Collectively yours.

[alexandraerin]

Alright, I think that if anyone has been reading my work for any time at all, then they are sure to definitely know that pedantry is among a couple things I just won't put up with. But, I'm going to take a moment to address a somewhat pedantic point that I think is worth emphasizing:

The plural of "person" is "persons", not "people".

"People", you see, is a collective noun.

In day-to-day conversation, the distinction's hardly worth noting. But when the foundational legal document of our nation begins "We the People", I think it's important to reflect on what that means. Legal documents are one of the few places you will see "persons" being used on a regular basis, because it has a distinct meaning separate from "people".

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Not "We, a bunch of persons". "We the People".

They built an entire episode of Star Trek around this, folks. That's how important it is.

I believe in individual liberties. I believe in privacy and freedom from interference. I believe in the power of the market and the right of persons to individually and collectively utilize it. I believe that when this happens, there will be a general trend towards the betterment of all. The poorest segment of the population of the United States today are generally better off than the poorest segments of the population a century ago.

But I also believe that there are times when our individual strengths aren't enough, there are times when masses of persons following immediate and obvious self-interest conflicts with the common good, and that in those times, We the People must come together.

Imagine if we tried to run a country where each person was responsible for the safety of themselves, their families, their homes, and their possessions. I don't just mean a reasonable level of personal responsibility. I mean that there are no police, no fire departments, no armed forces... if your house is attacked, by robbers or murderers or religious zealots or people who want the land it occupies, you are on your own.

Could you live the life you now live if you were solely responsible for your own protection? Even if you think the answer is yes, do you think the society you live in and the benefits you enjoy from that society could exist under those conditions?

Sure, your answer might be that if the government just disappeared we could all just band together with our neighbors and establish patrols and watch groups and fire brigades and militias... you know, come together for the common defense and promote the general welfare and... hey, this is starting to sound familiar, isn't it?

We the People.

It's easy to get people to agree with the benefits of collectively facing some threats. When your neighbor's home is on fire, yours is in danger. When your neighbor's home is burgled, your home could be next. When your neighbor is threatened by tyranny, what's to stop that tyrant from doing the same to you?

So how about when your neighbor is sick with an infectious disease?

What about when your neighbor is bankrupted by paying for a surgery?

What about when your neighbor can't afford the surgery in the first place?

Sure, you might be thinking, "I can't catch a broken leg.", but if the economy falls, it's taking you with it, and each person taken out of work or rendered destitute is a blow to the economy.

This looks like a job for... We the People.

Using large corporations to insure us against the cost of health care services is a poor substitute for using our collective power as "We the People" to ensure that each of us the persons has access to health care.

I don't know how we can have domestic Tranquility, common defense, or general Welfare when we won't to come together as a People to ensure the health of our population.

Comments

[sage-blackthorn.livejournal.com]

I agree that choosing not to wear seatbelts and secure the doors of one's vehicle doesn't strike me as particularly intelligent. But that was her choice, and she will have to deal with the consequences (should there be any. I remember years ago when all we had were lap belts in cars, and using them actually seemed to increase the incidents of whiplash during an accident. Plenty of people I knew growing up refused to wear them. But then the shoulder strap was introduced and people felt safer as the incidents of whiplash during car crashes went down.) Whether she is "still an absolute fucking idiot" or not, only time will tell.

One of the problems I have with government run, nationalized health care here in America is that I know people who are on it, and they do not recieve adequate care for their ailments. Most people don't know that health care on Indian Reservations IS government run, and according to my friends on the Rosebud and Pine Ridge Reservations, it's is severely lacking. There is a running joke on the Rez' "Don't get sick after August." Because by August all the funding has run out, and no one is being treated. According to the original treaties, the Federal Government of the United States of America is responsible for the health, safety and well being all Native Americans residing on designated Reservation Land in exchange for millions of acres of land that they gave up to the Federal Government.

So we have an example of how such health care currently works...or in this case the fact that it doesn't. It is severly lacking. If they can't get it right on the relatively small scale of the Reservations, I don't expect them to do any better on the larger scale of the entire nation. My girlfriend also likes to point out that Canada has a national health care system and it is the government and not the doctors or the individuals that decide which procedures are warranted and which aren't.

Now for those of us with no health insurance, having something to cover our basic needs would be a good thing....IF it is being properly run and it is available when it's needed. The current example of government run health care from the Reservations doesn't really inspire me with confidence that this will be the case.

My choice is to learn all I can about treating myself using what's available to me. Which is exactly what my friends on the Rez' have been doing for years since their government run health care system doesn't work. My belief is that if more people would do this, take care of themselves, their family, their friends and neighbors instead of relying on the medical industry and the government, they the nation as a whole would be better off. I think public funds would be better spent training students in school in first aid, CPR, and basic health care than in creating a nationalized healthcare system. I think people can do more for themselves than they have been led to believe by the AMA (which has a vested interest in getting people to pay doctors, who make up the membership of the American Medical Association, to treat them for as many problems as possible by increasing the people's confidence in the medical industry.)

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

Y'know, I wondered if my evolving opinion of you wasn't too harsh, and then I went back through my entries from just before my vacation and here I find you seriously making the argument that the way our government discharges its obligations to the original inhabitants of this continent are a benchmark for how much our government is capable of.

That's just special.

You're giving our government/society too much credit and not enough, at the same time. You're giving us too much credit by positing that the situation on the reservation is a matter of us honestly trying our best to meet our obligations and failing. You're not giving us enough credit by positing that we couldn't meet that obligation... and a similar obligation to each and every citizen of our nation... if we actually tried.

It's possible for France to do it. I'd like to know why it's not possible for us.

Sure, seatbelts increased incidences of whiplash. And you know what? Every time there's a technological advance in body armor available to soldiers, there's an increase in the amount of battlefield injuries. Whiplash is better than dying because you went flying through the windshield and injuries are better than fatalities.

But that was her choice, and she will have to deal with the consequences (should there be any

You live in a dreamworld just like she does, a dreamworld where you and only you are responsible for everything that happens to you and your actions have no consequences beyond you. There is no magical imp or angel making sure that the idiot who doesn't wear a seatbelt does not impact a responsible person wearing one. The person she hits because of her idiotic decision will have to deal with the consequences of said idiotic decision.

My belief is

You're advocating a world where there is a genetic health tax and a luck tax, where the bar for survivability is raised higher than it needs to be. Fuck you. Fuck you hard. You're naively advocating for evil.

[sage-blackthorn.livejournal.com]

"You're advocating a world where there is a genetic health tax and a luck tax, where the bar for suvivability is raised higher than it needs to be. Fuck you. Fuck you hard. You're naively advocating for evil."

I think this is another subject we will simply have to agree to disagree on. I do really hope that a public health care system that works well for the nation as a whole can be developed and implemented. I just don't think it's likely to happen within my lifetime. Not as divided as the nation is on so many issues. But if France can do it, perhaps there is hope.