The principles that rule this blog

Principles that will govern my thoughts as I express them here (from my opening statement):


  • Freedom of the individual should be as total as possible, limited only by the fact that nobody should be free to cause physical injury to another, or to deprive another person of his freedoms.
  • Government is necessary primarily to provide those services that private enterprise won't, or won't at a price that people can afford.
  • No person has a right to have his own beliefs on religious, moral, political, or other controversial issues imposed on others who do not share those beliefs.

I believe that Abraham Lincoln expressed it very well:

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot
so well do, for themselves — in their separate, individual capacities.”


Comments will be invited, and I will attempt to reply to any comments that are offered in a serious and non-abusive manner. However, I will not tolerate abusive or profane language (my reasoning is that this is my blog, and so I can control it; I wouldn't interfere with your using such language on your own!)

If anyone finds an opinion that I express to be contrary to my principles, they are welcome to point this out. I hope that I can make a rational case for my comments. Because, in fact, one label I'll happily accept is rationalist.

Friday, June 15, 2012

Will the court rule Monday?

I have seen some articles in the paper suggesting that the Supreme Court may rule as soon as Monday on “Obamacare.” It has been hard waiting these past few months. It is to be firmly hoped that the act will be completely thrown out, so that we can start again from scratch. While there are good features, everything is so intricately interlocked that we can't just pick and choose which clauses of the act will be thrown out — and as Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida determined (though he alone has so ruled) the absence of a severability clause implies that the entire law must go on the basis of his determination that the mandate is unconstitutional. But we cannot get into the heads of the nine Justices. Some may feel that there are parts of the act worth saving, and be reluctant to throw the whole bill out. After all, except for Judge Vinson, other judges who did rule the individual mandate unconstitutional still would retain the rest of the bill.

Really, this wait is killing me.

No comments: