Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Devils Pride 26

Bloomberg

7 posts in this topic

Sounds like a writer took a pretty basic, well-accepted statement and tried to make a provocative headline out of it. Of course government has the right to infringe on our freedom; it has whatever right we allow it to have in that regard. Part of why we have government is to control ourselves. We just disagree both about what freedoms to restrict and how to determine when enough of a majority opinion has been raised to restrict/add freedoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key phrase in what Devils Dose wrote was "the government has whatever right we allow it to have".  Right now, however, I think we are entering an era where our ability to have our voices heard is diminishing and its our own damn fault.  We've allowed 2 parties to dominate thought and to greatly restrict candidates for representation.  If we as a people want to amend the constitution to restrict gun ownership, fine, lets do it the right way, not through executive orders.  lets also not pass immigration reform without letting people actually read the damn bill.  Why do laws have to be 1000 pages (e.g. immigration reform, Obamacare)?  Our government has stopped being for the people and is for itself and that is a big problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key phrase in what Devils Dose wrote was "the government has whatever right we allow it to have".  Right now, however, I think we are entering an era where our ability to have our voices heard is diminishing and its our own damn fault.  We've allowed 2 parties to dominate thought and to greatly restrict candidates for representation.  If we as a people want to amend the constitution to restrict gun ownership, fine, lets do it the right way, not through executive orders.  lets also not pass immigration reform without letting people actually read the damn bill.  Why do laws have to be 1000 pages (e.g. immigration reform, Obamacare)?  Our government has stopped being for the people and is for itself and that is a big problem. 

 

The whole thing about new legislation being x amount of pages is a little misleading.  Often times they're referring to an actual bill, which can include several pages showing every little change to a particular statute.  So one existing piece of legislation will  say "Thou shalt not do" 70 different things.  The bill will show the same thing (i.e. laws already on the books), except that it will say "replace item numbers 69 and 70 and add items x,y and z".  All the minutia eventually adds up into a lot more than what you'll eventually see in the US Code.  Often though, what ends up in the US Code is a lot less dense. 

 

Regardless though, if you want the government to take an even larger part in something like healtchare, you're going to get increasingly complex legislation that 99.99 percent of people, even if they had the opportunity, will never read, much less understand.  In fact, a lot of lawyers and judges wil have an equally hard time understanding what the stuff actual means. (One judge quipped, all the way back in the 70s, that the Medicare and Medicaid statutes were the greates assaults on the English language ever).

 

It has nothing to do with not having your voices heard.  If anything, the complexity of the law is the result of everyone's voice being heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire objective of the US constitution is to limit the power of the government.Bloomberg thinks he is he is king, not elected to represent the electorate but to subjugate it. See Hugo Chavez.

Edited by point
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The entire objective of the US constitution is to limit the power of the government.Bloomberg thinks he is he is king, not elected to represent the electorate but to subjugate it. See Hugo Chavez.

The constitution, especially as originally conceived, was supposed to specifically limit and enumerate the powers of the federal government. The states, and hence guys like Bloomberg, don't really come into the equation. The Constitution wouldn't have anything to say if Bloomberg passed a law requiring you to eat broccoli.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0