Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Kohalo wrote:That's pretty cruel. Atheist, I'm assuming?

That is Ad Hominem. Stop with the logical fallacies man. its not helping.

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria

Kohalo wrote:That's why I support single payer, not socialized medice or nationalized healthcare

Single payer is only possible under governmental coercion

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria

Kohalo wrote:That's pretty cruel. Atheist, I'm assuming?

Ah, the old "Atheists can't have morals" argument.

Rateria

Post self-deleted by Kohalo.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Single payer is only possible under governmental coercion

Define "governmental coercion"

Jadentopian Order wrote:Ah, the old "Atheists can't have morals" argument.

Not that. Atheists just usually are a bit more selfish in terms of their fellow man

Kohalo wrote:Not that. Atheists just usually are a bit more selfish in terms of their fellow man

I see nothing wrong with this. I'll help people if they're relevant to me and they need help. Anyone who's not a part of my life can just drop dead as far as I'm concerned because I don't even know that they're alive to begin with.

Narland

Kohalo wrote:Everyone should pay for their own coverage, but a lot can't. It's expensive. My mother's appendix surgery cost over $100,000 for us and hurt us a lot financially. I care if people die, why wouldn't you? Another human being dying because they're afraid of how much it'll cost them to get treatment? That's just sickening.

Yeah, it's not your problem until you actually get sick. Or have to watch someone struggle to pay for their chemo treatment.

Your not the only person whom sickness affects

My brother has Germinoma and durring his brain biopsy his brain hemorrhaged and since then he has had to relearn how to walk and talk, on top of not having full control over his right side of his body. Guess what our family and religious community came together to help both pay for and take care of him. This costed a lot more than 100,000 in both time and money. But instead of whining and deciding that other people should pay for his treatment, by force mind you, we relied on our none governmental social structures. Namely our family and Church, all of which is done voluntarily.

I'm sorry that this is something that your family had to deal with. And I also care if people die which is why I personally help those around me in need. VOLUNTARILY. This is what charities and families are for. NOT GOVERNMENT. No one is entitled to anyones labor. This includes doctors. Do you know whats sickening when people feel that others are entitled to the other peoples work. Do you whats sickening when people use personal stories to smear others as uncaring if they don't agree with you.

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria

Kohalo wrote:Define "governmental coercion"

Coercion: " is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force." And the government is doing it. Ergo, Governmental coercion

Kohalo wrote:"That's on them"

According to a study by Harvard University, 45,000 peoole die every year due to lack of health coverage. Many of these because they can't afford it.

Countries with universal healthcare pay LESS than the United States, with 0 deaths due to lack of health coverage and a far healthier population.

Instead they die because their coverage is crap.

Miencraft, Narland

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Coercion: " is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force." And the government is doing it. Ergo, Governmental coercion

So, the government paying everybody's bills intimidates and threats private doctors how..?

Kohalo wrote:So, the government paying everybody's bills intimidates and threats private doctors how..?

You misunderstand. Taxation is reliant on coercion, and the only way the "government" can pay everyone's bill is if they steal money from people to do it. It's not the doctors being coerced, it's the taxpayers.

Taxation is founded on, and only works with, intimidation and threats of violence. Pay the government money, or else you'll go to jail. If that doesn't get you to pay up, guys with guns will go to your house to take your money. If that still doesn't work, you end up in prison. The government doesn't pay for anything, especially not "everybody's bills". Everyone else does. And the only way to get them to pay for it is by threatening them with violence until they pay their taxes.

In any decent society, if I don't want the government providing me services X, Y, and Z, I should be able to stop paying the portion of my taxes that goes to services X, Y, and Z. As I am no longer paying for these services, they will no longer provide me with these services and I'll have to find a private company to provide them if I need them. In reality, though, if I don't want services X, Y, and Z, I have to pay for services A, B, C, D, X, Y, and Z. I don't get the option to only pay for services A, B, C, and D, which I want and use. I am forced to pay for all of these services, and if I refuse, the government will use violence against me to take my money.

Narland, Libiceland

It depends on what you would use violence for, in Penn Jillete's words, that say what is okay and isn't okay to tax.

Would you use violence to stop a rape? Yes. Okay, so taxing for a police force is necessary.

Would you use violence to save someone's life? I would.

Kohalo wrote:It depends on what you would use violence for, in Penn Jillete's words, that say what is okay and isn't okay to tax.

Would you use violence to stop a rape? Yes. Okay, so taxing for a police force is necessary.

Would you use violence to save someone's life? I would.

Violence in response to violence is justified. The use of force to retaliate against another use of force is justified.

What is never justified is the initiation of force. You cannot justify pulling out a knife and stabbing someone at random. You cannot justify robbing someone. You can justify killing someone who pulled out a knife and tried to stab you. You can justify knocking out a guy who tried to rob you.

To use your examples: You can never justify rape. You can, however, justify violence used to stop or prevent a rape.

You can never justify trying to end someone's life. You can, however, justify violence used in defense of yourself or another person.

Taxation requires the initiation of force, and violence used in this way can never be justified. Using violence, or the threat thereof, to coerce people into giving you money is called robbery, or at least it is when a private citizen does it; when the government does it, it's called taxation.

Narland

By the way-

You're forgetting that single payer doesn't force a doctor to do ANYTHING. All healthcare is still done through private companies and no business is "coerced" or forced to do anything.

Single payer is when the government pays for the consumer. That's literally it.

Miencraft wrote:Violence in response to violence is justified. The use of force to retaliate against another use of force is justified.

What is never justified is the initiation of force. You cannot justify pulling out a knife and stabbing someone at random. You cannot justify robbing someone. You can justify killing someone who pulled out a knife and tried to stab you. You can justify knocking out a guy who tried to rob you.

To use your examples: You can never justify rape. You can, however, justify violence used to stop or prevent a rape.

You can never justify trying to end someone's life. You can, however, justify violence used in defense of yourself or another person.

Taxation requires the initiation of force, and violence used in this way can never be justified. Using violence, or the threat thereof, to coerce people into giving you money is called robbery, or at least it is when a private citizen does it; when the government does it, it's called taxation.

Would you use violence if it meant you saved a life?

Kohalo wrote:

Single payer is when the government pays for the consumer. That's literally it.

You're also forgetting that the government doesn't actually pay for it - everyone else has to foot the bill for some random idiot's surgery. Why should anyone care about what happens to a guy they'll never meet?

Kohalo wrote:Would you use violence if it meant you saved a life?

Did you even read any of that? The answer is obviously yes, because the life of a victim of unjustified violence is more important than the life of an initiator of violence.

Narland, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Miencraft wrote:You're also forgetting that the government doesn't actually pay for it - everyone else has to foot the bill for some random idiot's surgery. Why should anyone care about what happens to a guy they'll never meet?

Did you even read any of that? The answer is obviously yes, because the life of a victim of unjustified violence is more important than the life of an initiator of violence.

Because humans have a certain right to dignity and life. Nobody deserves to die because they can't afford treatment.

I also would use violence to save a life, hence why I would support taxes to fund healthcare. Just like medicaid and medicare.

Question- if someone you didn't know was being raped in front of you, would you do something? You said that you don't care about anyone that doesn't effect you. So if you would help them, then why?

Kohalo wrote:By the way-

You're forgetting that single payer doesn't force a doctor to do ANYTHING. All healthcare is still done through private companies and no business is "coerced" or forced to do anything.

Single payer is when the government pays for the consumer. That's literally it.

First of where does the government get their money for this health care. Secondly who would receive care in your single payer system?

Miencraft, Narland

Kohalo wrote:Because humans have a certain right to dignity and life. Nobody deserves to die because they can't afford treatment.

...

What if they can afford care but because the government is now in charge of paying for care they are refused service because treatment is deemed too expensive or cruel?

Miencraft, Narland

Kohalo wrote:...

Question for you: do you believe that unless someone is violating someones rights they shouldn't have their rights violated?

Narland

The United States Of Patriots wrote:First of where does the government get their money for this health care. Secondly who would receive care in your single payer system?

Through taxes. Everybody who needed it.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:What if they can afford care but because the government is now in charge of paying for care they are refused service because treatment is deemed too expensive or cruel?

I don't know what healthcare service would be deemed cruel, but there are also private insurers. You can opt out of single payer and pay for better quality insurance privately if you want (such as in Canada), or these treatments could also be covered separately through work (for example, dental care isn't covered under the National Health Service in the U.K, so many people also get private healthcare for dental)

Kohalo wrote:By the way-

You're forgetting that single payer doesn't force a doctor to do ANYTHING. All healthcare is still done through private companies and no business is "coerced" or forced to do anything.

Single payer is when the government pays for the consumer. That's literally it.

What about this. Your religious and consider funding abortions to be participating in a sin. Now if you don't pay the taxes that funds an activity that you deem sinful people with gun will come to your door, and if you resist you'll get kill. Let alone the violation of your right to religious liberty this is also a violation of freedom of association. How is that not coercion?

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Question for you: do you believe that unless someone is violating someones rights they shouldn't have their rights violated?

Your question is really oddly phrased. I think that peoples' rights aren't just dependent on another person. They're unalienable in my views, and in the Constitution'.

Someone should be able to have access to health care without worrying about the cost. That's my stance. Whether it's a "right" doesn't really matter that much and is just semantics.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:What about this. Your religious and consider funding abortions to be participating in a sin. Now if you don't pay the taxes that funds an activity that you deem sinful people with gun will come to your door, and if you resist you'll get kill. Let alone the violation of your right to religious liberty this is also a violation of freedom of association. How is that not coercion?

Uh, well abortion should be illegal since it also violates the unborn's right to life..and I don't know how this analogy is able to also reflect people paying taxes for a single payer system.

Kohalo wrote:Through taxes. Everybody who needed it.

...

So even people who aren't legal residents and those who pay taxes?

Kohalo wrote:

I don't know what healthcare service would be deemed cruel, but there are also private insurers. You can opt out of single payer and pay for better quality insurance privately if you want (such as in Canada), or these treatments could also be covered separately through work (for example, dental care isn't covered under the National Health Service in the U.K, so many people also get private healthcare for dental)

Funny you would mention the UK have you heard of Charlie Gard?

The United States Of Patriots wrote:So even people who aren't legal residents and those who pay taxes?

Funny you would mention the UK have you heard of Charlie Gard?

First of all, I support Trump's immigration reforms, and I think that Thenillegal immigration would be dealt with before this even becomes a problem. However, I think we should treat non-legal residents for an emergency. After treatment, deport them.

No, I haven't.

Kohalo wrote:Your question is really oddly phrased. I think that peoples' rights aren't just dependent on another person. They're unalienable in my views, and in the Constitution'.

Someone should be able to have access to health care without worrying about the cost. That's my stance. Whether it's a "right" doesn't really matter that much and is just semantics.

Well since you mentioned the constitution where does it even give the government the authority to create a single payer system? and "Someone should be able to have access to health care without worrying about the cost." how is this not a violation of the 13th amendment? no one has the right to someone elses labor. Healthcare is a service. It doesn't exist in nature. People have to work to create it. And what do you mean that healthcare is a right? is food a right?

Kohalo wrote:Uh, well abortion should be illegal since it also violates the unborn's right to life..and I don't know how this analogy is able to also reflect people paying taxes for a single payer system.

Because it's being funded with their taxes! They are directly funding an activity that they deem sinful. And if they refuse to do it they can get thrown in jail. It's directly applicable

Kohalo wrote:First of all, I support Trump's immigration reforms, and I think that Thenillegal immigration would be dealt with before this even becomes a problem. However, I think we should treat non-legal residents for an emergency. After treatment, deport them.

No, I haven't.

Okay so what about those who don't pay any taxes?

And I Highly recommend that you read up on the Charlie Gard story before you praise government involvement in healthcare. It's been in the international news so I don't know how you haven't heard about it

Kohalo wrote:..and I don't know how this analogy is able to also reflect people paying taxes for a single payer system.

I should clarify this is specifically referring to paying for a single payer system

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Well since you mentioned the constitution where does it even give the government the authority to create a single payer system? and "Someone should be able to have access to health care without worrying about the cost." how is this not a violation of the 13th amendment? no one has the right to someone elses labor. Healthcare is a service. It doesn't exist in nature. People have to work to create it. And what do you mean that healthcare is a right? is food a right?

Because it's being funded with their taxes! They are directly funding an activity that they deem sinful. And if they refuse to do it they can get thrown in jail. It's directly applicable

Again, doctors aren't forced to do anything. Their still private. The government just pays the patient's bills. As for the right thing, I said that it doesn't matter if it's a "right", I just think everyone should have access to healthcare. Call it a right or not. I don't care.

Uh, well, if your religion forbids you from paying someone else's healthcare bill (which isn't necessarily the case, everyone pays a small tax that's actually cheaper than what we pay now for healthcare) then maybe I'd see the argument?

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Okay so what about those who don't pay any taxes?

And I Highly recommend that you read up on the Charlie Gard story before you praise government involvement in healthcare. It's been in the international news so I don't know how you haven't heard about it

Those that don't pay taxes but have a medical emergency will be treated and deported. That's how it works now. If an illegal came into a hospital and had just been shot, they'd treat him immediately. It would be the same thing now.

I'll read it tonight.

Kohalo wrote:...

Uh, well, if your religion forbids you from paying someone else's healthcare bill (which isn't necessarily the case, everyone pays a small tax that's actually cheaper than what we pay now for healthcare) then maybe I'd see the argument?

You would maybe see this argument. Should religious people be forced to fund peoples abortion or no?

Also I will note you didn't answer wether the government has the authority to even be involved in healthcare at all.

Kohalo wrote:

Those that don't pay taxes but have a medical emergency will be treated and deported. That's how it works now. If an illegal came into a hospital and had just been shot, they'd treat him immediately. It would be the same thing now.

I'll read it tonight.

I didn't say illegals this time I just said anyone who doesn't pay taxes

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Wow my spelling has been crap

I swear I know the difference between your and you're as well as the difference between whether and a castrated ram

Narland

Is it "two sense" or "two cents"

Narland, Kohalo

The United States Of Patriots wrote:You would maybe see this argument. Should religious people be forced to fund peoples abortion or no?

Also I will note you didn't answer wether the government has the authority to even be involved in healthcare at all.

I didn't say illegals this time I just said anyone who doesn't pay taxes

I think abortion should be illegal, so no? Yeah, of course the government does. Why wouldn't it?

I guess they'd get emergency treatment and then detained for not paying taxes?

It's nice to see a conversation about topics I care about.

Here is what I think, Universal Healthcare is booty.

Thanks!

Also got a telegram from the Reform Party trying to mentor me and then got one from some Pevvania guy calling them names.

For clarification, I don't really care about regional politics.

I think that's something I said when I arrived, I just like to read about current affairs and partake in debates.

Hopefully, I can just do more of that!

Kohalo wrote:

I guess they'd get emergency treatment and then detained for not paying taxes?

I don't think you understand there are a lot of people who legal don't pay any taxes. And why is it now limited to emergency treatment?

Kohalo wrote:I think abortion should be illegal, so no?

As of now if you where to institute a single payer healthcare system you would be forcing people to fund other peoples abortions.

Kohalo wrote: Yeah, of course the government does. Why wouldn't it?

Where is it given that authority then? You where the one who brought up Unalienable Rights and the Constitution so where is the government given that authority?

The United States Of Patriots wrote:I don't think you understand there are a lot of people who legal don't pay any taxes. And why is it now limited to emergency treatment?

As of now if you where to institute a single payer healthcare system you would be forcing people to fund other peoples abortions.

Where is it given that authority then? You where the one who brought up Unalienable Rights and the Constitution so where is the government given that authority?

Because if someone is endanger of dying they should get help ASAP. M

Uh, well, not really, since a single payer legislation would also deal with what it would provide.

It's given the authority where the government can make laws?

Kohalo wrote:Because if someone is endanger of dying they should get help ASAP. M

But why is it limited to that?

Kohalo wrote:

Uh, well, not really, since a single payer legislation would also deal with what it would provide.

So thats all contingent on the US congress seeking to protect the rights of the American people as outlined in the Constitution. Yeah thats going to happen.

Kohalo wrote:

It's given the authority where the government can make laws?

Wow. Really. Have you actually even read the constitution. You know that it specifically outlines what the government can and can't do right?

Are you saying that Article 1 gives the Government the right to get involved in healthcare?

The United States Of Patriots wrote:But why is it limited to that?

So thats all contingent on the US congress seeking to protect the rights of the American people as outlined in the Constitution. Yeah thats going to happen.

Wow. Really. Have you actually even read the constitution. You know that it specifically outlines what the government can and can't do right?

Are you saying that Article 1 gives the Government the right to get involved in healthcare?

Because it's a life or death situation.

What? The government would decide on what to and what to not cover. It's really not that hard. If you want to get treatment for something that isn't covered, there's private companies. I literally already answered this question.

I'm saying that the constitution makes no reference to healthcare and it's a bit absurd to null any legislation that isn't listed in the constitution. Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2.

Just spent some time in the CPE chat and I have a few comments.

They are not going to merge with us with the amount of pressure that we are putting on them; [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation], you're far too aggressive.

Something [nation=short]Lesbia[/nation], their current PM, said to you was, "what you don't need to be doing is taking to our RMB on a daily basis to insist that we're just not doing good enough for you, or insulting the CPE and its nations."

ThatÂ’s something you need to consider.

The CPE needs to know that they are in charge of their side of the merger, pushing them is just making us seem more distant as more of their national leaders take a stand against Pevvania; from their Prime Minister to their Interior Affairs Minister.

I understand that it can be frustrating, hell IÂ’m the one who drafted the treaty after hearing their initial concerns, but we also have to understand is that they are giving up their region. Some of them have been there for over five years and want to ensure that their history is preserved, and their citizenry is safe.

Since we started negotiations, we have been through three Chancellors of State, myself being one of them, and we still havenÂ’t been able to figure out whatÂ’s best for both sides.

The reason we arenÂ’t getting anything done, in my opinion, as the President who appointed two of those three Chancellors and the last of those three Chancellors, is because of stagnated communications.

We post something; itÂ’s pushy, and they get offended.

They post something; it throws us off because we donÂ’t understand their procedures.

We have a diplomat channel on Discord if you have to drag the relevant parties onto that server, do it!

We need an active conversation, not passive correspondence.

I am in no position to speak on behalf of Libertatem, but I can assure you solely based on my knowledge of him, [nation=short]Latin and central america[/nation], [nation=short]Lesbia[/nation], [nation=short]new nationale einheit[/nation], [nation=short]kasinox[/nation], [nation=short]cylthropia[/nation], [nation=short]octuagesimo octavo[/nation],[nation=short]western mars[/nation], [nation=short]the gallant old republic[/nation], if you get on Discord, [nation=short]Humpheria[/nation] and his administration will ensure all your needs are heard and will do everything he can to accommodate you.

This is a merger that's months in the making, and I hate the thought of it being spoilt by miscommunication.

Humpheria, Libiceland, Kohalo

Kohalo wrote:Because it's a life or death situation.

This is the third time i've asked. Why limit the coverage to emergency treatment

Kohalo wrote:

What? The government would decide on what to and what to not cover. It's really not that hard. If you want to get treatment for something that isn't covered, there's private companies. I literally already answered this question.

And you think Congress isn't going to cover abortion?

Kohalo wrote:

Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2.

All this section does is explain the process in which a Bill becomes a law. You might have well just linked me to school house rocks "I'm just a Bill" If you where to keep reading you would see a list of the things that congress has the authority to pass laws over.

Kohalo wrote:

I'm saying that the constitution makes no reference to healthcare and it's a bit absurd to null any legislation that isn't listed in the constitution.

It's a bit absurd to follow the law? The way it was intended?

Kohalo wrote:

I'm saying that the constitution makes no reference to healthcare...

This is exactly the point. It's not ordained as a power the federal government has. Ergo it's reserved to the states and the people as per the 10th amendment.

Not only is a single payer health payer system immoral and ineffective. Without a constitutional amendment it's illegal.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:This is the third time i've asked. Why limit the coverage to emergency treatment

And you think Congress isn't going to cover abortion?

All this section does is explain the process in which a Bill becomes a law. You might have well just linked me to school house rocks "I'm just a Bill" If you where to keep reading you would see a list of the things that congress has the authority to pass laws over.

It's a bit absurd to follow the law? The way it was intended?

Because it's life or death. Like I said.

I would hope not.

Yes, the Congress has the right to pass laws. Shocking, isn't it?

The United States Of Patriots wrote:This is exactly the point. It's not ordained as a power the federal government has. Ergo it's reserved to the states and the people as per the 10th amendment.

Not only is a single payer health payer system immoral and ineffective. Without a constitutional amendment it's illegal.

Well the Constitution gives the Congress the right to make laws in Article 1. Single payer is immoral? How?

And okay, then we should amend the constitution

Kohalo wrote:Because it's life or death. Like I said.

So what about prolonged treatment thats non-emergency?

Kohalo wrote:I would hope not.

You have more faith in Congress than I do

Kohalo wrote:

Yes, the Congress has the right to pass laws. Shocking, isn't it?

Well the Constitution gives the Congress the right to make laws in Article 1.

Did you even read my responds? Congress DOES NOT have the right to make laws that aren't in the purview of its delegated authority. It give the Congress the sole right to make laws, However, it limits this power in the remaining sections of the article as well as within the Bill of Rights.

Kohalo wrote:

Single payer is immoral? How?

The "DMV-Style Health Care Means Rationing and Shortages" section of this article explains this better than I can.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/19/why-socialized-health-care-is-unjust/

Kohalo wrote:

And okay, then we should amend the constitution

So you admit that it is Unconstitutional and Illegal as of now?

Post self-deleted by Libiceland.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:So what about prolonged treatment thats non-emergency?

You have more faith in Congress than I do

Did you even read my responds? Congress DOES NOT have the right to make laws that aren't in the purview of its delegated authority. It give the Congress the sole right to make laws, However, it limits this power in the remaining sections of the article as well as within the Bill of Rights

So you admit that it is Unconstitutional and Illegal as of now?

I would say deportation if it's not an immediate life threatening health situation.

Seeing how the Congress is majorily Republican and the Supreme Court just got a Justice appointed by President Trump, I don't think outlawing abortion is by any means out of reach.

The Congress has a right to make laws that doesn't violate any other amendment (and no, single payer doesn't violate the 13th amendment for the hundreth time)

Kohalo wrote:I would say deportation if it's not an immediate life threatening health situation.

Um wat

Kohalo wrote:

The Congress has a right to make laws that doesn't violate any other amendment (and no, single payer doesn't violate the 13th amendment for the hundreth time)

10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Miencraft, Narland

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Um wat

10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If someone isn't directly in danger of dying and they don't pay taxes, they shouldn't get treatment.

Yes, and? The powers not delegated to the United States (Congress) by the constitution are reserved to the states or the people. The power to make laws is delegated to the congress by the constitution in Article 1.

Kohalo wrote:

Yes, and? The powers not delegated to the United States (Congress) by the constitution are reserved to the states or the people. The power to make laws is delegated to the congress by the constitution in Article 1.

Which for the thousandths time is a limited power Article one expressly states what congress has the authority to make laws about! Healthcare is not one of those.

Narland

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Which for the thousandths time is a limited power Article one expressly states what congress has the authority to make laws about! Healthcare is not one of those.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 rules that the Congress has the power to make laws necessary and proper. Single-payer healthcare arguaby falls into this category and McMulloch vs Maryland in 1819 expanded on this by clarifying that Congress may establish laws that will, "enable the body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people".

Are you still going?

Libiceland

You've heard of Temporal Diamond and Celstial Pearl, now get ready for...

Pokémon Eternal Black and Optimal White!

Kohalo wrote:Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 rules that the Congress has the power to make laws necessary and proper.".

No it doesn't. It specifically states that they have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for the use of all powers specifically delegated to them.

" To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States"

That does not mean they get to run around making laws at random just because they call them necessary. They're given specific powers and this clause only exists to give them the power to actually use those powers.

The powers listed beforehand do not include the provision of healthcare. They are therefore not allowed to do that.

Kohalo wrote:The Congress has a right to make laws that doesn't violate any other amendment

No they don't. They only have the power to make laws relevant to the specific powers given to them in Article 1, Section 8. They are not allowed to do anything else, ever.

Kohalo wrote:McMulloch vs Maryland in 1819 expanded on this by clarifying that Congress may establish laws that will, "enable the body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people".

The Supreme Court does not get to decide what powers the federal government does or does not have. McCulloh v. Maryland does not grant the federal government any power, nor does any other Supreme Court case. The opinion of nine guys in robes does not influence what powers the government has. The only thing that decides what powers the government has is that very specific list in 1:8 of the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was a disgrace to the system. The court doesn't have the power to give itself powers, and yet it did anyways. The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of what powers the government does or doesn't have, because it doesn't need to be. Those powers are very specifically outlined in the Constitution, and every other power is specifically not held by the central government, but by the states instead. Implied powers don't exist. There is no power except those listed in 1:8. And the power to make laws very specifically applies only to laws related to the preceding powers. Congress doesn't get to make up new powers just because they have the power to make laws.

Narland, The United States Of Patriots

Libertatem is built upon prentending we're better than other people.

Speaking of the Constitution, did you know that Affirmative Action is prohibited as per the 14th Amendment? Cool stuff.

Narland, The United States Of Patriots

Mother: I can't understand what my son is saying anymore!

Son: Understandable, have a nice day

Miencraft, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Humpheria wrote:White Castle makes me transcend my reality I swear

White Castle does have its charm. The economic hearth between the Cascades/Sierra Nevadas and the Rockies has no equivalent. It makes quite an impression the first time one has sliders that aren't from a cafeteria or mess hall.

Humpheria

The States Of Balloon wrote:Remember that time communists realized communism doesn't work? I wonder why that isn't brought up when discussing communism.

That is because (according to Communists) in the past it wasn't really communism (they were mad), or they just didn' t try hard or wisely enough (they were fools). Today's communists know better 'cuz they have more chronological snobbery and many more smarts than ever before. All they need now is a fresh country with total mastery over other people's lives, freedom, and properties and they can make it work this time, honest.

Someone should coin a term for doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results...

Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria

Narland wrote:That is because (according to Communists) in the past it wasn't really communism (they were mad), or they just didn' t try hard or wisely enough (they were fools). Today's communists know better 'cuz they have more chronological snobbery and many more smarts than ever before. All they need now is a fresh country with total mastery over other people's lives, freedom, and properties and they can make it work this time, honest.

Someone should coin a term for doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results...

Too right. I N S A N I T Y

You should come on Discord more often Narland. Always lots of fun.

Miencraft, Rateria

Reform is one man's salt and another man's power.

Hyderbourg

Kohalo wrote:I wouldn't exactly compare doctors in universal healthcare to slaves. Would you consider members of the police force as slaves as well?

Yes, public servitude is a form of specialized indenture that the private citizen is neither subject nor beholden to.

Police are either public servants whose power is delegated from the local constituency (peace officers -- every state Constitution has a clause that states that all political rights are inherent in the people--yes police powers are one) or derived as revenue agents of the state (law enforcement).

In my lifetime we have witnessed the confounding of the two. The Supreme court has ruled that the purpose of law enforcement is to generate revenue for the state and to secure the property rights in general not to protect the rights of the individual in particular. (9th circuit, i cannot access the citations right now.) Remember that when someone tells you that the police departments need to return to being public institutions independent of the state and subservient to the local constituency because this is important if/when we (the People) decommission the deep state by lawful means.

State legislatures (and Congress for federal officers) have had to enact special legislation allowing for special privilege otherwise they would have no more power than private persons making an arrest, investigating crime, issuing citations, or convening grand juries (which is still done in many places and technically lawful for every person to do in these United States even though Progressivism tries to squelch this aspect of American self-government.) There is no inherent right (technically power) of the state to have police powers (proper) without assumption of the usurping the inherent right of the people to self-government--to police oneself/ourselves apart from the state. This is a birthright of every American Citizen that few nations have ever known. It appears to be utterly despised by Progressivststs and Neoconcervatives alike.

In this state in the 50s police begged for legislation allowing them to pull over vehicles promising never to do so merely for writing tickets. (rofl -- fool me once). Then in the 60s they begged for the power to write tickets promising never to use it as a source of revenue (nsfnii? -- fool me twice). And the broken promises have continued. Recently they wanted to be armed with paramil gear and issue knock-down warrants (a 4th amendment violation unless there is imminent threat to life and limb) promising only to use it against armed drug dealers and gangsters to which is now used against anyone the police do not like or do not desire to deal with politically (general sense) such as otherwise peaceable farmers selling fresh milk.

Long story short-- Police are not a good example to use unless the example is for the impersonal bureaucracy that will be in control of your health and the master of your once sacred (now mundane) right (no longer) of doctor/patient privilege (--proper legal sense) and confidentiality to incrementally expand its power and authority.

Miencraft, The United States Of Patriots

Post self-deleted by Narland.

The Second Republic of Libertatem v. Hyderbourg and LibIceland has concluded. A jury has found both defendants guilty of all charges.

Jadentopian Order

I am now part of the WA

How long does citizenship take? I applied 15 days ago and have been waiting to get involved...

Miencraft wrote:The Second Republic of Libertatem v. Hyderbourg and LibIceland has concluded. A jury has found both defendants guilty of all charges.

Where can I see teh court case?

Tomaina wrote:How long does citizenship take? I applied 15 days ago and have been waiting to get involved...

That's my bad. You passed the five day waiting period. I'll get to it.

Forius wrote:Where can I see teh court case?

You can see it on our official Discord.

Rateria wrote:That's my bad. You passed the five day waiting period. I'll get to it.

I left the region because it wasn't getting anywhere, but I just got this message and moved back.

I hope I still qualify.

Tomaina wrote:I left the region because it wasn't getting anywhere, but I just got this message and moved back.

I hope I still qualify.

who are u

Forius wrote:Where can I see teh court case?

The court case is both in the #court channel on the discord and available as an imgur archive in the Justice Department factbook.

What court case? Is this regional politics again...

Hexvia wrote:What court case? Is this regional politics again...

Not really politics, just a court case.

Jadentopian Order wrote:Not really politics, just a court case.

We should stop worrying about what's worrying in game and focus on what's happening in real life.

This is a great outlet to talk policy!

Post self-deleted by Muh Roads.

The States Of Balloon wrote:Libertatem is built upon prentending we're better than other people.

we are

Miencraft wrote:The Second Republic of Libertatem v. Hyderbourg and LibIceland has concluded. A jury has found both defendants guilty of all charges.

have we ever had a former President banished? that's interesting.

Pevvania, The United States Of Patriots

Hexvia wrote:We should stop worrying about what's worrying in game and focus on what's happening in real life.

This is a great outlet to talk policy!

Dont worry, we will be returning to that shortly. Just had to deal with a few bad hombres.

Muh Roads wrote:have we ever had a former President banished? that's interesting.

Up next: We banish a god. But which one....?

Plazia

Muh Roads wrote:have we ever had a former President banished? that's interesting.

a former president got banished?????

Plazia

the discord link isn't working for me

Plazia

Forius wrote:the discord link isn't working for me

What seems to be the problem?

Plazia

Jadentopian Order wrote:What seems to be the problem?

Maybe it expired?

Plazia

Forius wrote:Maybe it expired?

Hmm, it worked fine for me. Are you on mobile or pc?

Plazia

[B]Statement From the Office of the President

[I]President Humpheria

Today our region has suffered a great loss. Justice has been served for crimes committed against our region and it is not my place to contest the ruling of the Court. However, we can all acknowledge that this has been a substantial loss to our region.

LibIceland, even through his explicit insults and brash demeanor, proved to be an engaged citizen that would have one day made a great leader in this region had he not ignored the Court and chosen to support his agenda through unethical means. The valuable cultural diversity that he has provided to our region will be sorely missed.

I would be remiss if I did not say a brief word about my predecessor. A proven public servant and true veteran of our region beginning his career in the last Republic as our Attorney General. I know that the region joins me in regretting his choice to also circumvent the law for the progression of his agenda. Though we obviously have not always agreed and recently our relationship has soured because of politics, which should never happen, I am glad that I have been able to count him as a friend, an ally, and my President.

Let this be a lesson to us all that Libertatem is a place that is open and welcoming to all. We have proven time and time again that change is attainable, aspirations are within reach, and our greatest dreams are tangible here. We must govern through friendly debate, we must return to civil discourse, we must move on. In Libertatem, you can do whatever you want but let this serve as a reminder that it is imperative to do it within the law and without corruption.

I know that every person here joins me in wishing Auxorii, LibIceland, and Hyderbourg the best of luck in their endeavors and that they carry with them the knowledge that we all regret that these actions have been necessary.

Now, let us move and move forward, together. Perge ad libertatem.

Humph

Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Jadentopian Order, Plazia

Forius wrote:Maybe it expired?

It couldn't have. That link is infinite.

Plazia

The Japanese were created for the purpose of making batter porn. They made futa instead.

Plazia

Muh Roads wrote:have we ever had a former President banished? that's interesting.

Just goes to show nobody is above the law, no matter how much they may think the law doesn't apply to them.

Rateria, Plazia

Miencraft wrote:It couldn't have. That link is infinite.

But it's not working guy

Plazia

Forius wrote:But it's not working guy

Well, then the problem is something on your end and you should look into whatever could be causing it.

Plazia

Hey wanna hear a joke

Plazia

The States Of Balloon wrote:Hey wanna hear a joke

Yeah

Plazia

Jadentopian Order wrote:Yeah

Me trying to interact with children

Plazia

The States Of Balloon wrote:Me trying to interact with children

That list is no joke.

Shirayuki Mizore, Kohalo, Plazia

The States Of Balloon wrote:Hey wanna hear a joke

Jadentopian Order wrote:Yeah

The States Of Balloon wrote:Me trying to interact with children

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good one man.

Plazia

[B]STATEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER

The outcome of the so-called 'Trial of the Century' is somewhat of a shock. As the defense attorney in this case, I will not question the decision of the jury or that of Justice Miencraft, but let it be known that my clients, LibIceland and Hyderbourg, will be looking to appeal this decision in due time. They love this region like all of us do and hope to be able to return.

As Speaker, it's imperative now more than ever that the law is clear on what is and isn't a crime, and the role of the judiciary. I will be working with the Senate and with Justice Miencraft to vote on legislation related to this soon.

As a presidential candidate, I will not seek to politically capitalise on this. But I will say that this region needs unity. The nastiest and perhaps most divisive episode in our region's history has, I hope, come to a close. I restate that I am running for President not with the RLP, but with the Free Libertatem Coalition. My campaign will work on outreach and bringing the region together behind economic recovery, a strong defense and healing our region's wounds. We must return to civil discourse and friendly debate. We must embrace what pulls us together.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the Republic of Libertatem.

Miencraft, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Fascist Dred, Jadentopian Order, Plazia

I resign from the Reform Party. I'll just be Independent

Plazia

I'll endorse them and caucus with them.

Plazia

The Reform Party will not give up

Kohalo, Plazia

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.