Kucinich to vote for HCR

[Lunar]

Sometimes individual liberty is less important than the general welfare of a society.

That may be true in some respects, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.  But forcing people to buy health insurance is too much of an encroachment on personal liberty.

Everything for the betterment of man, I guess.  Exactly how far does this go?  How much is too much of an encroachment on personal liberties, in the name of "general welfare," to you?

Why not ignore the slippery slope argument and use reasonableness as our standard?

Without the mandate, the bill becomes fatally flawed as there's a severe collective action problem and a clear incentive for healthy people (the ones insurance companies  make money off of) to leave.

I would certainly say that the individual mandate takes away far fewer our of personal liberties than taxes (another collective action problem solved with legal force), so that line has already been  crossed. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Do you know of any instances off the top of your head where they really got their arms twisted by Republican leaders? I will admit that Tom Coburn's ardent anti-pork stance is something that Congress could use a lot more of.

Yes. Jim DeMint voted for the socialist Medicare D prescription drug benefit because the Republican leadership threatened to withdraw support from his Senate campaign if he didn't switch his no to a yes.

Pretty shocking, no?

     That isn't socialism & it isn't shocking. No need to treat me like I'm a moron just because I disagree with you.

[Lunar]

PiT - Republicans have historically had far more party discipline than the Democrats, but there are plenty of examples of it. 

I mean, look at how third-party groups are trying to primary Bob Bennett for supporting the [very sensible and non-socialist] Wyden bill. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

PiT - Republicans have historically had far more party discipline than the Democrats, but there are plenty of examples of it. 

I mean, look at how third-party groups are trying to primary Bob Bennett for supporting the [very sensible and non-socialist] Wyden bill. 

     My reason for bringing that up is that I suspect that all politicians have a "pain threshold". Squeeze one enough & he'll sell out like all the rest.

[Lunar]

Well, remember too PiT that probably a good portion of the Democrats voting No (and probably some Republicans) believe the bill is better than the status quo but against their electoral interests.  For those Democrats who think the bill is good but want to get reelected, the only "squeezing" that needs to be done is to make them believe voting yes will be less painful electorally than voting no.  This can be done through meta-arguments (passing the bill excites the base, shows an accomplishment for the Democrats, thus making you more likely to be reelected) or direct threats/bribes of support (3rd party challenges, withholding support, etc).

If a congressman genuinely thinks the bill dying in a bloody vote would be good for the country and good for his reelection, there's no amount of squeezing that can be done really.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well, remember too PiT that probably a good portion of the Democrats voting No (and probably some Republicans) believe the bill is better than the status quo but against their electoral interests.  For those Democrats who think the bill is good but want to get reelected, the only "squeezing" that needs to be done is to make them believe voting yes will be less painful electorally than voting no.  This can be done through meta-arguments (passing the bill excites the base, shows an accomplishment for the Democrats, thus making you more likely to be reelected) or direct threats/bribes of support (3rd party challenges, withholding support, etc).

If a congressman genuinely thinks the bill dying in a bloody vote would be good for the country and good for his reelection, there's no amount of squeezing that can be done really.

     Well they would have to be able to, following from my pain threshold metaphor, inflict pain. For Democrats in more Republican areas, it seems assured that voting for the bill would hurt their re-election chances. If we're talking about someone too new to hold any important assignments, the party leadership cannot threaten to revoke it.

[Brittain33]

     Do you know of any instances off the top of your head where they really got their arms twisted by Republican leaders? I will admit that Tom Coburn's ardent anti-pork stance is something that Congress could use a lot more of.

Yes. Jim DeMint voted for the socialist Medicare D prescription drug benefit because the Republican leadership threatened to withdraw support from his Senate campaign if he didn't switch his no to a yes.

Pretty shocking, no?

     That isn't socialism & it isn't shocking. No need to treat me like I'm a moron just because I disagree with you.

My sarcasm was aimed at Jim DeMint, who is a super-partisan conservative purist on these issues and yet who changed his vote for campaign aid.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Do you know of any instances off the top of your head where they really got their arms twisted by Republican leaders? I will admit that Tom Coburn's ardent anti-pork stance is something that Congress could use a lot more of.

Yes. Jim DeMint voted for the socialist Medicare D prescription drug benefit because the Republican leadership threatened to withdraw support from his Senate campaign if he didn't switch his no to a yes.

Pretty shocking, no?

     That isn't socialism & it isn't shocking. No need to treat me like I'm a moron just because I disagree with you.

My sarcasm was aimed at Jim DeMint, who is a super-partisan conservative purist on these issues and yet who changed his vote for campaign aid.

     Ah, my mistake. I can be touchy when I feel like people are making assumptions about my views.

[The Age Wave]

Well, remember too PiT that probably a good portion of the Democrats voting No (and probably some Republicans) believe the bill is better than the status quo but against their electoral interests. 

These people have law degrees. They aren't going to actually believe that. They're shrewd scumbags out for money, power, and votes. Otherwise they couldn't care less.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Sometimes individual liberty is less important than the general welfare of a society.

Hey, did you happen to work for the Justice Dept under the Bush administration?

[Saxwsylvania]

Sometimes individual liberty is less important than the general welfare of a society.

Hey, did you happen to work for the Justice Dept under the Bush administration?

Vlad would do well to abide by Benjamin Franklin's quote on liberty and security.

[Lief 🗽]

Sometimes individual liberty is less important than the general welfare of a society.

Hey, did you happen to work for the Justice Dept under the Bush administration?

The idea that individual liberty needs to be 100% maximized is ridiculous. Trading liberty for security is part of our every day lives; it's why we have laws and police officers. It's why you don't have the liberty to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. It's why you don't have the liberty to dump nuclear waste into a river. It's why you don't have the liberty to bring a gun with you into an elementary school. Sometimes (many times, actually) the protection of society's general welfare trumps the protection of individual liberties.

Of course, the Patriot Act was stupid because there never was a real danger to our security in the form of terrorism. It was really just government-fearmongering. But neither that instance, nor Benjamin Franklin's silly little false dichotomy, proves that individual liberty must always be maximized over the protection of society.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Benjamin Franklin quote is often quite misquoted. This is what it really is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite different from the Libertarian attitude.

[Lief 🗽]

The Benjamin Franklin quote is often quite misquoted. This is what it really is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite different from the Libertarian attitude.

Ah, okay. I agree with the real quote then. The important words are "essential" and "a little temporary".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Benjamin Franklin quote is often quite misquoted. This is what it really is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite different from the Libertarian attitude.

Ah, okay. I agree with the real quote then. The important words are "essential" and "a little temporary".

Yes. The quote is quite valid when referring to things like the Patriot Act. It's not valid when referring to what the Teabaggers throw fits over.