This is an absurd comment. There has been no repeal of any of the liberty-destroying policies that were put in place by the last administration, despite promises to do so. These measures have a different flavor, but still increase the size and bloat of a government that has become so corrupt, bureaucratic, expensive and burdensome that we serve it more than it serves us.



It certainly is not the beginning of the end of liberty. As far as medicine is concerned, that may have been the Harrison Act, almost a century ago. I'm not claiming that it's the beginning of anything. It's just more sliding down the slippery slope you alluded to.



There have been several valid and tangible arguments mentioned here. You just don't agree with them. This is a complex issue and your assertion that those opposed to this bill have completely baseless positions seems a bit extreme. While the majority may have supported some kind of reform in health care, the majority (of citizens) did not support this bill. Even if it passed, it was a very, very narrow majority. Perhaps there are actually valid arguments on the other side?

This idea of majoritarianism makes me think of an answer to Bitt's question of me regarding the role of a FEDERAL government. It does not follow that because I oppose the Patriot Act, War on Drugs and National Health Care that I don't see a morally legitimate use for an Army, freeways and some forms of environmental protection.

Here's an idea I had that bridges the gap between philosophy (where I hope to have made my arguments), and practicality (where I think almost every counter argument has been in this thread). If an overwhelming majority of the nation supports Something (like the existence of an army or freeways), say over 95%, AND that Something is impractical to provide through non-governmental means, then I think there is a reasonable case that the Something is a legitimate "public good" (used in a very specific philosophical sense, not just meaning beneficial to people), and probably should be a service or function of the federal government.

Private industry could never create something like a fighter plane or an aircraft carrier, for example, as nobody would buy such an extremely-designed piece of machinery. As an example, I would guess that easily 95% of Americans would support federal measures to ensure clean water supply and to protect our borders.

You guys, let's be real. We have FEDERAL laws encouraging the purchase of hybrid vehicles, while we DESTROY used vehicles they replace. This is insanity! We destroy real wealth (used vehicles) to try to create fake demand for vehicles. If we really cared about the environment, we'd drive USED cars (recycling the car by driving it), rather than providing tax credits for hybrids which use extremely toxic batteries. The energy saved during the life of the hybrid can't compare with it's shorter life and production expense (in energy and hazardous materials) vs. driving a used car. Meanwhile, I get no tax credit for a motorcycle, which gets 25% better fuel economy than the Prius. These things happen because as soon as we want the federal government to fix everything it becomes an avenue for corruption and special interests. Why in the WORLD does anyone expect heath care to be any different? The government is incompetent and corrupt. Amazingly, almost everyone agrees with this, but still looks to government to fix all their problems. Our Founding Fathers knew this, and saw it all throughout history, which is why they took fairly extreme measures to contain it.

Those non-Americans on this board who don't understand this argument probably don't understand that point. America was founded, at root, on the principle of extreme distrust in government. Much of that distrust is gone today, despite overwhelming evidence that such distrust is well founded.