An often misused quote from history.

Unfortunately there is zero chance we will ever return to this and the taxes the federal government takes instead of them going to the states means they are unable to enact large programs.

So we have to identify where we are not doing enough for American citizens.
One area we fail on is healthcare. Another is education

 

Again, I can't find anywhere in the constitution that gives the federal government the authority to address Healthcare.

The constitution is clear, powers not given to the fed are the responsibilty of the states.

Curious though. What specifically would you like to see the government do about Healthcare at any level?

 

We disagree then

I like a mixture of the nordic model and the Canadian model. I think that America would be a much stronger nation for all citizens to have “no cost” access to preventative and emergency medicine. All “sin” taxes — alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, sugar, etc — should go towards funding this. Using the leverage of the government to reduce cost of care, administration, and to negotiate with suppliers. We also need to see more workers in the medical field, this could be done by subsidizing medical education in exchange for these individuals assuming a contract for a certain period of time at more reasonable rates.

Again, this would be better done by the individual states but the way we are currently taxed and organized it would be next to impossible to achieve.[/QUOTE]

 

The Constitution is a power limiting document. It specifically talks about limiting the role and power of the federal governement and signs specific enumerated responsibilities. This is well documented, and clearly the intent.

Those leaning on the general welfare clause need to wilfully ignore that. If the general welfare clause negated the entire limitation, then ANYTHING somebody percieves as benefiting the people child be justified. That wasn't the idea.

The general welfare explotation is a detriment to the limits of power.

 

In this country (at least in theory), strong central government......to the extent we have one..........is a reflection of the wishes of the majority since that majority sends it representatives to DC to do its bidding. However, the power the people have is restrained by apathy and the influence of money. The latter being a result of voter apathy.

 

The 2020 general election was a reflection of just the opposite. Three big factors influenced the 2016 election. The democrats lost house seats because the electorate did not like what they were seeing. The republicans are losing senate seats, but not because the people are not liking what they see. It was simply because more republican seats were up for election and vulnerable than democrat seats The third factor was Trump. Trump lost votes because people do not like him, but not necessarily because they did not agree with what he was doing. In short, if this election is any indicator, the majority of the people want less government.

 

Are you a Trump supporter? If so, the irony is dripping. If not, Trumpism is the textbook example of collectivism. Well, it's a close tie with QAnon. What is more collectivist than WWG1WGA?

 

No, I didn't vote for Trump either time.

 

Okay, so no irony. That's why I asked.

You can still address the post. Trumpism and cults like QAnon are the epitome of collectivism. It's disingenuous to pin that label only on progressives. The farther to either extreme you go, the more collectivist the thinking becomes.

 

I would need to look at the positions and how they implement the collectivism.

I dont have an issue with collectivism when its voluntary. I have an issue when participation is forced, especially by government.

 

Fair enough.

Not sure what you mean. Perhaps we're defining "collectivism" differently.

What do you mean by forced participation? The military is an example of forced collectivism, which it must be. The survival of a platoon requires strict cohesive thought and behavior. No room for individualism. Where else are we forced to think and behave in a collectivist manner?

 

We have many social policies enacted by both the left and right that require forced compliance in the name of collectivism. Here ill give you an example.

Public health insurance option: i have no issue with anpublic option, for people to participate in a shared risk insurance program offered through the government. Hell they can even make it non-profit and reduce premiums. No issue there. What i have a problem with is telling people they MUST participate in this program. Some going even so far as to say "thats the cost of living in society"... collectivism.

I put much more priority on individualism over collectivist policies. Collectivism in the form of mutually acceptable business relationships are also collective but not forced.

Does that make sense? I'm trying to explain my position, but not sure I'm doing a great job at it.