Sounds like you're not much of a fan of representative democracy. So, tell me...would you agree that "we as a society" do not go to war when national polls are against it? The politicians in favor of it and the soldiers are on their own, and deserve no designation as an action by America as a society?
national polls were so insanely in favor of going to war that it was almost unanimous. But you may not be recollecting what "we as a society" thought about it in the 1870's...or the 1910s...or the 1930s...or in the early 1970s....don't pretend to tell me that the military is off the reservation fighting wars when "we as a society" don't want to. I'm a big fan of a representative republic. I don't know where you'd get that. But to say that "we as a society" believe in something that was pushed by an executive ("not" a legislator) and not read or understood by the people that voted for it isn't in the same ballpark of being correct.
I didn't specify a war, or even remotely claim that this is true of all wars. I asked you a theoretical, which you haven't answered. I got that from you decrying the system of representative democracy. "We as a society" are represented by the officials we elect. It's a little bankrupt to claim to be for representative democracy and then claim that elected officials acting within their legal capacities passing law is not an action of society. I realize that representative democracy doesn't seem so great when the representatives aren't the ones you voted for, but that's part and parcel of the system.
You only get to vote for two, so by definition you didn't vote for 533 of them. I don't know why it's relevant that the "representatives aren't the ones you voted for". What's relevant is that they didn't represent society--they voted in a partisan manner to follow legislation put forth by an executive without reading it. What part of society was represented by that? "Society" as a whole has, to my limited knowledge, NEVER been for ObamaCare/PPACA, and especially not for the way it was voted in. To take a legislative action and attempt to expand it to a new societal impulse ("we wish now to subsidize with taxpayer money the exorbitant health care fees for all, and mandate an insurance middleman") is folly and intellectually dishonest. In the 1920s, when "society" didn't want to fight any wars, and didn't want to have an Army other than to garrison home bases from foreign invasion, we didn't. Then "society" got smart and realized that sticking your head in the sand didn't stop bad people from doing bad things, so we became the first-rate military in the world. I'm not going to answer hypotheticals and theoreticals. If you'd like to point out where "society" was against sending troops overseas and the military did so anyway without Congress knowing about it, I'm all ears.
Well, I said it was affordable "for Patient X". I didn't say it cost less to provide. It's pretty clear that I meant that it made it less of a financial hardship for Patient X. Actually, that really isn't the way it happened. Obama was very hands-off (too hands-off, in my opinion) during the legislative process. Neither the initial proposals nor the eventual bill were designed or written by Obama or the executive branch, but by the legislature. I think the outcome would have been better had Obama done a better job of promoting some of the things that he wanted that the congress scrapped. barfo
Three. Two senators and one congressperson. Sounds like sour grapes to me. If they'd passed a bill you liked in exactly the same fashion, I bet it wouldn't bother you at all. You think that this is the first time congress has ever acted in a way that disagreed with public opinion polls? Because that's what it sounds like you are saying. barfo
But I'll ask a specific question: Do you think that since Mayor Bloomberg pushed a bill against 16-oz. sodas (among other things), and if 26 of the 51 council members vote for the bill without reading it, that the 10M members of "society" in NYC have now deigned that large sodas should be illegal?
Yes. They voted for those people to represent them and make laws for them. That's the way our government works. Do all 10M agree with it? Of course not. When do 10M people ever agree on anything? barfo
Thanks. Again, relevant how? then you'd lose your ass. What part of "representative democracy" (to use Minstrel's words) means that a congressman doesn't have to represent his/her district or state, but to blindly (a.k.a., "without reading or understanding") vote for a bill? ANY bill? I'm limited in my legislative history, but can you point out another bill in the last 50 years that was passed (whether R or D) by partisan vote, where the legislators voting for it claimed they didn't read it, and didn't have to to vote on it? You're not paying attention or deliberately not addressing what I'm saying. I bolded what I'm saying above. The second issue is your assertion that someone "society" has deemed that this is what it wants now. What I'm saying is that that's nowhere close to true.
What?!? "Society" has shifted because 26 people voted for a law without reading it? You can't possibly be serious. And you're attempting to twist "the way our government works" in passing laws into equating that "society has now changed." Nowhere close to true.
Not relevant at all, just didn't want our less informed members to think the right number was two. Did I say I'd bet my ass? I am pretty careful with my ass. The not-reading-it stuff sounds bad, but I think if you actually stood over every congressperson's shoulder all year, you'd find that most of them don't read most of the bills they vote on. By a very large margin. That's not a good thing by any means, of course. Representing one's district or state does not mean doing whatever opinion polls say is the most popular choice. If it did mean that, we could just do away with congress and settle all matters with opinion polls. Sometimes it means doing what you believe is right even if it is unpopular. Well, then as Minstrel suggested, maybe you aren't a fan of our form of government. barfo
I didn't say "society has now changed". I didn't say "society has shifted". I believe I said something like "we as a society have decided", meaning, through our duly elected representatives, we have decided to make that law. If you thought I meant that everyone agrees with that course of action, then you misunderstood me. But that is how our society decides these things. barfo
I'll stop here and agree to disagree. There's no possible way that you can convince me (I highly doubt you believe it yourself) that society changes their fundamental beliefs based on legislation, especially legislation that wasn't read or vetted before being voted upon. I don't think that all of a sudden a large amount of America (doesn't even need to be a majority) now thinks "we wish now to subsidize with taxpayer money the exorbitant health care fees for all, and mandate an insurance middleman", just because Pelosi got a bunch of people with a (D) after their name to vote without reading. And it's not even a D-vs.-R thing. Bloomberg semi-claims to be a Republican depending on the election cycle, and if he got 26 R's on the NYC Council to vote for it without reading it, I don't think that you could claim that "society in NYC no longer things sodas should be legal". That's absurd. Though I'd really like it if you could show me one example of another law being passed like this, especially one that shifted society's fundamental viewpoint.
I wouldn't want to try. That wasn't what I said, and it isn't what I believe. Not sure why you are arguing against it. I said it was a decision, not a change of beliefs. Not 'just because' of that, but don't look at the polls, because support for PPACA is getting close to 50% now. Thinks? No. Has decided? Possibly (I haven't been following the soda story, as I really don't give a rats ass about NY and their soda consumption, so I don't know if it is law or not). Being passed 'like this' in what way? With people not reading it first? I'd guess most bills are passed that way. Most bills are long and boring and staffers write them these days and brief their bosses about what they say in general terms. Not sure what you mean about shifting society's fundamental viewpoint. barfo
The US population as a whole who elected them. Again, that's how representative democracy works. We elect (as a group, not you as an individual) people to represent us at the law-making and law-enforcing table and they speak for society. We're not a direct democracy. I didn't think you would, since I didn't expect you to want to watch your own logic hang troops out to dry. What this boils down to is "representative democracy is great until it does something I don't like...then the system clearly doesn't work."
It's not that at all. I asked you a specific question--not some hypothetical one... so I look forward to you continuing not to answer to watch your own logic hang you out to dry.
But you never answered mine. Answering a question with a question is classic evasion. Anyway, I'll answer the question for you, since we both know the answer: Troops prosecuting a war is an action by society, even if the polling is against it, because society elects representatives to act for it. And exactly the same is true of the ACA.
I think the fundamental divide is from where we believe we derive our rights. There are those of us that believe we have Natural Rights and those that believe rights are given to us by Government or society. I believe the former.
They're not even remotely close to the same circumstances. "Society" does not get its values from legislation. Whether the military budget signed by Congress denotes Overseas Contingency Operations funding or not has no bearing on whether the society wants troops overseas. The Commander-in-Chief can send troops anywhere he wants to with or without Congressional approval, support, legislation, etc. It's apples to volkswagens. However, when society has deemed that they want to be isolationist the army is drawn down and congress doesn't fund overseas operations or research or war plans. I don't understand why you keep bringing up "polling" as if numbers in a survey denote societal values, yet refuse to answer the question about soda in NYC, which is a real-life counterexample to what you and barfo think is happening. As for answering a question with a question, I didn't answer your hypothetical because there's a much more specific case happening for real that is much more germane to the conversation. Edit: Didn't see maxiep's post, but that's probably a better way for you to understand what I'm talking about.
