Thursday, February 24, 2011

obamacare and judge kessler

From yesterday's ruling we now know our none of our private thoughts are actually  private.  

Keep that in mind.

Miranda rights will need to be revised apparently.

Anything say can and will be used against you in a court of law."  

Add to this "anything you think, whether or not you act on it as well can and will be used against you too."

I'd go further but I'm mindful of this guy

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Just read this post:

He makes some excellent points.

I think the crux of his argument is American "Freedom" has be supplanted with Mill's utility.

And I wonder how and why that happened.

I'm reminded of the meme "You can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre!" Which is spouted as an invective on the supposed limits of speech.

What I mean is we have a perception in this country that what you can say or what you can do is increasingly being redefined by how "useful" it is.

And it will only get worse from here.

Right now, if you partake in risky activities like mountain climbing, skydiving, scuba.  Your insurance premiums are consequently higher as you represent a greater risk to the insurance company.  Perfectly understandable.

If obamacare is fully enacted.  And I am now made officially my brothers keeper by law, when my brother wants to partake in the above mentioned risky activities who will pay for resultant injuries?  Why me and you of course! But by extension we can reduce costs (and save the environment!) If we just disallow some hobbies.

Some would say I'm being delusional.  But isn't that in fact the whole impetus behind seatbelt and helmet laws?

Our freedom to do as we please is already "weighed" against its own utility, and others responsibilities to pay for the consequences.

How did that happen?

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

A dilemma

A preface:
I was until recently fond of quoting the Constitution.

As you know from the title of the blog, I'm more disenfranchised now with it and the founders than I've ever been.

The dilemma:
Judge Vinson in a federal court yesterday ruled the obamacare individual mandate unconstitutional.  The Feds argued in their briefs the individual mandate is the linchpin that makes the whole thing work and could not be severed from the bill.

The judge agreed with the feds.  And struck down the bill in its entirety.

In his ruling he also made it plain that the ruling was to serve as an injunction.

The obama administration said it wasn't.

Without getting into why this is potentially a Constitutional crisis, my question is a little smaller scale.

My state (Arizona) was a plaintiff in the case.  The injunction isn't being followed.  Is it right to ask my Attorney General for the state to file for an injunction?

If I do am I not asking for the coercive power of the state to be used?

Is it OK because I'm only asking it be used against the government?

By me asking my AG to intercede is that me giving my "consent of the governed"?