A friendly exchange

I have been having a friendly exchange with an old friend from Kentucky. The exchange took place via Facebook ( love that site). That is where we became "friends" again. I noticed that he had on his profile that he chooses to call himself a Democrat. I took notice to a few of his postings to his profile and thought I would ask him about his political affiliation and why he professed to be such a staunch democrat. He then stated that he had been waiting for me to ask him that question ... (I think that he had been doing a little research on my profile which told him that he may have found a political rival which got him a little excited)

I would like to share our exchange thus far for the pure fact that I love to debate and even more than that...I love to win a good debate! You be the judges and let me know who you think is going to win this one.

Side note---(I have to warn you though that my beginning arguments were not well thought out...they just spewed out and I kind of regret the way I began the exchange, but oh well, you live and you learn!...I will also not be using his name...just 'friend' out of respect for privacy)

Friend: Hey Heather,

Where do I begin? I fully believe that the Democratic Party is the party of the people. The Democratic Party gave us the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Great Society. I believe in a social safety net. I believe that health care is a right of every human being. The environment and energy independence is vital for our future.

I believe in progressive taxes. "Too whom much is given, much is required."

What can I say? I'm a true liberal.

Heather (me): Thank you for answering my question.
The party of "the people", so do you ascribe to the Marxist philosophy of govt?
You are a socialist... I see that.
Really, health care is a right of every human being? I am not sure where that was stated in the Constitution?

I do believe that the environment and energy independence is vital to our future but I believe that we are probably at odds with how to go about solving this...you see I am a radical capitalist and believe in the free market system and believe that if it were left to the free market system with the govt out of the picture, a lot more would be accomplished.

I also believe in the original way that our govt was founded in that there should be no taxation without representation.

Let me ask you this, I know someone who is suffering greatly because they are not able to afford food for whatever the reason. You do not know this person. I come to your home and take a portion of what you have earned to give to this person because I feel that they need it more than you do because you are not starving. What you are telling me is that you would be perfectly ok with this?

I think the scripture you quoted is an excellent one but think you have twisted its intent. "Where much is given (knowledge, truth, principles), much is required (our right to choose implies that we have a stewardship over the blessings we have been given)

I think the founders had it right and that people have every right to choose to do good for their fellow men. I have faith in principles. They are what this great nation was founded upon and the more we stray from them, the more we will find ourselves greater in bondage. What can I say, I love my freedom and will not see it taken from me by anyone! Thanks for allowing this exchange of ideas to take place. Talk to you soon,
Heather

Friend:
Of course I would reply. I don't consider myself a Marxist. In my view Marxism is anti-family, anti-religion and I don't feel comfortable with that.

And yes, I believe health care is a human right. You are correct. It isn't a right in the Constitution. But we, through our elected representatives can establish health care for all. By the way, universal health care doesn't have to look like it does in Europe or Canada. We can make it however we want. I don't favor government run health. I simply believe that the Government can pay the insurance premium. The people can then choose their doctor.

I do not believe that the market should be left to do as it will. Do you think that we should remove all regulations? If not then why would you keep some.

In regards to the Scripture I quoted I don't disagree with the principles it includes. I don't think I quite twisted it.

In regards to the environment your correct. I do believe the Government should be a MAJOR investor. For one example, lets say we
make a goal of 15% of our energy coming from Wind. The government will need engineers to design it. High paying jobs there. We then need to build the wind turbines. More high paying jobs there. We then install the turbines. More high paying jobs.

This would be good for our country. People working. Taxes being paid.
We need a Manhattan project for this!!

Talk to you later Heather. Hope your well.


Heather (me):
So where do you stem your philosophical beliefs from if not from the Marxist philosophy?

On to health care declared by you to be a human right. Firstly, health care is difficult to define. It clearly encompasses preventive care (for example, immunization), public health measures, health promotion, and medical and surgical treatment of established illness. Is the so called " human right to health care" a right to basic provision of clean water and adequate food, or does everyone in the world have a right to organ transplantation, cosmetic surgery, infertility treatment, and the most expensive medicine? For something to count as a human right the minimum requirement should surely be that the right in question is capable of definition.

Secondly, all rights possessed by an individual imply a duty on the part of others. Thus the right to a fair trial imposes a duty on the prosecuting authority to be fair. On whom does the duty to provide health care to all the world’s citizens fall? Is it a duty on individual doctors, or hospital authorities, or governments, or only rich governments? It is difficult to see how any provision of benefits can be termed a human right (as opposed to a legal entitlement) when to meet such a requirement would impose an intolerable burden on others.

Along the lines of this and some of your other points you have made, I ask you to keep in mind that we, the people who have created our government can give to our government only such powers as we, ourselves have in the first place. Obviously we cannot give what we do not possess. So, the question boils down to this, what powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, but it is a question I bring up to gain a better understanding of what I believe to be the principles which underlie the proper function of government.

The proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.

I use this simple test to see if the government should be responsible for something...I ask myself, do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.

To be sure, there are times when this principle is really annoying and inconvenient. Sometimes I think, if I could only FORCE the stupid, lazy ignorant people to get off their butts and get a job and provide for themselves and other times I wish I could FORCE my mom and Dad (who make a generous living) to share the love and help my needy family out once in a while... But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Beyond that point, where should the line be drawn? Who is to say "this far but no farther!" What clear PRINCIPLE will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and yet farther into our daily lives?

O.k. on to the environment thing...first, anyone who has studied history knows that no government in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth. People who work create wealth. See, the reason I thought you were a Marxist (and I still think you are to a degree) is that according to Marxist doctrine and if I am understanding you correctly you also believe that a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, a person's well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet's previous constitution reflected this philosophy in its emphasis on security; food, clothing, housing, HEALTH CARE....

The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and, in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. In all actuality the Russian people had very few of the rights supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their previous constitution while the American people have always had them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed.

The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. To sum it all up, America has been prosperous and despite the fact that socialism has creeped into our system of govt, still is prosperous is due to this formula...
1. Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance
2. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production
3. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor.
4. This is not possible without incentive
5. Of all forms of incentive-the freedom to attain a reward for one's labor is the most sustaining for most people..sometimes called the profit motive, it is the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
6. This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulates and taxes INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce
7. Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INVERVENTION to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.

I am unalterably opposed to Socialism, either in whole or in part, and regard it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a denial of the right to private property for government to OWN or OPERATE the means of producing and distributing goods and services in competition with private enterprise. This includes of course, energy production and all other means of protecting and strengthening our environment.

And yes, I do think you misrepresented that scripture...God does not believe in the redistribution of wealth and you can quote me on that!

Thanks again for the exchange!
Friends,
Heather

I am picking this one up tomorrow....

I came across a book review of David Freddoso's book, "The Case Against Barack Obama" which I thought brought up some brain-on points as to why electing Obama may be a poor choice in the upcoming elections.

"David Freddoso's "The Case Against Barack Obama" is a well-researched 240 pages which lays out the case that Barack Obama is anything but the agent of "change" and "reform" which he wants voters to "hope" he is.

Freddoso shows that almost every time Obama was in a position to support reform or a reformer, he has instead sided with the corrupt political machine (he did come out of Chicago politics, after all) which promoted his future.

Through a combination of ruthless (but legal) action to eliminate competitors from the ballot and blind good luck (two opponents whose messy divorces give him an open path to election), Obama has gotten to be a US Senator without winning any seriously contested election.

He has no experience in any area of government which might qualify him to be President of the United States. He makes errors in statement and judgment, but has positioned himself in such a way that any criticism must make the critic a racist. He wants to raise every tax he has heard of, including saying in a debate that he'd raise capital gains tax rates even if it meant the government took in less revenue (in the interest of "fairness")!

The American people are catching on, and Freddoso's book should help. In a year that has so much going for Democrats, the fact that Obama and McCain are virtually tied says volumes. It's not just Obama's obstinacy in support of policies which create high energy prices. It's also that his utter lack of qualification is starting to show through the shiny rhetoric.

The book also goes into great detail about Obama's past "radical influences", not just the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (whom we've all heard too much about), but several others, showing that there's a clear trend in Obama's best-known friends and influences: They hate(d) their nation and people who aren't black.

Freddoso makes it clear that he doesn't believe Obama is a Communist or a terrorist or even a racist even though so many of his close associates are. But these associations cast serious doubt on Obama's judgment and on his likely tendencies in situations where an answer requires a true and fair understanding of this nation.

As someone who lived in Chicago for a long time, I can say I have never heard of a clean Chicago politician...and that includes Obama. His too-close relationship with slum lords including Tony Rezko shows him to be all too willing to funnel taxpayer money to his campaign contributors, regardless of the evil they perpetrated with that money.

Freddoso spends a bit of time on the issues of taxes and ethanol, but heaps his greatest (and well-deserved) scorn on Obama's opposition to a bill which would guarantee that babies born alive be given the same protection of rule and law that any other humans receive. The issue came up after a nurse at a hospital was handed a very premature baby who was born alive after an abortion failed to kill it. The hospital, at the aborting mother's instruction, refused to offer medical care to the baby. The nurse held it for the 45 minutes until it died.

Keep in mind as I write this that I am pro-choice....

Obama's position was a reprehensible and erroneous grasp at using
Roe v. Wade as an excuse to block a bill simply saying that a baby already born can't be left to die. The measure had no implications for abortion law, and when a similar bill came to the US Senate the same year, it passed unanimously, including with the votes of the most pro-choice Senators. Yet Obama opposed more "born alive" legislation the following year.

[If you don't believe me that this bill had nothing to do with the legality of abortion, you can read the bill's full text HERE and see for yourself. You can see Obama's gutless "present" vote, which has the same effect as a "no" vote, HERE. And you can see Obama's truly stupid "constitutional muster" argument on page 86 of THIS document.]

There is no way to view Obama's position other than as truly reprehensible, and I believe this is an issue which should be spoken of far more in public.

Obama's lead among women, which he must have to win in November, is shrinking and is now less than other Democratic candidates had at similar points during recent presidential campaigns. If Obama's support for infanticide becomes as public as it should, it would do tremendous damage to him...especially given the knife-edge that his support among women already rests on due to his having beaten Hillary.

"The Case Against Barack Obama" is a quick read that's well worth the time of anyone who wants to understand what we may really be subjecting ourselves too if American voters don't follow Obama's own words to look at deeds rather than words when examining his history, as well as his own words, spoken in 2004, that there's no way he could be ready to be President in 2008."

A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for KFC...

I once heard the joke, a taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for KFC. In all seriousness, this joke is not too far off base!

Michael Tanner with the libertarian CATO Institute, has recently analyzed the costs of Sen. Barack Obama’s social programs if he is elected President in November.

According to Tanner, “Sen. Obama represents less hope and change than a wish list for every conceivable liberal special interest group.”

Obama has proposed at least $287 billion per year in new government spending if elected. This was before he unveiled his $150 billion “green energy plan” earlier in February. In addition, he has recently proposed at least $858 billion to fight “global poverty” over the next five years.
His new spending programs would cost at the minimum, $800 billion a year.

On taxes, he has proposed a $1.3 trillion tax hike over the next five years. He would increase taxes on business, investment and job creation. His proposals would nearly double taxes on capital gains.

On health care: “A President Obama would take America down the road to a government-run health care system. … The government would determine what types of benefits you would be required to purchase and how much insurers could charge.” He would mandate that all employers provide health insurance for their employees.

On a “living wage,” Obama would force businesses to pay employees an undefined “living wage,” which would include paid family and medical leave.

According to Tanner, “A President Obama would mean a much bigger, more intrusive, and costlier government.”

Why America is NOT a democracy

I thought this video did a great job explaining this misconception...
http://www.new.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1045409133868