that the government needs to be reigned in, especially with regards to its recent out of control spending.
More importantly, perhaps, is that I don't actually believe that he will be able to get many of the cuts that he wants. Since his ideas are so far out of line with most of the current government, I expect that there will be a near constant struggle between the him and congress which will serve to curtail the most extreme positions of both him and the mainstream politicians.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
My first election I was pretty upset about voting democratic, but considering the alternative... not so upset anymore.
I feel the same way as some of you in that it seems like certain candidates are being shoved down my throat, while others just get brushed under the rug.
So in all of my 1 elections I was exited about none of the candidates . I was exited about bush II before I could vote though. Posted by Liaison (Member # 6873) on :
What ricree101 just said pretty much covers my perspective of Ron Paul as well. I voted in the last presidential election shortly after turning 18 and had felt very depressed about all of the main candidates. I didn't vote for W.
This time I AM excited. My mom and I contributed $100 each to the Ron Paul money bomb on the 5th. It's also the first time she has ever been excited about a candidate and she has always voted. I just re-registered as a republican so that I can vote for Paul in the primaries. I was previously undeclared.
I am downright terrified of Giuliani winning.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I can't vote for anyone yet, since I'm not registered with a party. Being Independent, you're really limited to the two idiots the parties decide to throw out there... or a third party.
I normally end up voting third party, mainly because the two-party candidates I've liked have never made it out of the primaries because they were too middle-of-of-the-road.
So, I'll see what the two parties give me as options this year, then I'll start making my decision.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I don't actually believe that he will be able to get many of the cuts that he wants.
If you listen to him and read his writings, you find out that he doesn't expect implement his vision of America.
What he does see as possible is starting an immediate but orderly troop movement out of Iraq and other countries. He will also veto anything that goes over budget. He will start a discussion with the American people and congress about what the role of government should be.
He has already stated and proven that he has never voted to take money from social security and would not cut people off who rely on the government, and he never will.
He will start the reigning in process with full awareness he needs the support of the people and congress.
I sent $100 on Nov 5th. I will send $234 on Dec 16th, the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.
The first paper I read that really clarified where Dr. Paul is coming from:
quote: Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion.
quote:The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away.
quote: The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism.
quote: We must resist any use of the word freedom to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of liberals and conservatives, in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy
We must reassert that my vehicle is a sedan, not an automobile!
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
??
Isn't a sedan an automobile? Is there something I'm missing, or is this just a failed analogy?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Let me get this straight, you're a "Dr. Paul" supporter, and those are the best quotes you could find?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion.
I prefer to think that freedom is the absence of coercion from any source and not just the absence of government coercion. I simply don't see that coercion by bullies, thieves, businesses, religions, corporations and so forth is less of an intrusion on my freedom than coercion by government.
I guess Ron Paul doesn't know many people who are compelled to work in a job that makes them miserable not because they couldn't find another job but because they or a family member has cancer, or rheumatoid arthritis, or some other chronic illness that would be exempt from medical coverage unless they stay in their current job. I know many of those people.
He probably doesn't know many older people or disabled people who can't move to the state where their family live because they wouldn't qualify for full medical coverage there. I know those people. He probably doesn't know anyone who can't walk in their neighborhood after dark because of fear of attack. I know those people.
What's more, freedom means nothing unless people have viable options.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: ??
Isn't a sedan an automobile? Is there something I'm missing, or is this just a failed analogy?
I believe that the point was that republics are one of the most common forms of democracy just as sedans are one of the most common forms automobile.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I guess Ron Paul doesn't know many people who are compelled to work in a job that makes them miserable not because they couldn't find another job but because they or a family member has cancer, or rheumatoid arthritis, or some other chronic illness that would be exempt from medical coverage unless they stay in their current job. I know many of those people.
This seems to be a direct contradiction to HIPAA. I can't figure out a scenario where someone would be stuck at a job that provides a group health plan more than a year because of preexisting condition worries.
If you'd like to help these people overcome this problem, it shouldn't be too difficult to point them to some useful resources.
quote:He probably doesn't know anyone who can't walk in their neighborhood after dark because of fear of attack.
This is too often overlooked in examining protection of liberty. Criminal enforcement is a civil right - not a traditional individually enforceable right, but a right none the less.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: He probably doesn't know anyone who can't walk in their neighborhood after dark because of fear of attack.
Protecting citizens is a responsibility of the government. I don't see how you could think Dr. Paul's positions are anything but an effort to get back to the protection of citizens rights, safety, and pursuit of happiness.
quote:Let me get this straight, you're a "Dr. Paul" supporter, and those are the best quotes you could find?
No, I could quote mine, but those quotes meant something to me because it clarified in my mind why I am so disappointed with the Republicans (my party). It also provides a framework to understand Ron Paul. Layers of government does not make something more efficient. Both parties have become statists.
I am really on the fence about his positions on his medical plans and immigration, but I do love his integrity. I can see where he is coming from.
I am completely behind him on foreign policy, protection of individual liberty, and his fiscal responsibility. Plus I want to reward someone who seems to honestly want to work for the people and not some special interest group.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: ??
Isn't a sedan an automobile? Is there something I'm missing, or is this just a failed analogy?
I believe that the point was that republics are one of the most common forms of democracy just as sedans are one of the most common forms automobile.
Yup. When someone says something like "America is a republic, not a democracy!" they don't know what they're talking about. The statement is incorrect.
quote:Both parties have become statists.
Given the means by which 'statist' is defined by the few people who actually use that line, nearly everyone in America is a statist.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dag, HIPAA has improved things significantly but it hasn't solved the problem for several people I know. These people would like to go to work for start up companies, small businesses or start their own businesses where a group health plan isn't available. Because of their family medical problems or medical history, no insurance company will cover them outside of a group health plan without exorbidant fees.
But those details are basically immaterial to the point I was trying to make. Ron Paul claimed that freedom is the absence of government coercion. I argue that government is far from the only source of coercion in our world and that it is not fundamentally worse than the many other forms of coercion we face.
Many libertarian thinkers would claim that the laws like HIPAA which regulate medical insurance are an example of the type of government coercion that denies them the freedom to run their businesses as they see fit. The flip side to that is the reality that regulation of the medical industry, with laws like HIPAA, can greatly improve peoples freedom to choose different jobs and move from job to job.
Coercion comes in many different forms not just government regulation. It is ridiculous to suggest that we would all be perfectly free if the govenment never coerced anyone to do anything they don't want. When people live together in a society, individual freedoms and rights are constantly in conflict. My freedom to own property is in direct conflict with your freedom to take whatever you want. Your freedom to breath clean air is in direct conflict with my freedom to burn trash in my backyard. We have chosen to make laws that prioritize those freedoms and rights and which provide guidance in the constant conflict between individuals freedoms. Our government is the way we have chosen to create and enforce those laws. It is obsurd to suggest that we would all be perfectly free without government coercion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:These people would like to go to work for start up companies, small businesses or start their own businesses where a group health plan isn't available.
Ah - I understand now. Sorry for the confusion.
quote:But those details are basically immaterial to the point I was trying to make. Ron Paul claimed that freedom is the absence of government coercion. I argue that government is far from the only source of coercion in our world and that it is not fundamentally worse than the many other forms of coercion we face.
I wasn't attempting to enter the larger discussion with the HIPAA reference but to possibly help out.
quote:Many libertarian thinkers would claim that the laws like HIPAA which regulate medical insurance are an example of the type of government coercion that denies them the freedom to run their businesses as they see fit.
I agree with their characterization of HIPAA as coercion and a reduction in freedom for the business owners. I just disagree with them that this automatically means that such regulations are bad. In other words, I agree that there's always a flip side, and that honest the analysis of such regulations requires assessing that flip side.
On a related note, I find that many people who advocate such regulation don't acknowledge that they are a form of reduction in a particular freedom and coercive. That's NOT aimed at anyone in this thread - this is a general observation of some pro-regulation arguments I've seen.
quote:Coercion comes in many different forms not just government regulation. It is ridiculous to suggest that we would all be perfectly free if the govenment never coerced anyone to do anything they don't want.
I agree, although all other things being equal, an infringement of a freedom by government is something I fear more than infringement by private actors.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
. I was exited about bush II before I could vote though. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)