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.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Now that PPACA has been ruled constitutional...

…people like Kathleen Sebelius, the Cabinet Secretary whose department which has jurisdiction over much of the bill's content, has been saying stupid things like “we need to stop refighting old political battles and trying to take away benefits that millions of Americans are relying on. Instead, we should move forward with implementing and improving this law…” Similarly, Nancy Pelosi has made statements decrying repeal of PPACA (alias “Obamacare”) as unrealistic.

Secretary Sebelius' attitude seems to be that the only question at issue is the constitutionality of PPACA. But it is not. The Supreme Court has said that Congress has the constitutional right to pass the law. It has most certainly not ruled that the law was a good thing to pass. And the Court ruling on PPACA specifically implies that, just as Congress has the right to pass such a law, it has the right to repeal it. And the Congress is supposed to be responsive to the people's wishes. Since the public opposes PPACA, (a recent poll says that support for the act has increased since the Court's ruling, but the majority still oppose it), so it is eminently in accordance with our Constitutional system for the House leadership to pursue repeal.

No comments: