Rahm Emmanuel's new proposal for Chicago Public Schools

[RussellK]

He has placed himself in an awkward position. Isn't it inconsistent with a libertarian view to create a federal law that restricts one persons rights over another? Perhaps Ron Paul is comfortable with his determination that life begins at conception but many other doctors, theologians and laypeople disagree. I find it odd he would choose to write a federal law at all. Don't individual states already have the ability to limit abortion? First and second trimester limitations?

[steve74baywin]

He has placed himself in an awkward position. Isn't it inconsistent with a libertarian view to create a federal law that restricts one persons rights over another? Perhaps Ron Paul is comfortable with his determination that life begins at conception but many other doctors, theologians and laypeople disagree. I find it odd he would choose to write a federal law at all. Don't individual states already have the ability to limit abortion? First and second trimester limitations?

You may be right, I don't think I would have done that. His conviction about that is stronger than mine, to spend the time with legislation and all. He also holds some traditional religious views I don't agree with. However, if his mindset was prevailing when the abortion issue first came up, it would not have been allowed to have federal intervention.
Ron Paul is not perfect, no one is. But he is about the best I've seen in my life.

[ruckman101]

The government does choose who it allows to kill and when. It's called the death penalty.

Health care is a basic human right. To deny access to it by basing it on ability to pay is also a death sentence and choice our government is making. Right to die is also a choice government frequently denies it's citizens.


neal

[turk]

The more technologically interdependent society got, along with the more human rights were invested, along with the fracturing of traditional mores, and diversification and fracturing of traditional society, these issues got traction in the progressive liberals' moral agenda. They are not by any means universal. The founders of America did a good job ensuring these debates would be made over a long, and to some, painful, time-frame. I think in some ways the declaration of independence and the constitution transcend morals, which often change capriciously over time. Sure, one can say "health care" is a basic human right. But how much? One could say the same thing about housing, clothes, food, entertainment, cars, and so on. And that would be fantastic. But realistically, life doesn't work that way except in utopian theory, which is fine, but we're not a utopia, yet.

[steve74baywin]

Health care is a basic human right. To deny access to it by basing it on ability to pay is also a death sentence and choice our government is making. Right to die is also a choice government frequently denies it's citizens.


neal

Words, gotta love them.
To deny access would be wrong, but, one really needs to think the above out.
It would be great for everyone to have what ever level of care they want, but what one implies by Health care is basic human right, I'm not sure actually what they are trying to say. I guess I would have to ask this,
How much care from others is a right and just what does one mean?
Health care can involve so much labor and materials from start to finish. Too many goods and services to add up. These are not like our money system, they do not appear out of know where. How can one expect a certain level of what? Effort and resources gathered from others to be applied to him? It just doesn't make sense. I just can't even come close to it. There are many things one can say is a right, but a right to a certain undetermined level of effort to be put forth by others? That is a right?
Please, someone try to explain how it is a right.
Maybe also lets list what we think are rights.
I just don't ever see rights that I have as transferring to time others must spend on or for me.

[turk]

Great post Steve. I would like to hear those questions answered as well. I've got into this debate a few times here and other forums. I often hear about how health care shouldn't be a "for profit" endeavor. I agree it shouldn't be but how else does it improve but by competition of the provider to the consumer? So, this strikes at the whole idea of consumerism and a free society. The other option, in a diverse demography, would be "socialism", from top down. If anyone knows an Anarchist or a bottom-up solution I would like to know. So, let's hear the answers.

[ruckman101]

Privatizers? Air? Water? Food? Shelter? Health care? Employment? Education? Not human rights unless you have the cash? All of those should be affordable, not a death sentence for the poor.


neal

[turk]

Does air, water, food, shelter, et. al. exist out of reach of people who need it, unless they have cash? Or is it available to everyone who participates according to some pretty simple societal rules? You don't even need money, but it helps a lot. So, though money is the root of all evil, as we know from Dark Side of the Moon, it is kinda the certificate of some value (goods, services, etc.) to the structure of a human civilization. We could do away with it at some point, but now we are talking about a totally new paradigm. Now we are talking about the end of this civilization and the the start of another one. Hmmn. Maybe in increments, but it will take time. Well, unless there is an armageddon.

[ruckman101]

Sounds to me like Ron Paul has no qualms about legislating his moral values onto the populace, eloquently dancing around the issue, supporting state law over federal, but still supportive of government intrusion into personal health issues between patient and physician. In this case women.

And let me set the record straight turk, I have never been under the illusion that the Tea Party movement has been a construct wholly of the Koch Brothers and their ilk. Co-opted by, yes. The original frustrations were truly grassroots in expression.

Benton Harbor only aspires to be Detroit.

How do those less government Libertarian/Tea Party sensibilities explain Michigan? With that new fiscal crisis law enacted? Are you familiar with it? The state can decide if your local municipality is in fiscal crisis and appoint a governor chosen fiscal crisis manager to run your town. Your locally elected officials are effectively window dressing, going through the motions of gavel banging, but the fiscal crisis manager now runs your town.

Are you familiar with Benton Harbor's demographics? They're the larger, poor, colored town (90 percent african-american) across the river from the slightly smaller white town (90 percent caucasian) of St Joseph, per capita income average, $31,000, Benton Harbor's, $10,000. A twin city paradigm. Whirlpool's corporate headquarters are in Benton Harbor, but alas, no more manufacturing jobs, those are all overseas now.

One of the most contentious local issues for years in Benton Harbor has been efforts by monied developers who want to build an upscale residential area surrounded by a golf course that has to include part of Benton Harbor's public waterfront Jean Klock Park. Do the developers have ties to Whirlpool? You betcha.

Does recently appointed fiscal crisis manager Joe Harris have ties to Whirlpool? I wouldn't place a bet against it.

And now locally elected school board authorities are similarly being stripped of voice in the name of fiscal crisis, with governor appointed crisis managers taking charge in well over two dozen districts under the same law. Districts similarly stricken by unfortunate circumstances that find themselves poor and colored.

If you try to tell me these laws are for the citizens of those districts and town(s) "own good", that's a declaration of racism in my book.

I fail to see how this is a legitimate plank for a "less government" platform that Libertarians and original "Tea Party" voices wrap themselves in and espouse as an answer to the quagmire of issues we find ourselves polarized over.

Corporate greed won't be satisfied until they realize efforts to wring every last drop of blood from a stone have been wrung. How do you rationalize defending these interests? Why aren't you outraged? Who caused the financial crisis every town and every state faces? Trust me, it isn't public service employees.

http://politicsreport.com/news/battle-benton-harbor

http://voiceofdetroit.net/?p=6684


neal

[turk]

I'm not very familiar with it. I drove by it once. I'm willing to bet you just regurgitated all this having no personal connection yourself. My question to you is: are the unions involved? Why not? Aren't there public employees in Benton Harbor that aren't being paid by the city? That's all I have to comment on it since I don't live there.

[steve74baywin]

Privatizers? Air? Water? Food? Shelter? Health care? Employment? Education? Not human rights unless you have the cash? All of those should be affordable, not a death sentence for the poor.


neal

Humans have a right to get water, but not to make me gather it from the well.
They have a right to food, but not the food I just placed on my table.
Humans have a right to health, but not a right to force me to provide this health to them.
One could also say humans have the right to ask for health care in this system, especially when a portion of their labor is taken from them via the threat of guns and jail. I'd just rather throw the criminal mob out than ask them to give me some of what they steal.

[chitwnvw]

I'd just rather throw the criminal mob out than ask them to give me some of what they steal.

=D>

[ruckman101]

I'm not very familiar with it. I drove by it once. I'm willing to bet you just regurgitated all this having no personal connection yourself. My question to you is: are the unions involved? Why not? Aren't there public employees in Benton Harbor that aren't being paid by the city? That's all I have to comment on it since I don't live there.

The emergency manager has the power to dissolve existing contracts. What unions. As stripped of rights as the locally elected officials.


neal

[turk]

I'll take this on in good spirit on the basic elements of it, even though I assume neither of us is directly involved in that community. It's a good remote crucible for the larger debate raging across the nation. Keeping in mind this is a purely intellectual exercise to us who aren't living there, and we are only arguing the merits of what we know from media and our own opinions. So, if the unions and the local government are not able to make the community solvent, without state government intervention; the town is bankrupt; it cannot provide the basic services to keep functioning; who should? The next local town? The county? Who is gonna make it solvent, so it has its own fire department, police, garbage pick-up, etc.? The unpaid contracts will not be paid by the local government. It's bankrupt. Eventually, something has to intervene and restructure what is mismanaged and broke. Who should do this? Nobody? I mean, if the town can do it on its own, then let it do. In state government there are procedures to get it done I assume. The federal government isn't responsible for it. So, the last governor already assigned the emergency finance manager to start restructuring the budget so this town can survive. That was Jennifer Granholm. A democrat. But she's not governor anymore. The job is unfinished. What would you suggest?

[ruckman101]

Blame the victims? Yep, the city looked to the state, asked for help, banks helped impoverish by levying massive bounced check charges (a contract is a contract after all) and the former dem governor agreed to help. I'm fuzzy on whether or not a state appointed financial manager was ever assigned to the task at that time.

New guv Rick Snyder crammed a new law through. And here we are. Corporate sympathetic legislation enabling gentrification of poverty hot spots. Union contracts void. Money to be made. A mini model of the remake of New Orleans after Katrina. Poverty legislated illegal.

It's their own damn fault for being so lazy sucking at the welfare teat rather than work, it's for their own good. Demonize the weakest, they're the problem.

Rather we should be addressing the systemic dysfunctional nature or our society.

I fart in your general direction.


neal