Friday, May 18, 2012
What's on your mind? Minimize

Do you have a unique perspective on the world around us today?  Join our current bloggers to share and inform others.

May 3

Written by: Jennifer Madsen
5/3/2009 6:34 PM 

“It were contrary to feeling & indeed ridiculous to suppose that a man had less right in himself than one of his neighbors or indeed all of them put together. This would be slavery & not that liberty which the bill of rights has made inviolable and for the preservation of which our government has been charged. Nothing could so completely divest us of that liberty as the establishment of the opinion that the state has a perpetual right to the services of all it's members.”
-Thomas Jefferson 1782

What percentage of my labor must the state claim prior to my designation as an indentured servant? In the interest of public good, the federal government adopted the policy of sharing the products of one man’s labor with the less fortunate. The new policies contorted the definition of “the general welfare” and exceeded the constitutional limits of the Federal Government . The intentions of the politicians are noble, because suffering is unacceptable in America. Despite the intentions, the results are contrary to our founding principles of liberty and equality.

In a truly equal society, each individual would receive the same benefit from the same amount of personal investment. Absolute fairness and equality is unobtainable because no two individuals are identical. Some people are better at math or are more athletic. Some are just plain lucky. Redistribution of the citizen’s assets destroys the notion of fairness. If we have to rights to our labor, then we have no rights at all.
Our republic offers only a single guarantee, that all people may pursue happiness. Our freedom will grant each citizen the freedom to pursue happiness as desired. The paths will vary as too the results. A man’s definition of happiness is a personal preference as well. My talents and tenacity will bring either success or failure. Freedom is a risky venture, but a far better alternative to accepting government issued mediocrity.

Tags:

3 comment(s) so far...

Re: Limits of Public Duty

I would also asert that the framers intended that everyone was given an equal starting point, but where he ended was up to each individual. Great blogs!! Keep 'em coming. And I think you will whip us all at Founder's Ink.

By SkragAlpha on   5/3/2009 10:39 PM

Re: Limits of Public Duty

HOW TRUE THIS HAS BECOME

By dlm3122 on   5/12/2009 8:35 AM

Re: Limits of Public Duty

How much does Congress actually care about our health?


H.R.1495
Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make health care coverage more accessible and affordable.
Cosponsors: None!!!
In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the federal income tax an amount equal to the sum of (1) the amount paid by the taxpayer for insurance which constitutes medical care for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and dependents, plus (2) the amount contributed to a health savings account of the individual (or the individual's spouse).

A simple way to help pay for medical care by letting Americans keep more of their money. No support.

Instead, Congress wants to spend a few trillion dollars—and impose sweeping regulations.

Also with zero support in the House, by the way:

H.R.2630
Title: To protect the privacy of patients and physicians.
Cosponsors: None
All individuals shall have the ability to opt out of any Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system for maintaining health care information. No Federal funds shall be used to support, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of standard unique health identifiers (such as those described in section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act, before the amendment made by subsection (a)(1)) in any Federal, State, or private health care plan.
No information from any electronic medical record maintained by a health care provider and created pursuant to a Federally mandated, created, or funded program may be shared with another health care provider absent a signed, informed consent from the patient involved. This shall not apply in a medical emergency. No health care information from an individual medical record shall be placed in a Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of health care information, absent a signed, informed consent from the patient involved.
The Federal Government may not require a health care provider to participate in any Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of maintaining health care information. No health care provider shall be denied participation in, or otherwise sanctioned with respect to participation in, a Federal health care program because the provider refuses to participate in a Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of maintaining health care information.
Unless you live in Texas's 14th District, your Congressman is on board with neither of these bills. Let him know these bills are vital steps in improving health care in America. www.CampaignForLiberty.com

By Tom Rankin on   8/9/2009 11:05 AM

Your name:
Your email:
(Optional) Email used only to show Gravatar.
Your website:
Title:
Comment:
Add Comment   Cancel 
Search Blogs Minimize
Copyright 2010 by The Baton Rouge Tea Party, LLC