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

[hnmic.livejournal.com]

AE you know I thoroughly enjoy reading what you write at all times, well most times anyway, but today I love reading you.

As the neighbor who is being bankrupted by medical bills (thanks for the reminder: I need to call my lawyer), I salute you.

[gamercow.livejournal.com]

I'm a commie, and I endorse this message. *stamp*

Seriously, though, I love dumbfounding the right-wing when they say that public health care is "communist", like there's something wrong with that. I usually say things along the lines of "Ok, let me get rid of all the "commie" government plans. No more police, no more fire department, no more DPW, no more public schools" etc. etc.

[sage-blackthorn.livejournal.com]

I remember reading somewhere that having a Fire Dept. actually seems to encourage people to have more accidental fires in the first place. I can't remember if it was Daniel Quinn or Derrick Jensen that pointed it out in one of their books. But I remember reading a story about a community that had a fire percentage of accidental fires every year. One year a major disaster of some sort hit and the roads to a certain neighborhood became blocked. The Fire Chief sent out an announcement that due to the blockage, no trucks would be able to get through to put the fires out. Amazingly, that community had fewer "accidental" fires while the Fire Dept. was unable to respond.

The theory was that people have become lazy, relying on the state to take care of them. Living in a disposable culture where it doesn't matter if all your possessions get burned up, your insurance will pay for all new possessions. People don't matter because material possessions have become more important than people. Well, I won't say that people don't matter in the modern world, but they are not valued as much as products and production seem to be.

In short this way of life ENCOURAGES people to be thoughtless and careless, because subconsciously they know they don't HAVE to take care of things themselves. Only problem is things are breaking down and it's not working anymore. To many people and not enough resources to go around. The more I think about it, I think it was one of Derrick Jensen's books.

[andy9306.livejournal.com]

Don't want to be rude, and I'm aware that the previous post especially was meant to reach the broadest audience possible, but you do have a politics blog.

It doesn't matter to me where the posts end up, I'll read them on either one, but you seemed to want the political stuff over in the other one.

Meh.

[pyrtolin.livejournal.com]

What really gets to me is just how many people who cry out that way and claim that they're promoting capitalism seem to be completely out of touch with how it's supposed to work.

http://healthcareforallcolorado.org/pdfs/Adam_Smith.pdf (http://healthcareforallcolorado.org/pdfs/Adam_Smith.pdf)

The direct quotes on the matter, from the root foundation of capitalism at that, fly completely against them. In fact, what they push for is more like the mercantile system that it was supposed to displace.

[aniraangel.livejournal.com]

Can I just say, as an Aussie, that I do not understand America.

Honestly. WHO CARES IF IT'S CALLED COMMUNISM OR CAPITALISM OR WHATEVER? *headdesk* thisisnotthefifties.




Also, the freedom of speech thing is nice... but I like knowing that the government isn't inclined to let me die or drown in medical debt.

Once when I was 14 I asked my great Aunt (Aunty Duck) what she thought on communism and she smiled at me and said 'We all live in communities, Steph. Aren't we all communists a little?'