Old post but Ronda the thing that is wrong with your Catholic friend’s belief that Healthcare (whatever that is) should be a fundamental human right is the flawed concept of rights.

We have no “rights”. We are made from nothing. All that we have is a gift. The sacramental approach of giving thanks to God for ask we are given is not compatible with the secular notion of rights.

Certainly we have a God given gift of stewardship for the life and wholeness of others but that has nothing to do with rights.

Who must always recognize, guarantee and protect rights but an authority that has the ability to destroy and kill in the exercise of said protection.

Rights especially in the political sense is a recipe for tryanny of the most inhuman sort.

They will blame whatever depredations and economic ills they suffer at that time on the residual effects of the past century’s greed and materialism. And they will be swinging back toward a social conservatism rooted in the inevitable need for social stability and regimentation required by their new police state and it’s overlords. Gone will be the liberalism, hedonism and hyperactive sense of self-value and individual worth. Replaced by a new “revolutionary consciousness” of assimilation and conformity to the state party line.

In short, they will be full of mythologized historical context and very lean on actual facts. They will be firmly convinced that the revolution “saved them” from the most corrupt empire that ever existed on the face of the Earth. And they will know NOTHING of the failures of collectivism in its formative years.

The liturgy, and anything else of the Church, are not to be taken as literal, blanket unqualified justification for anything else, least of all commerce/trade of any and every sort.
The key to that qualification is in the liturgical understanding of “we offer unto thee”.
In other words it’s the spirit of all commerce and trade that matters, not the “letter” of political laws that may be manipulated into governance, such as Corporations being “persons”.
As the film The Corporation shows, if corporations were indeed a human entity instead of human organization, then the behavioral history of corporations is sociopathic and they should be prosecuted and abolished for violating the commonwealth, the common good.
For “commerce” and “trade” to be liturgical (sacramental), commerce and trade must be performed to the glory of God, and not used for the purpose of hoarding of human wealth for power, position and prestige, human earthly glory. Neither should such commerce and trade treat the things of Creation as a mere “commodity” (a political ideology, not Christian teaching), to be bought and sold for the purpose of “creating wealth”, since Creation is a manifestation of the Glory of God, and rightfully only belongs to God.
Native Americans did not practice commerce and trade in such manner as is practiced today.
As God’s provision for the sustenance of fallen human nature, Creation is to be shared for such sustenance of all humanity, and not mostly for a few at the expense of many.
The benefits of commerce and trade that provide the material elements that contribute to the Eucharist, like the Eucharist itself, are to be shared with every penitent, and not reserved exclusively or mostly for those who own the “means of production”, the vineyard or field from whence come the grapes and wheat.

The whole earth is a living icon of the face of God. I shall not cease reverencing matter, by means of which my salvation has been achieved. …For everything good must be assigned to Him from Whom every good thing arises
St. John Damascene 675 – 749 A.D.

The things and possessions that are in the world are common to all, like the light and this air that we breathe….. All these things were made for all in common solely for use and enjoyment; in terms of ownership they belong to no one. But covetousness, like a tyrant, has intruded into life, so that its slaves and underlings have in various ways divided up that which the Master gave to be common to all. …She has deprived all other men of the enjoyment of the Master’s good gifts, shamelessly pretending to own them, contending that she has wronged no one. …I tell you that they owe a debt of penitence to their dying day for all that they so long have kept back and deprived their brothers from using.
St. Symeon the New Theologian 949 – 1022 A.D.

The loss of the American Republic is due to the conversion of the USA into an empire and the transformation of the American Republic into a national security state, a state which uses national security as cover for all manner of global economic imperialism that includes intelligence of many forms – including running guns, dealing drugs, partnering with the mafia, COUINTELPRO, FBI counterintelligence, psyops, spooks, game theory warfare, etc. etc.
The transformation of America from republic to national security state has its roots in WWII and its aftermath, especially the Marshall Doctrine. Today the key words sure to induce predictable, propaganda emotional response in citizens transformed into consumers are terrorism and socialism, just as once it was communism.

A Real Christian concerned for Real Freedom, like G. K. Chesterton, knew that Hudge (the “left”, “big government”) was kith and kin to Gudge (the “right”, “big business”). Chesterton exposed the nakedness of both Gudge and Hudge as being cut from the same cloth of the leisure, governing class, aka aristocracy. To read Chesterton’s take on English politics of 1900 is to deja vu over contemporary American politics, showing that nothing really changes substantially in the world. So it’s amazing that someone who claims to be Christian, would expect to change the world of politics, with of all things, politics.
Not long after Chesterton, Orwell too showed the nonsense behind Hudge and Gudge with his “two legs ba-a-ad, four legs good”, in which Gudge farmer has a human face, but acts like a pig, and Hudge society evolves to have only a pig face, that acts no differently than Gudge.
Chesterton’s thoughts are distinguishable from those of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk, which is what sets Christian wheat apart from contemporary conservatives in America. There are American Joes out there who are in essence Gudge operatives – trying to pull wool over the eyes of Chestertonian Joneses. At best, Gudge supporters don’t understand political truths Chesterton tried to impart, are simply deluded by the propaganda of Gudge, and their need to have an enemy in Hudge to hate, instead of love.
One need only read Chesterton’s What’s Wrong with the World, especially Part One, chapters VIII to XI +, to see how Hudgian-Gudgian psyops work, and understand why Gudge is no protector of freedom, morality, etc. what have you.
A searchable digital copy can be had by Googling “G. K. Chesterton’s Works on the Web”
Only a fool, someone who hadn’t read What’s Wrong…, or who has no reading comprehension whatsoever would claim that in America the left is the party of Hudge big government and should be opposed by supporting, aiding and abetting the right, which is none other than the party of Gudge big business.
To be pro business is to be anti big business. Big business and big government are one and the same, because big business does not exist without big government entitlement subsidies. Buying into the lie that big business is legally a person is a sure sign of propaganda delusion. As the film The Corporation shows, the history of corporate business behavior is sociopathic, and grounds for incarcerating corporate big business so it can no longer selfishly harm society.

Chesterton’s whole point about Hudge and Gudge is that both work against Jones, the common man (woman and child).
That American “conservatives” who claim to be Christian would rail against Hudge, but crawl in bed and cozy up to Gudge just because he gives lip service to anti-abortion and shrinking government when it comes to individual social services, but not when it comes to corporate business subsidy, is beyond me.
Such manipulation of Jones is something well illustrated by Chesterton in What’s Wrong With The World.
I have listened to Gudgian “christian” rationale and find it steeped in Burke and Kirk. Burke ‘n Kirk abhor the French Revolution in favor of the English Glorious Revolution that preserved the aristocracy, but Chesterton argues against such monomaniacal myopic view and in favor of republicanism of the French Revolution, that unfortunately has been co-opted by Hudge and turned into yet another Gudge type of politics that works against the Joneses.

In What’s Wrong…, Chesterton refers to “Burke, a fine rhetorician, who rarely faced realities” and to Burke and Nietzsche as sophists and the “most intelligent apologists of the aristocracy”, and also to Burke as an “atheist”.
(Search the PDF of What’s Wrong.. for “Burke”)
Chesterton’s analysis shows rightist Joes to be Gudges who ignore that Gudge’s counterpart, Hudge, is really no worse than Gudge, and in many respects one and the same.
Google for the salaries of American Congress members and their net worth, and you’ll see that they’re all millionaires.

As Chesterton reasons, much if not all the progressive nonsense that is traditionally associated with Hudge on the left, originated from Gudge on the right who is not interested in “tradition” as it would seem and is usually believed . Instead, the English aristocracy (and likewise the American oligarchy) has always been really interested only in the future because restless leisure class is perpetually bored with the past and the present, and always looking forward to future change, and to some way of holding onto such privilege in the face of changing times.
Watch enough period costume drama on BBC and that becomes readily apparent.

Thank God! for the complete thinker Chesterton capable of countering gullible myopic monomaniacal victims of propaganda – a one and only veritable Moses capable of leading us Joneses out of modern slavery to left and right, to Hudge and Gudge, both of whom serve no one and nothing but the interests of their monied elitism.
I find it hard to believe that any Christian who stands for Love of God as they should, could be deceived by mammon worship, from either “left” or “right”.
A century after Chesterton, the video works of Adam Curtis, Scott Noble, and John Pilger, show that Chesterton was right about left and right. Others before them like Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler (War is a Racket), Franklin ‘Chuck’ Spinney, and Anthony C. Sutton have done the same.
Neither the political right, nor the state of Israel, are the sole embodiment of morality. The fallen nature of all humanity, renders all parties prone to evil as well as good.
The failure of Gudge to actually uphold the Christian ideal is what has led to Hudge as an alternative to the difficulty of really living that Christian ideal.

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.”
— G.K. Chesterton

My Dad fought in WWII in the Pacific in the Amphibian Engineers. He saw a lot of action. My Father-in-Law was on Gaudalcanal. It makes me sad to think what both of them went through to have our present government throw all away that they risked their life for and fought for. Shame on our government. And shame on the people of this country to be so stupid, lazy and uncaring to elect Obama back into office.

Thanks for that, Cynthia. Very interesting. On the subject of sound money, the Byzantines seemed to be ahead of us with the solidus.

The second lesson from Byzantium is monetary. In addition to establishing his new capital, Constantine the Great created a currency of unparalleled stability. The gold solidus, or nomisma, maintained its value and was the primary international currency in Eurasia until the 11th century.

Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297227/lessons-byzantium-michael-auslin

You are probably also familiar with the Dumbarton Oaks work on the Byzantine economy, edited by Angeliki Laiou. You can download the entire work for free: http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/books-in-print/dumbarton-oaks-studies/the-economic-history-of-byzantium

OBTW, there’s that little thing called the Tenth Amendment. Why why might that be ther?

Seraphim,
   17, 18…. Hey, it was late and I was bleary-eyed so didn’t count right. The power to impose & collect taxes is a power, granted, but it can only be exercised to the extent that such taxes serve an enumerated power.  Congress cannot tax (constitutionally) to fund something NOT enumerated in the constitution.  It can’t be used as a loop hole to bring in a power not delegated to it in the constitution.  That, or the “general welfare argument” are often cited as justification for new powers.  Such is indisputably counter to the Founders’ intent (and therefore, unconstitutional) and is clearly argued/documented in history. Again, look at the ratification debates.  We would not have a State of Virginia in the union today, for example, if what you argue was true.   
    This fear of federal overreach based on the language of these clauses, and others, in the constitution, was much of the reason for the Bill of Rights, which was demanded by many of the states before they would sign the constitution.
   Second, as I have said, it is not logical, an argument your comments do not address, yet.  As a matter of simple reason, how can a compact intended to severely limit the federal government intentionally contain clauses intended to give it unlimited powers? Non sequitur.  
    Reached, and grasped.   🙂

Mark,

There are 18 not 17 enumerated congressional powers in Article I, Section 8. The 1st is the power to impose & collect taxes for the purposes of paying debts as well as for providing for the common defense & general welfare of the nation. This is clear from the text itself.

This 1st power is not an introductory clause, as you claim, describing how congress is allowed to use the tax revenue. For example, congress doesn’t need tax dollars to perform the 2nd power of borrowing money on the credit of the U.S., or to perform the 3rd power of regulating commerce, etc – it merely exercise the power. On the other hand, it does need revenue to build post offices & roads (7th power), raise & support armies (12th power) etc.

You’re reaching for something beyond your grasp with this argument.

Ronda:

You asked me where I came up with the notion that you were implying that consent and not majority rule should be what our national decision are based upon. Well, you stated and quoted the following:

What our nation needs, in my opinion, is to

“…restore a system of common law based on the precepts of natural law, which is discovered through long human experience, tradition and careful deliberation, and rests on the normative foundation of unanimity and consent, not majority rule and force.” http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/hunter-l1.1.1.html

Also, if you don’t believe that the Founding Fathers built a mechanism into the U.S. Constitution that allows the federal government to make changes regarding taxes and public services in order to address the changing needs of the nation as the generations passed then how do you explain the two quotes from the U.S.C. (Article I, Sections 7 & 8) that I presented above to Mark on July 18th?

Seraphim,
     Regarding the social contract, where am I to go? Will I be permitted to leave, either by this country or by the country to which i am to emigrate? There is no assurance whatsoever.  Other countries have similar or worse ‘terms and conditions’.  Is that really a choice? Is understanding that if I behave a certain way, I won’t be thrown in jail mean that I have consented to some contract whose terms are unknown and unknowable and subject to unilateral modification on the whim of the government?  No. It just means I don’t want to go to jail.  
     Article I Section 7 is an explanation if the mechanics of how legislation becomes law.  It does not explain or identify the limits or freedom Congress has with respect to the subject of legislation. 
    The  Article I Section 8 phrase you referenced is introductory.  It means that Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes IN ORDER TO do the subsequently enumerated powers only.  
    Additionally, on logic alone your argument fails.  The entire point of the constitution was to set up a general government of very limited powers, and to articulate what those powers are.  Historically, that is not in dispute.   If the introductory clause and the term “general welfare” in particular were meant to confer on congress powers beyond those subsequently enumerated, what would be the need for the enumeration?  It would make no sense to say “you have these 17 powers, but that ‘general welfare’ thing, go ahead and do everything else you want to do under that clause’.  
    Finally, we don’t even need to rely on the logic, because we have history on our side.  So if you are still unsure, consult the Federalist Papers, and more importantly, the transcripts of the ratifying conventions of the several States, where the meaning of the language and intent (of all parts, but these sections in particular) were debated and explained extensively.  
     Laissez faire does and has existed, particularly in specific markets/commodities for particular periods of time.  And near-laissez fair exists today in many more (lightly or nearly unregulated products/markets). As discussed, its end in the health care and health insurance markets began about a century ago, and was greatly accelerated in the 60’s. 
     Yes, I know we have to deal with things as they are, but we have to strive for things as the ought to be.  Faith without acts is empty, right?  In the same way, in earthly matters, seeking to improve things for myself, the rest of the country, and for my kids seems is a worthy endeavor.  I know, though, you can’t turn a battleship on a dime, but we can start.  And if I can’t personally have an impact on laws, at least I might change the minds of thoughtful people, and soon we will have enough people who love liberty and are willing to work for it.  If nothing else, I and my fellow travelers will keep the ideas alive, so that when the cataclysm comes (very likely, and not long from now), the ideas are there, ready to pick up and run with by the survivors. 
    Your Physicians for a National Health Program plan (based on your description- I still haven’t read much on it yet, but will try) might be the better of two bad policies if of no other reason than it is voluntary.  However, first, as I’ve established, it is unconstitutional (not that that matters to the Feds).  Second, though, a monopsony has problems much like a monopoly.  It is likely to cause shortages, lower quality, and higher costs.  
  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/the_problem_with_a_health_care.html, and, http://www.liberatehealthcare.com/models/monopsony_Goodman.htm

    Again, saying that health care is an item that “does not belong in the free market” still just seems to be the wishing away of reality.  If we say that people ought to provide health care out of charity to the needy, that is one thing and is a fine sentiment and activity, and good for the soul.  That wish and hope does not by itself provide any justification for the government providing it, constitutionality aside, even.  Government having its hands in it, and any market, will be worse than in a free market.

“If one rejects laissez faire on account of man’s fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.” – Ludwig von Mises. Planning for Freedom

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” 
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law