Life & Liberty Magazine: Julie Borowski: Should Pro-Life People be Forced to Subsidize Planned Parenthood?

Source:Washington Free Beacon- The Morning Joe & Mika.

Source:The New Democrat

With all due respect to Julie Borowski over at Life and Liberty Magazine who I personally don’t know and just saw her name for the first time a couple of days ago, she poses a silly question about Planned Parenthood. If her question about whether pro-life people should be forced to subsidize Planned Parenthood is serious, than so are questions like should anti-death penalty advocates be forced to pay for the death penalty of convicted murderers. Or should anarchists, be forced to pay for law enforcement. Should pacifists be forced to pay for the military. Should isolationists and people who are against foreign aid be forced to pay for foreign aid. And I could go indefinitely. But don’t worry, because in the interest of time I won’t.

When you live in a liberal democracy especially the size of the United States where we pick our leaders by majority vote in most cases and when each of us only have one vote, you’re not always going to get who you voted for. Because sometimes your candidates the people you voted for don’t win. Which means the opposition comes to power and if they have the power to do what they want, or win some political battles perhaps through compromise, they will get to set policy. And that even means establishing policy and laws that others disapprove of. Whether it is continue to fund law foreign enforcement, fund foreign aid, continue the death penalty with taxpayer funds, continue to finance corporate welfare with taxpayer funds and yes continue to fund Planned Parenthood. Which does perform abortions, but without taxpayer funds.

This question about whether the pro-life community should be forced to fund Planned Parenthood with their taxes, sort of reminds me of the question that Libertarians and Conservative Libertarians like to pose about the safety net, or the so-called social contract. And they say why should they be forced to pay for something that they didn’t personally sign and approve of when it was passed. Well, again a country is a community we all have to play by the rules that the leadership who are hired by the people put in place. And if we don’t like the rules that are put in place we can always vote out if we have a majority support the leaders who enforce the rules. But to try to put out this argument that you don’t like the rules so you’re not going to follow them, is quite frankly silly.
Source:Washington Free Beacon

Colgate University: 'Liberal Democracy and Its Limits'

Source:Colgate University- talking about liberal democracy.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"As a regime type, liberal democracy is defined in terms of its limits - respect for personal freedom; reliance on market mechanisms; governance through the rule of law, articulated through representative government, responsive to the peopel in periodic elections. It also limits its aspirations - it seeks to secure rights, rather than to save souls or mold the character of its citizens. Through limited, could liberal democracy be the "final" form of government, the end of history?" 

From Colgate University 

"Slides regarding Liberal Democracy for an undergraduate course in Political Thought that I taught between 2003-2005." 

Source:Slide Share- with a look at the real liberalism.

From Slide Share

I’m not sure there is an actual limit or limits to liberal democracy, other than the fact that people who aren’t fans of liberal democracy and individual freedom have the same freedom as people who believe in freedom. Even as much freedom that comes from liberal democracy. Whether they are on the Left or Right and because people who have more of a statist, or authoritarian beliefs when it comes to government. And can and do use their freedom to work for, donate, work and elect people whether they are on the Far-Right and Far-Left to put in their authoritarian form of government in place.

But the whole ideas and notions of liberal democracy and the liberal form of government and constitution, is built around a Constitution and Bill of Rights. And I would argue that it is built around the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is the people have a basic set of constitutional rights built around free speech, free assembly, right to privacy, freedom of press, the right to be educated, the right to practice, or not to practice religion. And that religion is separate from state in the sense that society isn’t governed based on religious beliefs.

But the best available facts not faith on the ground and the United States Constitution as well as the right to self-defense. And what separates liberal democracy from social democracy or majoritarian democracy, is that the constitutional rights that individuals have are constitutional and can’t be taken away from us, because they may seem to be unpopular at the time. That we are essentially guaranteed these basic rights our entire lives.

Just to add one more, property rights and self-ownership: that the people and not government own the economy and own their own property including themselves. And what comes with that is not only economic freedom, the right for one to chart their own course in life and make out of life what they can make of it and keep the rewards of what they produce for themselves. And society and not government collecting most of what people produce and giving it to other people, or spend that money for the people because they believe they better know what people in life need to live well.

And where a limited government comes in is to see that everyone has the ability to access freedom in their lives. To do for the people what they can’t do for themselves, or not do as well. And that we all have access to get the tools that we need to be successful in life and to live in freedom. And to me that comes with education, regulation to protect workers and consumers, not run business’s. And law enforcement and defense so the society has the freedom to move around and operate with a certain level of security.

You want to know what liberalism and liberal democracy is about, it’s these things. Individual freedom and rights and not having a superstate that is there to take care of us for us. And to protect us even from ourselves. Like having to see or hear speech that they may offend us to use as an example. Someone who believes in a superstate is not a Liberal, but a statist, or a paternalist whether they come from the Right or Left.

Yale University: Nicholas Wolterstorff- On Faith in Liberal Democracy

Source:Yale University- Professor Nicholas Wolterstorff. 

Source:FRS FreeState

"Miroslav Volf interviews Nicholas Wolterstorff of Yale University about the place of faith in liberal democracy. Wolterstorff discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various secular and  faith-based conceptions of justice and the public sphere, making a case for the relevance of religiously shaped discourses in deliberative democracies." 

From Yale University

Faith in liberal democracy is about the freedom of and from religion. But that they are separate from the state and that all of these things come from the Constitution. 

People have the right to practice, or not practice religion and that we have separation of church and state based on the Constitution. And that even though we have the freedom to believe what we believe. But we do not have the right to force our views on others especially through law. The right to be heard, but not the right to harass people with your views who disagree with you.

Liberals, get stereotyped as being anti-religion and that if anything we would want to see religion eliminated if not outlawed in society. Even though Liberals created the Freedom of Religion when we wrote the U.S. Constitution and created the United States. As well as the Bill of Rights that gives us all of these individual rights and freedom of choice to make these decisions for ourselves. Not the right to force our views on people who disagree with us. Which is much different and fascist even. But the fact is liberalism is built around individual freedom, rights and choices. And not statist, or fascist at all.

Now, I do believe that Liberals tend to be more secular than let's say Christian Conservatives, or Islamists. That goes without saying, because a big part of liberalism has to do with reason and evidence. That you go where the best available facts and evidence are. And take your positions and make your views based on that. Instead of using faith to make those decisions for yourself. 

But this is much different from saying that just because I or someone else is secular, that everyone else should be, or they have to be as well even through law. But again, liberalism is about individual freedom, choice and rights. That the individual can make these decisions for themselves.

Sean Penn: 'Why Liberal Democracy is Important'

Source:Korean 701- actor Sean Penn.

Source:FRS FreeState

"Why? Is "liberal democracy" important?" 

From Korean 701

Liberal Democrat is how I describe my personal politics and personal political philosophy. And what that means because liberalism and what it means to be a Liberal means different things to different people. To lets say today's so-called Progressives, (closeted Socialists, in actuality) liberalism is about government creating all sorts of programs to take care of people. I’m putting that loosely, but that is what it comes down to. 

There are all sorts of types of democracies around the world. Most democracies in the West and in developed countries tend to be social democracies. Which means the Parliament (generally just the lower chamber of Parliament) generally elected the head of state, generally a Prime Minister. In a country like that, it's the collective which is what the government supposed to be worried about and seeing that no one has to go without the basic necessities in life.

America is very different. Sure, we have a public safety net, but just for people who truly need economic assistance while they're struggling. But our form of government is designed to protect individual rights, not absolute economic equality. Which is why we have high, middle, and low-income people in America, depending on what skills and knowledge that we have to offer the country. But the entire developed world, has some form of democratic oriented government.

Thomas Jefferson: Freedom vs Big Government

Source:MEME- "America, Memes, and Thomas Jefferson: "The greatest danger to American freedom is"

Source:FRS FreeState

"The debate over Central Banking and the Big
Government that naturally accompanies it is
as old as our Republic.  In this scene, Thomas
Jefferson argues against a Central Bank and a
powerful central government and for an
economy based on Freedom.  Alexander
Hamilton argues for a Central Bank, a national
debt-based economy and federal government
authority.  This same debate continues today!"

From Ron Paul 2008

The United States Constitution is there to protect Americans from statists on the Far-Right and Far-Left. Who would otherwise ignore the Constitution because they believe government knows better than individuals themselves how Americans should live their own lives. The U.S. Constitution and our constitutional rights, are there to protect our freedom especially our privacy and our ability to make our own decisions in lives from a big government that believes that people are essentially stupid and need a big government to babysit them. Tell what to do and how to do it, that doesn’t trust people with their own lives.

As Jefferson put it the biggest dangers to freedom in America is a government and people in government who ignore the Constitution. Or perhaps just look at it as an advisory document, or playbook that politicians and other government officials can go to in order to decide what to do and what decisions to make. And that they can ignore it and when they disagree with it. But the thing is America is a constitutional federal republic and we’re not a social democracy where people can lose their rights because a simple majority views them as unnecessary and gets in their way of their big government vision.

A big difference between the American constitutional federal republic and liberal democracy from lets say an unitarian social democracy like Britain where so much power is centralized with the national government, is that Americans can’t lose their freedom and constitutional rights because the current government, or administration, Congress, view them as dangerous, or they become unpopular. Our constitutional rights and freedom are essentially guaranteed until we lose our freedom by hurting someone else’s freedom like an innocent person, or we take the life of an innocent person. But we can’t lose them because big government statists believe they interfere with their big government collectivist agenda.

FORA-TV: Daniel Lowenstein- 'Five Reasons to Keep the Electoral College'

Source:FORA-TV- Professor Daniel Lowenstein: on the Electoral College.

"UCLA Law Professor Daniel Lowenstein offers five arguments to maintain the Electoral College as the method for choosing the President of the United States.

The Electoral College was developed by our founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution as a system of checks and balances to ensure a fair outcome in the choosing of our presidents.

However, the highly publicized 2000 presidential election, in which Al Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the contest to George W. Bush, galvanized those who wish to see the Electoral College scrapped in favor of a national popular vote.

Come hear our panel of distinguished experts discuss the merits and pitfalls of the two systems, and the wisdom of moving from a tried and true process to something new - The Commonwealth Club of California

Daniel Lowenstein teaches Election Law, Statutory Interpretation & Legislative Process, Political Theory, and Law & Literature. A leading expert on election law, he has represented members of the House of Representatives in litigation regarding reapportionment and the constitutionality of term limits. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the award-winning theatre troupe Interact and regularly brings the company to the School of Law to perform plays with legal themes, such as Sophocles' Antigone, Ibsen's Rosmerholm, and Wouk's The Caine Mutiny Court Martial.

Professor Lowenstein worked as a staff attorney at California Rural Legal Assistance for two and one-half years. While working for California's Secretary of State, Edmund G. Brown Jr. in 1971, he specialized in election law, and was the main drafter of the Political Reform Act, an initiative statute that California voters approved in 1974, thereby creating a new Fair Political Practices Commission. Governor Brown appointed Professor Lowenstein as first chairman of the Commission. He has served on the national governing board of Common Cause and has been a board member and a vice president of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights."

From FORA-TV

Why do we have an Electoral College in the United States? To keep elitist Democrats and Republicans who believe people who live in small states are redneck and hillbilly's who don't matter and that their votes don't count, from ignoring them. If you're in a tight presidential race and it's going to come down to a few of states swing states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana matter and that forces you to campaign there. 

And those voters get to see who'll be the next President of the United States as well who are also taxpayers. Instead of snobby Democrats just campaigning in the Northeast, Mid Atlantic, Florida, a few big States in the Midwest and California. And just speaking to the wine and cheese yuppie crowds. Now they have to campaign in Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado. 

Or snobby Republicans just campaigning in the Bible Belt Bible toting crowds and cherry pick a few states in the Midwest. In order to get elected President of the United States. Now they have to see if they can pick off Pennsylvania or Michigan or Illinois or Wisconsin or Minnesota. That's why we have the Electoral College, to prevent snobby presidential candidates from just targeting 50% of the voting public. Plus one vote in order to get elected President of the United States. 

We don't live in a majoritarian democracy, where 50% plus one is all you need to get into power as far as being President. Or a parliamentary democracy where we let our members of Congress make these decisions for us. We live in a republic in a form of a liberal democracy and being President is harder to achieve. Is our Electoral College perfect? of course not, but I sure as hell would take over anything that the rest of the world has. But we could definitely improve it. 

And if that probably takes a constitutional amendment to accomplish that, then I would be open to that. I have a problem with presidential candidates winning the popular vote in at least one case by a million votes with Vice President Al Gore back in 2000 and not winning the presidency. Even though a million more voters preferred that Al Gore be President of the United States, instead of Governor George W. Bush. I'm not saying that as a Democrat, I really have a problem with that and see that as small d and l anti-liberal democratic. 

But not to the point where I'm willing to throw out the Electoral College. And replace it with a popular vote or move to a parliamentary social democracy like you see in Europe. I would like to see a political system that keeps the Electoral College, but amends it to be President of the United States, you have to win the Electoral College as well as popular vote. If there's a split decision, we would have a runoff a week later between the top two presidential candidates. Which would be decided by popular vote. 

I would like to see other changes to our presidential electoral system as well. If you only win lets says 40% of one state but finish first with multiple candidates, you shouldn't be awarded with all the electoral votes. But instead they would be divided up for everyone. Based on what percentage of the vote they get. 

If you win 60% of a state or more, then you can keep all of the electoral votes. That would be a better electoral system that would be more democratic. But not scrap the Electoral College because some people believe others have too much say based on where they live and don't like their culture and lifestyles. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.