In at least three major hot button issues I can think of (health care, guns, and free speech for white supremacists), there seems to me to be a side that basically says to the other, “I realize you feel your life is in danger (or has already been taken), but that is an acceptable price to pay to preserve larger Constitutional freedoms.” In my opinion, not enough people realize this, and not enough effort is made by those parties to explain to the ones living in fear why this is necessary, and why they’re wrong for trying to change their own lot in life.
I realize this is an eternal and sticky issue in general, but I’d like to see if there are any solutions in the offing. I realize, for example, that many think the existential threat posed by their beliefs is overblown hysteria, but again, that hardly does anything to actually reduce the amount of resistance or convince anyone that your side is right.
How should this be approached, both in the political and the public relations arenas? It’s a bit late, so hopefully I’ve expressed myself clearly and completely; apologies in advance if not.
The fact that people don’t fear, properly, concentrated power is a failure of either the education system or innate biology with regards to comprehending history and the nature of humanity.
“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” Noam Chomsky
Goebbels and the Germans during the Nazi era and Stalin and the Soviets during the Communist era sure understood psychology, the power of ideas, and the danger to the institutions they worked to create that liberty posed.
That’s how I’d explain the necessity of keeping a good chunk of power out of the hands of the central authorities. Of course, restrictions of liberty will be different this time…
I’m confused. Are you asking how we convince those silly Dems that they’re wrong and free speech should carry the day? Or are you asking how we should convince those mean old Republicans that their “free speech” ideal is really an existential threat to minorities?
Same question for the other two, just replace “free speech” with “the RKBA” or “free(-ish / -er) market health care”
Whatever your side is, really. I know it’s a little confusing because in the three examples I mention, the sides are somewhat different, but I really do wonder how to sell “You need to die (or it’s fine if you die) because the Constitution’s protections for others/generally is more important than your individual life”. It’s used in arguments indirectly all the time, but few people I’ve seen ever really attempt to address the concerns of those who feel threatened except shrugging and saying, “Yeah, well, what can you do? Greater good and all that.” What I’m trying to find out is, is there more than that, and if so, what is it?
What on earth does healthcare have to do with the other two issues? It may be that many Americans oppose sensible universal healthcare for political reasons, but I don’t see what constitutional right is involved.
Democracies tend to be much more humane than authoritarian regimes. Nazi Germany was somewhat democratic but was anomalous: it lacked prior experience as a democracy and suffered under oppressive sanctions and debt. The U.S. should work on improving its democracy, not on reinforcing Alex Jones fantasies.
I am also an amateur student of history, but do not reach the same pessimistic conclusion as you. Just moments ago, while reading another thread that mentioned “crime is up,” I Googled for “historical crime rates.” I didn’t find the recent upsurge but found a survey paper that reported homicide rates over the past thousand years! There was a very sharp fall in Europe’s homicide rates about 1600 AD, consistent with the rise of strong central governments in Europe, replacing the medieval libertarian model.
I think you’re looking at the problem from the wrong angle. You Americans are fixated on your Constitution. IMHO that’s too limiting. Instead, I think you should look at it as society and the individual. What restrictions do we put on the individual? What restrictions do we put on society? What freedoms do we accord the individual? What responsibilities do we give to society and to the individual?
These aren’t issues of the state vs. citizen. The constitution doesn’t require the state to protect every person from any danger. But in that situation we’ve already seen that the supremes don’t have a problem denying people whatever right they have to life and liberty as long as process is followed, so i certainly don’t see them stepping in to force the state to protect people from the ordinary dangers of life. Those are legislative options, the courts will concern themselves with the process, not the results unless constitutional rights are denied.
Emphasis added. That’s what the constitution is for. To spell those things out, and that’s why we are “fixated” on the constitution. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of people’s opinions.
There are those who oppose healthcare for constitutional reasons. That goes into leaper’s point.
One side says that they’d like to save lives and ease suffering.
The other side says, nice try, constitution says you can’t do that. How many times was the ACA challenged on constitutional grounds? Even though it has held up, there are still those on the right who feel it shouldn’t have.
*Yes, I realize it’s more complicated than that, but the disagreement on that one particular subject fills pages and pages across several threads.
Are you talking about the challenge to the tax penalty? Ok, but that’s a pretty narrow point. There’s surely nothing in the Constitution that bars the US from having universal healthcare funded out of general taxation, if there were the political will to do it. I don’t see the parallel with rights issues under the 1st & 2nd amendments.
I don’t think you understand what libertarian means. There were no libertarian gvts pre 17th century…feudal governments sure. Also, there are no reliable statistics as to what was homicide.
The argument as I have heard it is on the other side. [ul]
[li]The UN Charter on Human Rights says there is a right to health care[/li][li]The Charter is a treaty signed by the US[/li][li]Treaties are co-equally binding as the Constitution[/li][li]Ergo, there is a right to health care.[/li][/ul]Granted, not a Constitutional right, but under the “living document” idea no doubt they could also come up with a Constitutional argument.
Due process - Being denied health care coverage is being denied life and/or property. The insurance company turning you down isn’t due process. So not providing health care is a violation of due process.
Equal protection - Health care companies operate under the law. People with more money than me can get coverage; I can’t. So, not providing health care is a violation of equal protection.
Practically anything else - Spending my tax money on the military instead of health care is a violation of my Third Amendment rights, if I don’t get health care I will be too sick to protest so I am being denied my right to petition the government for redress of grievances, health care is a right arising out of the Ninth Amendment, etc.
The arguments you cite are kind of a stretch, which may be why I haven’t seen them used. A more common one is that the Constitution authorizes Congress to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises to pay for the common defense and general welfare,” in Article I, section 8, and that promoting the general welfare is one of the very reasons for creation of the Constitution. In South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court established that the power of Congress to tax is not limited to those listed. But these merely establish the power of Congress to levy taxes to provide healthcare; it has nothing to do with the right to health care.
However, when proponents of single-payer health care use the word “right,” they’re referring to a moral right—call it a birthright—rather than a legal one. Nearly everyone recognizes the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, for instance, despite the fact the Constitution doesn’t specifically state it. Affordable access to health care may not be an inarguable legal right, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a moral imperative.
Personally, I think a nation as great as the United States should have a national health care policy better than “Sucks to be you,” but relying solely on the Constitution for this one is probably fruitless.
What “other side” has ever made this argument? This sounds more like a sloppy re-imagining of a past conversation, or maybe a combination of different points different people have made.
The largest mass murders in history have been perpetrated by powerful institutions. It’s not paranoia to believe in the utility of checks and balances.
That’s the problem. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to meddle in healthcare. And no, their doing so does NOT promote the general welfare.