Why I think it is challenging for the government to ration our care.

[kandrathe]

What if the disagreements are real, reflecting real interests, values, and ideas, rather than just being a matter of childish nonsense?

They certainly do represent *real* disagreements, which are not the nonsense and childishness I was thinking about.

Whatever real interests, values and ideas are debated, I feel it should be done by *reason* over appeals to authority, or dogma. For example, the Constitutional Challenge to Abortion or, relying on debate on climate change rather than the bullying of skeptics with the petard of “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: 'climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.' ” Again, it is an argument to forego reason, and instead appeal to authority. Again, it is not that I am promoting either case, just the use of reason, and embracing the evidence directly.

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory." --Leonardo da Vinci


First, we all need to recognize and accept that we are diverse, each of us contributing to a diversity of views. We all need to keep our sacred cows tethered in our own yard. That is, we need to agree that while one person's views may differ, others may fully embrace the alternative, or opposite view. Then, too often we trespass into others pastures to slay their cows on our principles. For example, the Blue Law remnant of prohibition that still exists (in my state) where liquor sales are prohibited on Sunday (the Christian Sabbath). I quit reckless living when I decided to have my children, but I fully support my neighbors ability to go for a beer run before the football game. I make my choices, and others should be free to act so long as it does not impinge on our common concerns (e.g. drunk driving, or disorderly conduct). Finally, the objective is NOT to win the vote to your side, but to find a compromise that is acceptable to a broad majority. We need to return to frameworks that promote reasoned inclusion of compromises, and exceptions where necessary, to create acceptable laws. Again, using the ACA as an example, it was passed by Democrats unilaterally with no compromise. It is now undone by Republicans in the same manner. Both are wrong. Then, in implementation, Catholic (and other) non-profit organizations had to go to court to protect their freedom of religious expression within their own organizations to prevent mandates written in the ACA.

Conservatives and liberals seem to have mirror image approach to paternalism. Liberals champion intrusive laws for the competent while conservatives prefer to rely on individuals to makes their own choices. Conservatives champion intrusive laws for those deemed incompetent for whom liberals prefer to treat as a protected class. For example, in public health paternalism liberals promote anti-smoking, taxes on unhealthy products, a strict risk-averse EPA, and tight controls on FDA oversight of product safety. It just happens that novel new drugs, or the use of cannabis might help some people. The occasional consumption of a bunch of salty french fries with a super sized soda is *bad* while the free distribution of clean needles for safe heroin use is *good*.

On the other side, conservatives hinder logical reasoned things, like stem cell research, or limit access to medical marijuana, and as I stated above promote laws restricting liberty based on religious doctrine where no harms are done to others, or to the commons.

My reflection on the nonsense are more in the form of the drama, for drama sake. For example protesters are organizing events outside Ivanka Trump's private home. It is ridiculous that a private citizen merely related to a public official is targeted for harassment. This ( in my view) is protected by the first amendment, but it is almost as reprehensible as that addressed in Snyder v Phelps. We might support their rights to speech, but I feel it is a really sleazy thing to do. It is drama that creates adversity, does not engage in debate, is against things that have not happened, and results in no action. Or, The list of democrats holding their breath on the inauguration. Drama. I understand that some people do not like him vehemently, and wouldn't want to be there. I wouldn't want to be there. But, as a leader you can choose to lead into a position of compromise and unity, or division and opposition. What do they expect to happen? Coup d'Etat, martial law, call for a new election? Are we really descending to the level of third world politics?

We have the right to protest the government for the redress of grievances. What would the protest be about? It is about their fears of future actions of her father. What about reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of peaceable protest?

This would only be possible if both sides had similar inherent values and goals, just with some differences. As it is, it is not a real possibility.

I disagree. While the early "United States" had a continent in common, their viewpoints were worlds apart. These differences only once resulted in a civil war, but we might be moving that way again.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/p...an-public/

http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/p...y-in-2016/

I don't even know what that looks like; Heartland versus the coasts? Urbans versus rurals?