Collectively yours.
Sep. 2nd, 2009 12:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexandraerinAlright, 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:
"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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2009-09-15 05:34 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
on 2009-09-18 02:35 am (UTC)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.