NHS In The Corridor

[amicus]

Confuse or irritate you, Liar, but never disappoint; I am what I am, an advocate of human individual freedom and the free market place and an opponent to sacrificing individual rights for the greater good.

By definition, if one has the right to his own life, he also has the right and obligation to defend that life. So I was not cherry-picking your sentence, merely amplifying the understanding of what 'life' means and that if follows that one certainly has the right to defend it.

My position is always clear, I wish I could say the same for yours. You deny any accusation of expressing a communal viewpoint, which, it appears to me, you do consistently.

Ah, well...

A oleasant evening to you...

Amicus

 

[Liar]

So what was that Kirkegaard bullshit about?

If not an attempt to misrepresent what I wrote and discredit me?

Time and time again you show that you are not here to discuss topics in good faith.

And you still haven't adressed the question, that you so artfully bastardized.

If I have the right to life...

...and so you don't have another idiotic ego-gasm over it, IT'S A RHETORICAL
"IF", OF COURSE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE! THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT IT! AND TO PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND ENGLISH AND HAVE BASIC COMPREHENSION OF THE NUANCES OF THAT LANGUAGE IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT I IMPLIED NOTHING ELSE, ok?...

(yeah, I went all capital on you there, it seems to be the only way. and your fucking dishonesty in discourse pisses me off to no end)

(but anyway, here comes the actual part of the question that matters)

...do I have the right to be protected from murderers?

Not to protect myself. But to be protected.

In other words, is it society's job to provide safety on the streets and uphold law and order?

 

[amicus]

"...So what was that Kirkegaard bullshit about?..."

My apologies Liar, existentialists began by questioning if they could 'know' that one possessed life or whether it must be taken on faith, and I picked that one in particular because he was a Dane, I think.

In answer to your question, or an attempt...be it protection of rights and property or insurance to provide health care, individuals have the right to mutually cooperate with each other and make arrangement for their safety and health.

In a free society, you are free to invest a portion of your resources for protection, police/army; you are free to invest in insurance for your health, your life and your property. It is and has be a wise course to 'share the risk', by pooling assets in order to survive the turmoils of life.

What is not moral, ethical or good, is to force the individual to be responsible by using the power of the community or state to place those protections in place.

I did not intend to set you on edge, but I am passionate about human individual freedom and individual choice in all matters and, although it is difficult to place where you stand on issues, I will offer the benefit of doubt and assume that you are seeking information or opposite viewpoints that can be defended rationally rather than a faith or a dogma to adopt.

Amicus

 

[popcorn2721]

The English taxpayer has been paying for health care for those too poor to afford it for themselves since the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601.

Being taxed for health care is not a novelty.

The UK's NHS system is supported by ALL three main political parties.

We know it is flawed but it is much better than not being able to afford health care.

The total cost of all UK health care - NHS, insurance, privately funded and charitable - is significantly lower than in the US yet it covers everyone.

Og

I just want to give you a huge fucken thank you for explaining that to these right wing fools here...
I have grown tired of hearing about how our system will collapse and death panels will decide grandpas treatment. I don't understand how anyone who is in within the middle class (that means you are an accident or illness away from being without insurance) can say that universal healthcare coverage is a bad thing. Sure it has to be paid for, but I'm thinking that these insurance companies will find another role in the business once we take there lollipop away from them and they stop crying. Again, I'm just tired of ignorant, toothless motherfuckers, without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of crying that its going to lead to socialism (they don't even know what the fuck that means).
Thank you for for giving your outsiders view! It wont be accepted across the board but maybe some of these boat anchor mother fuckers will get off there asses and do some research and actually find out what happens when you get laid off or are hurt and cant pay your insurance premiums.

 

[amicus]

I usually welcome those I don't recognize, but your use of language betrays your class and intellect.

Let us imagine that which would be beyond your abilities, that you are a new doctor who has invested ten long and hard years in acquiring your degree in medicine.

Let us now imagine that I, Amicus, inform you that you will work for me, accept what I pay, prescribe only what I recommend, work when and where and as long as I dictate.

That is what socialized medicine does to a doctor.

That your position also?

Amicus

 

[Liar]

My apologies Liar, existentialists began by questioning if they could 'know' that one possessed life or whether it must be taken on faith, and I picked that one in particular because he was a Dane, I think.

That he was. And one miserable sonofabitsh to boot.

In answer to your question, or an attempt...be it protection of rights and property or insurance to provide health care, individuals have the right to mutually cooperate with each other and make arrangement for their safety and health.

In a free society, you are free to invest a portion of your resources for protection, police/army; you are free to invest in insurance for your health, your life and your property. It is and has be a wise course to 'share the risk', by pooling assets in order to survive the turmoils of life.

What is not moral, ethical or good, is to force the individual to be responsible by using the power of the community or state to place those protections in place.

So if I read this correct, you think a tax funded police force is wrong. Paying and reaping the benefit of law enforcement should be voluntary? How about national defense? It's a pointed question, yes. (and I don't reven know how or if a "selective" defense - defend Joe but not Bob - would work practically) But I'm trying to figure out where your limits are drawn on this. If it is a firm principal stand, or that you just want some things, and some things not, on their own merits. Which is fine too, but not adherent to a "higher principle".

I did not intend to set you on edge, but I am passionate about human individual freedom and individual choice in all matters and, although it is difficult to place where you stand on issues, I will offer the benefit of doubt and assume that you are seeking information or opposite viewpoints that can be defended rationally rather than a faith or a dogma to adopt.

Amicus

You can be as passionate as you like. What sets me on egde is not your opinions. I've said ti before and I'll say it again, although I don't expect you to believe me this time either - we are more alike than you might think. What sets me on edge, and what I have decided to attack you full force on from now on, is when you misrepresent abd perverty things people say in order to have something to attack, belittle, ridicule and villify. Either you do it willfully or you are just incredible stupid. And since you actually reach the keys on your keyboard, know how to form complete sentences, and know who Kirkegaard is, it can't be the latter.

It is bullshit and dishonesty, and I will call you on it everytime I see it. Because I've had enough.


ETA: aplogies for any and all typos. This keboard is TINY.

 

[Boxlicker101]

"Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happyness" is in the Preamble to the Constitution, not a part of the Constitution itself. Show me one Artical or Ammendment to the Constititution that guarantees them.
The Bill of Rights were written to cover those lofty ideas, but I see no required action or anything that bars goverment from inducing or interferring with them.

Actually, it's not even in the preamble. Here is what is:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

L L & P are not referenced, except for liberty, but they are somewhat implied. They are specifically described in the Declaration of Independence as inalienable rights.

 

[amicus]

Liar: "...So if I read this correct, you think a tax funded police force is wrong. Paying and reaping the benefit of law enforcement should be voluntary?..."

~~~

I should have worded my reply to you better than I did. The Constitution provides the authority for government to tax to fund a police force, the courts and the military.

Constitutional history and the men who wrote it and who they referenced in history as sources for their decisions, is a fascinating study in itself.

Colonists, arriving from England, Scotland, Ireland, the 'low countries' and continental Europe, all came from Monarchies where Royalty decreed the shape and form of society.

America was 13 disparate Colonies, but all loosely under the British Crown, when redress was sought for over taxation and minimal representation.

Most of the land was under Royal Land grants and in essence, the British system of rule was transposed to the colonies.

Unlike Europe, where all land belonged to the King and was managed as such, America was a vast untamed wilderness with the native inhabitants viewed as savages and who did not have a basic concept of land ownership in common.

I know this is long and arduous, I apologize, but I am coming to the point...

Because of the political environment, early colonial settlers had to defend themselves and their property by their own means or by cooperation with others.

The 'Militia', a voluntary association of those who would defend against threat, fraud and violence, began to take shape as a means of law enforcement and protection of life, limb and property.

This 'evolution', in both thought and practice, of defending rights and property is, again, a fascinating study as each colony and within those, each land grant, each ethnic nationality, had their own ideas as to to proper method of providing protection and defense against both internal and external threats.

In the years that led up to the American Revolution and Independence from the Crown, discussion and debate was hot and heavy from all corners as to just what this new, 'independence' might entail, what it should retain from the old countries and what should be new.

Let me skip quickly to the close...the Constitution that eventually became law, was one that limited the power of the new government to various enumerated, or spelled out laws and rights.

The government was given the power to tax for only specific purposes and the powers were limited, basically, to the protection of life, liberty and property.

Everybody used to own, carry and use a firearm, weapons, in their own defense; as the population grew, the use of force to protect was delegated to selected representatives of villages and towns. The evolution from that small beginning is again, a fascinating study and rife with corruption and the misuse of power.

I apologize for being unclear that the police, courts and military are all authorized functions of our government.

I think our misunderstanding comes from the limits that government can act to protect the population. That has been a steaming controversy since the time of Alexander Hamilton and Madison and Jefferson...one side wanted more governmental powrs, one wanted less.

And so...we arrive at today and our era and an entirelty different set of circumstances and what you see happening in America of late,is an attempt to redefine our roots and determine our future.

Not a new thing...been goin' on forever...

Amicus

 

[john-the-author]

True, Liar...
Who is on the two sides of the Health Reform Issue. I suspect those against it are in the majority, or so the CNN poll I saw this morning said. If that's true then Health Reform is being shoved down our thoats for our own good and that won't fly.
So far three presidents have given up the battle for Health Reform. Appearantly, Obama has his eyes and ears closed to the voting public.

Actually, I believe that some kind of general health coverage has been tried all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt at the least. This happens every 2nd or 3rd president. Nixon also tried it. FDR, I think Truman, several others.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Actually, I believe that some kind of general health coverage has been tried all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt at the least. This happens every 2nd or 3rd president. Nixon also tried it. FDR, I think Truman, several others.

I think LBJ also did as part of his "Great Society." Actually, poor people, whom this is all about, were covered by the fed. gov. for most of the last sixty years, and probably even before that. The program was adminstered by the states, and I used to work as a paper shuffler for the CA version of it.

 

[Liar]

I've cropped out the history lesson, interresting as it was, to get to the core of what you're saying. Let me know if I misunderstood any of that.

I should have worded my reply to you better than I did. The Constitution provides the authority for government to tax to fund a police force, the courts and the military.

[...]

I apologize for being unclear that the police, courts and military are all authorized functions of our government.

I think our misunderstanding comes from the limits that government can act to protect the population. That has been a steaming controversy since the time of Alexander Hamilton and Madison and Jefferson...one side wanted more governmental powrs, one wanted less.

And so...we arrive at today and our era and an entirelty different set of circumstances and what you see happening in America of late,is an attempt to redefine our roots and determine our future.

From what I get from your reply, Government is to provide police, courts and military, because that's what your constitution says.

But nevermind what that old document and what tradition dictates: What do YOU think?

You said: "What is not moral, ethical or good, is to force the individual to be responsible by using the power of the community or state to place those protections in place."

How then, is having a police and a military that everybody is forced to finance and adhere do moral, ethical or good, while having a health care system (or education, or anything really) set up the same way is immoral, unethical or bad?

I don't see what the consistent moral principle here is, if it's not "do what the constitution says, whatever it says".

Look, I think it's prefectly fine for anyone to say "I think Goverment should tax people to provide A, B and C, but not D, E and F."

But be prepared to stand by that as your personal conviction and distinction, and not point at a higher principle that it's evil to force individuals into participating, paying for, and aligning themselves with services and functions set up by community and government. Because A, B and C are that too.

If it's morally wrong, it's morally wrong. You can't have it both ways.

Now, if the priciple you actually subscribe to is the same as mine, that goverment run operations are not morally wrong per se, but that private run operatins is the preferred mode (because it's incentives for innovation, productivity and proactivity are the best veichle for properity), then anything that private business can do adequately, private business should do instead of goverment.

There you have a foundation to stand on where you can say yes to A, B and C, but that D, E and F (for the sake of the argument, those can be health care, education and cars) should be in the hands of private enterprise, because private enterprise can handle it.

And the discussion can instead be on what matters:

Q. What is the community's need (regarding health care)?
A. The general consensus in the community seems to be that all people, whatever their wealth, should afford to stay in as good health as modern medicine can reasonably grant. Some may disagree. But they are IMO a bunch of callous asshats.

Q. Can private enterprise alone fill the community's need?
A. At the moment it doesn't look like it. People are dying and suffering because they can't afford the care they medically need.

Q. If not, why?
A. For many different reasons. Cancerous incentives in the current system is a major one though.

Q. What can be done about it?
A. Well, that's what people ought to be debating, instead of screaming COMMUNIST at each other. Some would say that private enterprise CAN get the job done, if we re-think the rule book. Others say that no, private enterprise will never be able to provide an acceptable service level to an acceptable price affordable by the less affluent. And that (regrettably) some redistribution of wealth (a.k.a taxation and public financing in one form or the other) is needed for that to happen.

BUT, and this is important, if one is not bogged down with a dogmatic fallacy like "all Goverment is evil", the arguments for or against a specific goverment action, can be practical and fact based, instead of irrational and faith based.

 

[amicus]

I've cropped out the history lesson, interresting as it was, to get to the core of what you're saying. Let me know if I misunderstood any of that.

From what I get from your reply, Government is to provide police, courts and military, because that's what your constitution says.

But nevermind what that old document and what tradition dictates: What do YOU think?

You said: "What is not moral, ethical or good, is to force the individual to be responsible by using the power of the community or state to place those protections in place."

How then, is having a police and a military that everybody is forced to finance and adhere do moral, ethical or good, while having a health care system (or education, or anything really) set up the same way is immoral, unethical or bad?

I don't see what the consistent moral principle here is, if it's not "do what the constitution says, whatever it says".

Look, I think it's prefectly fine for anyone to say "I think Goverment should tax people to provide A, B and C, but not D, E and F."

But be prepared to stand by that as your personal conviction and distinction, and not point at a higher principle that it's evil to force individuals into participating, paying for, and aligning themselves with services and functions set up by community and government. Because A, B and C are that too.

If it's morally wrong, it's morally wrong. You can't have it both ways.

Now, if the priciple you actually subscribe to is the same as mine, that goverment run operations are not morally wrong per se, but that private run operatins is the preferred mode (because it's incentives for innovation, productivity and proactivity are the best veichle for properity), then anything that private business can do adequately, private business should do instead of goverment.

There you have a foundation to stand on where you can say yes to A, B and C, but that D, E and F (for the sake of the argument, those can be health care, education and cars) should be in the hands of private enterprise, because private enterprise can handle it.

And the discussion can instead be on what matters:

Q. What is the community's need (regarding health care)?
A. The general consensus in the community seems to be that all people, whatever their wealth, should afford to stay in as good health as modern medicine can reasonably grant. Some may disagree. But they are IMO a bunch of callous asshats.

Q. Can private enterprise alone fill the community's need?
A. At the moment it doesn't look like it. People are dying and suffering because they can't afford the care they medically need.

Q. If not, why?
A. For many different reasons. Cancerous incentives in the current system is a major one though.

Q. What can be done about it?
A. Well, that's what people ought to be debating, instead of screaming COMMUNIST at each other. Some would say that private enterprise CAN get the job done, if we re-think the rule book. Others say that no, private enterprise will never be able to provide an acceptable service level to an acceptable price affordable by the less affluent. And that (regrettably) some redistribution of wealth (a.k.a taxation and public financing in one form or the other) is needed for that to happen.

BUT, and this is important, if one is not bogged down with a dogmatic fallacy like "all Goverment is evil", the arguments for or against a specific goverment action, can be practical and fact based, instead of irrational and faith based.[/QUOTE]

~~~

I read through your post three different times a few minutes apart to try to discover the best way to reply that will both satisfy you and answer the questions.

First off, I try not to post my 'personal opinion' on subjects and issues, because that can be defined as a 'subjective' reply, or just an opinion which equates with all opinions being equal.

That may have you frowning and scratching your head, asking, well what is there besides personal opinions?

I maintain that the entire intellectual and philosophical history of man has been a continuous search for 'objective truth', that which exists outside the personal and subjective opinions of the individual and is common to all men, universal in aspect.

I have been accused of being a 'Randroid', one who parrots the concepts of Ayn Rand, and while I give great credit to her non fiction writings, they are just a small portion of the studies I have pursued to form a rational, objective, consistent and non contradictory philosophy of life.

One cannot know or learn everything...it seems to me that opening one door to knowledge opens two doors of questions; it is a lifelong pursuit, one that continually widens one's horizons and solidifies one's foundations if it remains free of contradictions, is logical, rational and reasonable.

I offer that as a brief preamble to set the stage for your specific questions.

"...But nevermind what that old document and what tradition dictates: What do YOU think?"

The founding documents of the American Republic, to me, are as seminal as is the Periodic Table of Elements is to Chemistry and Physics.

The assumption oft criticized in that approach, is that absolute moral laws exist in the same epistemological frame as do the physical laws of the universe.

The essential defining characteristic of our founding documents is the statement concerning the universality of the rights to life, liberty and property. Those, to me, are as constant as E=MC2 of the speed of light in a vacuum.

So, no, I will not set aside that, 'old document'; or have the audacity to create my own statement, or dispense with the intellectual history of man's quest for freedom and liberty.

"...How then, is having a police and a military that everybody is forced to finance and adhere do moral, ethical or good, while having a health care system (or education, or anything really) set up the same way is immoral, unethical or bad?

I don't see what the consistent moral principle here is, if it's not "do what the constitution says, whatever it says"...."

The 'police, military, & court system', all act to institute a formal means of carrying out the dictates of those universal rights to life, liberty and property; those functions of government act to protect the people in their own individual, personal pursuit of happiness, whatever that may be, without infringing on the innate rights of another.

Availing one's self of the product of another human being, be it Baker, Candlestick Maker or Doctor, is by definition an act of choice and mutual benefit, the very essence of a free society, a free market system.

BronzeAge posed the question of if it is immoral and wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving children. Victor Hugo addressed that issue in his novel, 'Les Miserable', concerning the French Revolution and conditions of the people at that time.

There is no moral justification for theft based on the needs of the thief; it is the rights of the producer of that loaf of bread that defines the issue. The producer may give his property away, trade it or sell it for the highest offer, but he is protected from theft and fraud by the extension of the rights of life, liberty and property.

First Public Education and now Public Health Care became a part of those original guaranteed and protected individual rights of the individual, as defined by the Congress and the Supreme Court.

"...But be prepared to stand by that as your personal conviction and distinction, and not point at a higher principle that it's evil to force individuals into participating, paying for, and aligning themselves with services and functions set up by community and government. Because A, B and C are that too.

If it's morally wrong, it's morally wrong. You can't have it both ways...."

As I said earlier, 'personal convictions', opinions, are a dime a dozen and everyone has them. As with any field of knowledge, one must refer to principles, self evident truths, axioms, concepts and abstractions to make decisions. That is how the human mind works and the only means to decision making that man has; the focused, rational, non contradictory thought process that, in accordance with reality, that which is; that process is the very basis of knowledge and cannot be put aside for mere opinion, public demand, majority opinion or whim.

The last portion of your post, poses questions and then you answer them yourself, or imply that an answer is self evident and must be agreed with, which I am unwilling to participate in.

"...Q. What is the community's need (regarding health care)?..."

The quality of 'need', is not an arbiter. I need a black Maserati to satisfy my wishes; I may 'need' cosmetic surgery to change the shape of my nose to suit what I view as attractive.

My need cannot, in a free society where each individual has rights, be imposed upon you to supply my automobile or my new nose just because I think I 'need' it, therefor you must supply it.

As this is overly long already, let me address one final question you posed:

"...Q. Can private enterprise alone fill the community's need?..."

Let me rephrase that to illuminate the skeleton of your question.

Can a private market meet the needs of all it's citizens without violating the individual rights of others? The answer is, yes, it can and does.

Let me pose the polar question to you: Can a government system fill the community's need without violating the individual rights of others?

Amicus

 

[Saucyminx]

Actually, it's not even in the preamble. Here is what is:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

L L & P are not referenced, except for liberty, but they are somewhat implied. They are specifically described in the Declaration of Independence as inalienable rights.

It's in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I've cropped out the history lesson, interresting as it was, to get to the core of what you're saying. Let me know if I misunderstood any of that.

From what I get from your reply, Government is to provide police, courts and military, because that's what your constitution says.

Amicus,
You know that the Constitution also set up the Legislative Branch of Goverment to make laws and the Supreme Court to define with those laws mean and how they should be applied. That goes far beyond the police and military.

 

[oggbashan]

~~~
...

Colonists, arriving from England, Scotland, Ireland, the 'low countries' and continental Europe, all came from Monarchies where Royalty decreed the shape and form of society.

America was 13 disparate Colonies, but all loosely under the British Crown, when redress was sought for over taxation and minimal representation.

Most of the land was under Royal Land grants and in essence, the British system of rule was transposed to the colonies.

Unlike Europe, where all land belonged to the King and was managed as such, America was a vast untamed wilderness with the native inhabitants viewed as savages and who did not have a basic concept of land ownership in common.

...

Amicus

Amicus,

Your history is flawed as usual.

Royalty did not decree the shape and form of society in most parts of Europe except perhaps France, Austria and Russia. In England we had our Civil War and had executed a King. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had established a constitutional monarchy with very limited powers. The real rulers were in Parliament.

All land did NOT belong to the King, except perhaps in France and even there the King had real limits on what he could do to dispossess landowners. Henry VIII had established the Church of England partly because nearly one third of the country was owned by the Catholic Church owing allegiance to the Pope in Rome. He, at best, "owned", on the loosest interpretation of that term, less than half of what was not owned by the Church. The rest was owned by a mixture of people from aristocratic landlords through merchants to yeomen farmers. In some circumstances PARLIAMENT could tax landowners but neither they nor the King owned all the land.

After 1688 Parliament exercised power and controlled existing land ownership systems which were very diverse. My own county of Kent, having opposed William the Conqueror in force, had won the concession to continue their ancient laws including land ownership. The same diversity was true in the thirteen colonies. The Crown (effectively Parliament) owned much of the land but the land grants meant that individuals also owned large tracts of land in the colonies.

Many of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were substantial landowners who could NOT have been dispossessed by the UK's Parliament except for cause such as non-payment of taxes. Of course those signatories were effectively refusing to pay what they saw as unjust taxes and therefore were putting their own land tenure at risk. A Royal land grant was made in exchange for payment in some form or as a reward. Once made, the owner of the grant was effectively the owner of the land and short of being tried and convicted for High Treason, (or refusing to pay legitimate taxes) couldn't be evicted or the grant revoked.

You really do need to know your own history before ranting about it.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

Amicus,

Your history is flawed as usual.

Royalty did not decree the shape and form of society in most parts of Europe except perhaps France, Austria and Russia. In England we had our Civil War and had executed a King. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had established a constitutional monarchy with very limited powers. The real rulers were in Parliament.

All land did NOT belong to the King, except perhaps in France and even there the King had real limits on what he could do to dispossess landowners. Henry VIII had established the Church of England partly because nearly one third of the country was owned by the Catholic Church owing allegiance to the Pope in Rome. He, at best, "owned", on the loosest interpretation of that term, less than half of what was not owned by the Church. The rest was owned by a mixture of people from aristocratic landlords through merchants to yeomen farmers. In some circumstances PARLIAMENT could tax landowners but neither they nor the King owned all the land.

After 1688 Parliament exercised power and controlled existing land ownership systems which were very diverse. My own county of Kent, having opposed William the Conqueror in force, had won the concession to continue their ancient laws including land ownership. The same diversity was true in the thirteen colonies. The Crown (effectively Parliament) owned much of the land but the land grants meant that individuals also owned large tracts of land in the colonies.

Many of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were substantial landowners who could NOT have been dispossessed by the UK's Parliament except for cause such as non-payment of taxes. Of course those signatories were effectively refusing to pay what they saw as unjust taxes and therefore were putting their own land tenure at risk. A Royal land grant was made in exchange for payment in some form or as a reward. Once made, the owner of the grant was effectively the owner of the land and short of being tried and convicted for High Treason, (or refusing to pay legitimate taxes) couldn't be evicted or the grant revoked.

You really do need to know your own history before ranting about it.

Og

Og, I hope you are aware that, in the 17th Century, most parts of Europe were France, Russia, Austria and The Ottoman Empire. Those four nations ruled about 3/4 of the land area.

 

[amicus]

Dear Oggbashan, you do such a wonderful job of modern political spin, learned on the job, I suppose?

Whether it is NHS or the History of England/Europe, you paint a picture so pastoral that those misguided immigrants who left the rule of King George must have been silly revolutionaries that you were glad to be rid of.

All of the accepted history of the population of the 'new world' indicates that oppressed people from all over Europe, England in particular, even rejects to moved to Holland to worship as they chose, moved to America for the opportunity to live in freedom and worship according to their own choices.

Gosh, Ogg, the way you present it, no one would ever have wanted to vacate merry old England.

Pshaw...

Amicus

 

[amicus]

Amicus,

You know that the Constitution also set up the Legislative Branch of Goverment to make laws and the Supreme Court to define with those laws mean and how they should be applied. That goes far beyond the police and military.[/

QUOTE]

It may seem to be a small nitpicking disagreement, Jenny, but to my knowledge, the purpose of the Supreme Court is to judge the Constitutionality of Legislation from both the US Congress and the several States.

Again, the recipe as to just how this new American form of government didn't exist at the inception of the Constitution; it all had to be learned on the job, and was fraught with danger as the different interests of each Colony that ratified the Constitution were often at odds and 'compromise' was often the means by which laws were instituted.

The essential consideration, I offer, was that the Colonists formed a government of 'limited' and 'enumerated' powers so that the tyrannies of Europe would never be imposed on the American people.

Then, as now, there were and are those who wish greater government participation in private affairs, and those who wanted minimal government. The push/pull of these two opposing forces has always created impassioned debate and elections.

Many States, utilizing State Rights, instituted programs, such as public education, to name just one, that were challenged as outside the Constitutional limits of government.

Amicus

edited to add: http://www.historynow.org/04_2008/historian.html

Not quite as succinct a definition of the function of the Court as I had wished to find...but...

 

[oggbashan]

Og, I hope you are aware that, in the 17th Century, most parts of Europe were France, Russia, Austria and The Ottoman Empire. Those four nations ruled about 3/4 of the land area.

What has the 17th Century got to do with it? Anyway, if it was the 17th Century you have forgotten Spain and its European possessions beyond the Iberian peninsula (and of course much of the Americas).

The Declaration of Independence was in the latter part of the 18th Century. By that time the rule of absolute monarchs was much diluted except in France. Their monarch paid the ultimate price for insistence on maintaining ancient rights. Even in the 17th Century absolute monarchy was limited by expanding merchant and landowning classes.

American independence would have been impossible without significant aid from Royalist France, who had their own agenda for fighting the UK.

The movement of "oppressed people" from Europe to America happened mainly in the 19th Century and early 20th Century, NOT the 18th. Apart from the Pilgrim Fathers and the transported prisoners most colonists of the 13 colonies were there to seek opportunities, not to escape oppression in the UK. People left the countries of the UK to seek their fortunes - in India, in SE Asia, in Australia, Africa, New Zealand, Canada as well as to the US. Those who left England were not the "oppressed" but the adventurers. The Irish diaspora was a special case and mid 19th Century.

Og (still correcting your history)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Dear Oggbashan, you do such a wonderful job of modern political spin, learned on the job, I suppose?

Whether it is NHS or the History of England/Europe, you paint a picture so pastoral that those misguided immigrants who left the rule of King George must have been silly revolutionaries that you were glad to be rid of.

All of the accepted history of the population of the 'new world' indicates that oppressed people from all over Europe, England in particular, even rejects to moved to Holland to worship as they chose, moved to America for the opportunity to live in freedom and worship according to their own choices.

Gosh, Ogg, the way you present it, no one would ever have wanted to vacate merry old England.

Pshaw...

Amicus

Ami, even you must be aware that the Puritans, who came over on the Mayflower, were allowed to worship as they chose. However, they wanted everybody else to worship the same way, and that was what got them in trouble in England and Holland. In Plymouth Colony, they were able to impose their wills on many people, but some, such as Morton of Merrymount and Roger Williams of Rhode Island broke away from their dictatorial rule. They may have been the original Christianl Fundies.

They even got their chance to impose their own brand of Christianity in England during the middle of the 17th Century, under Oliver Cromwell, until they were overthrown. The idea that they sought "freedom of religion" is a crock.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What has the 17th Century got to do with it? Anyway, if it was the 17th Century you have forgotten Spain and its European possessions beyond the Iberian peninsula (and of course much of the Americas).

The Declaration of Independence was in the latter part of the 18th Century. By that time the rule of absolute monarchs was much diluted except in France. Their monarch paid the ultimate price for insistence on maintaining ancient rights. Even in the 17th Century absolute monarchy was limited by expanding merchant and landowning classes.

American independence would have been impossible without significant aid from Royalist France, who had their own agenda for fighting the UK.

The movement of "oppressed people" from Europe to America happened mainly in the 19th Century and early 20th Century, NOT the 18th. Apart from the Pilgrim Fathers and the transported prisoners most colonists of the 13 colonies were there to seek opportunities, not to escape oppression in the UK. People left the countries of the UK to seek their fortunes - in India, in SE Asia, in Australia, Africa, New Zealand, Canada as well as to the US. Those who left England were not the "oppressed" but the adventurers. The Irish diaspora was a special case and mid 19th Century.

Og (still correcting your history)

You're right. You did mention 1688, which was in the 17th Century, but I was thinking of the 18th Century. Spain did have holdings in Holland and the Italian Peninsula but, even so, the four nations I mentioned ruled about 3/4 of Europe, even if the British Isles are included. Russia by itself probably ruled half the continent.

 

[amicus]

Really, Ogg, that is amazing! The result of your historiography is that England was just peachy, building an Empire in the 16th and 17th Centuries, that the rest of the world bowed down to English Adventurer's who spread wealth and freedom to all corners of the Globe and that the American Colonists were a bunch of religious zealots and ne'erdowells, and had no cause to revolt and would have lost anyway except for the French.

No Freakin' wonder you don't have a clue about America or Americans; you have your own snug little scenario to curl up with before a whale oil light and a coal stove.

Comfy?

Amicus

 

[Teloz]

Amicus my friend, I could almost believe you were intelligent if you didn't talk such absolute bollocks!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Really, Ogg, that is amazing! The result of your historiography is that England was just peachy, building an Empire in the 16th and 17th Centuries, that the rest of the world bowed down to English Adventurer's who spread wealth and freedom to all corners of the Globe and that the American Colonists were a bunch of religious zealots and ne'erdowells, and had no cause to revolt and would have lost anyway except for the French.

No Freakin' wonder you don't have a clue about America or Americans; you have your own snug little scenario to curl up with before a whale oil light and a coal stove.

Comfy?

Amicus

Ogg didn't mention religious zealots. I did. The Puritans or Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 were religious zealots who wanted to spread their particular form of Christianity. They were more like the current Islamic zealots than different.

He's also right about the American Revolution. Without the help of France, it would have met defeat.

 

[amicus]

Every nation, nationality, ethnic group or a motley crue of Americans has its own origin myth, be it Vikings, Romans, Gauls, where-ever one divides the French and the Germans. I stipulate that right up front.

What is not so evident, is that when myths infringe on one another...one has to be overcome; thus, in a way, the essence of conflict in Europe.

Americans have never known an absolute Church, which all the forementioned have, nor, in our entire existence, been ruled by a King with a corresponding 'class' system by which one's 'place' in society, one's 'station', was predetermined.

Freedom is frightening and a huge responsibility and offers no guaranteed results or success of any kind; it can change with the luck of the draw.

There is an inherent desire in man, I think, that yearns for the protected and secure aura of youth, with kind, loving parents and a safe environment. It seems such a panacea if only one did not have to continually worry about sustaining one's own existence.

I have said before and do so again; the two ocean separation, the size and bountiful qualities of the North Ameican continent, played a role in the emergence of the United States as an unique entity among nations; but more than that, it is and was the discovery of a new concept, the innate rights of man as an individual that gave birth to this magnificent experiment in human freedom that is America.

Trot out your pedigree Oggbashan, with your 'Enry the 8th' paraphenalia, live long and prosper, all the while yearning for Royalty to be bestowed upon you.

Writing is such fun, ain't it?

Amicus