Supreme Court

I like to keep this a forum of clear thinking without dogma. It is hard to make points using sarcasm and humor when writing because it is too easy for readers to get the wrong idea and think you are being mean. Another pitfall to avoid is that of tearing down structures around us to make ours look bigger. What is presented here should stand on its own merit without having to resort to characterizations.

In the past, we have gone over Aristotle's teachings and I am going to continue these of expositions on my other site therationalelement.com. There are good things stirring around there. This site is really for honest opinions that have a some thought applied. I am hoping it is nice for you all to step aside from the hype of our media culture for a bit and just look at things objectively and optimistically. 

With the recent Supreme Court decisions, we should spend a little time sorting them out. Regardless what laws are passed in a land, people who have good character and are willing to keep themselves sharp in mind and body will be okay. I am not one who ascribes to the decay of society teachings or apocalyptic notions. Our struggle is within ourselves to make the best of successes, failures, and random events every day. Things can happen at any time that turns a culture around from a perk based society to a survival based one. All we can do just work hard and enjoy the show. 

Both Court decisions are related in some ways. First concerning the subsidies for health care; they are a way to equalize the benefits of insurance for everyone. Those who can't afford insurance are forced to get it from exchanges and those under a certain income will have taxpayers paying part of their insurance. This is a boon for insurance companies and hospitals since not only do they get more insured people but they aren't forced to cover as many people who don't carry insurance. This makes every individual responsible to insure themselves. It all sounds good, but the problem is how to get the taxpayer base to pay for it all since we are already in steep debt. The only thing missing in the equation is much higher taxes. Allowing an impersonal entity make health decisions can also be an issue, but that happens already on a corporate level. The intention is to get healthcare as a right for everyone. This eventually will turn into a single pay system with the government directly paying for everyone to get equal health care. The next obstacle will be overcome through demonizing insurance companies. The methods will be unreasonable demands with little payback and then showcasing the lack of care while the supposedly rich insurance company executives live high on the hog. Wealthy politicians, however, will be presented with an angelic aura. We can only guess how long it will take to get there. But again we can stay healthy and live well while giving random tragedies our best efforts. 

Love isn't something that can be qualified by legal means. If it is there, it is there. People of like minds will be attracted to each other, sometimes cohabit, while some do so and have sex. None of this requires legal intervention. What is the benefit of marriage from a legal standpoint? It gives instant dowry rights where everything is shared and upon a death the other gets it all and makes medical decisions. But this can be accomplished through legal partnerships. There is also shared family insurance. This is where these two decisions are related. If anyone can go in and claim they are in love, marry and thus share insurance, the insurance companies may eventually be forced to eliminate family riders. Housewives will then have to fend for themselves. Our hero appears, "The Affordable Care Act". Housewives will be forced to buy insurance like any poor person since they have no income. We're back to equal care for everyone. The caveat would be if the household income is too high due to the husband, they may force them to pay the high premiums entirely. Quite a tax on the middle class. Subsidized things are always overpriced; just look at college tuition. But this is all conjecture at this point. I will admit that things should be nice for a while for the insurance companies and the medical industry as with any new program. Remember though, Margaret Thacher once said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money". 

Proceeding Past the Stop Sign.

With all this analyzation, I thought it meet to take a break and look at perspectives that transcend the natural and our rational minds. It is the area we are always reaching for and also enjoy. But I don't believe in dogmatic approaches to anything. We should use our faculties and passion in a relaxing and enjoyable way.

Pride to me is like a stop sign. A person who claims to know it all has arrived at a destination and is stuck in the mud. There are things we can know at certain levels, but it is never all there is to it. To make conclusions that there is no God or any other unseen thoughtful force is like putting a stop sign at material things when there is so much territory to cover.

Let's proceed past that stop sign a bit. Of course, there is no reason to blow through it. The things we can study scientifically consist of repeatable patterns that everyone can observe. The territory past the stop contains quite a bit of conjecture, but so do most things out in the passion and ambition realm. I can only tell you my own unprovable opinion on things.

In order for this organization of complex things we call nature to exist, someone had to think it up. It only makes sense since chaotic events, by in large, tend to disorder. It would take complex order upon complex order uninterrupted by any disorder just to make a portion of a cell wall, let alone a complete single living cell. It would have to know how to reproduce and get nutrition. That is just too much to give to chance.

I believe this person lives and of course since he exists above all that is natural we would have to say he is supernatural or God. He would have to be very creative, and exemplify love. Okay, I'm using he for convenience; although God wouldn't need a gender he would be the person who invented them. Just like a father or a mother would see themselves in their offspring, he put himself in every living thing. We are rational beings, and not only can recognize that still small voice but are also connected to each other.

Now base things are natural instincts he put in us for survival and reproduction. I believe that base things or appetites are the things when taken to extremes cause us to do things that hurt our lives. But when used properly, they bring us enjoyment, fulfillment, and health. We can lay aside the concept of evil for now but do leave room since I haven't experienced what others have in war and haven't been to third world countries. The only inhibitions I see toward good potential in my life and in the lives of others simply have to do with going overboard with appetites or having mistaken notions.

Mistaken notions are when we think we see patterns in things and make conclusions such as "Bad things always happen to me". We give ourselves this feeling of impending doom whenever we strike out on our own. These notions should be questioned from time to time, especially those that are hindering us. God, as any good father/mother, would want us to reach our full potential both in relationships and in our own creativity. It has to be a thrill to him to see us loving and living life to its fullness.

Each concept presented here is general and can have a book written on them, but I will stop here for now and maybe expand later.

Realistic Cooperation

Were taking a look at what makes a citizen. This would be the basic foundation of a state.  the difference between states, nations or cities, is that a state in a strict sense is built around a constitution. The inhabitants have come together to agree on a structure where law and justice are meted out. A union is formed in order to protect themselves from hostile outside groups whether they belong to another state or are based in a certain idealism. 

A citizen is someone who reveres the constitution and does their best to live up to the part they serve in it, knowing that it will benefit everyone. A constitution is also necessary to keep the inhabitants civilized by setting limits on behaviors. It is an agreement based on intolerance. Intolerance isn't a bad word but the one we use to define limits. We all on occasion tolerate bad behavior and we can either give people a break or let it annoy us. Some behavior requires intervention by ourselves. If it is extreme, depending on the degree, we invoke governmental authorities to help us. The point we no longer tolerate something is our point of intolerance. Everyone has points of intolerance to varying degrees in varying areas. To claim differently defies logic. 

The first criteria we have to examine is the qualifications of being a citizen. If the government has a tyrant or an elite class ruling, being a citizen is just a name only. It can be loose and general since it doesn't really matter as long as they support those in charge. For a serious constitutional government, citizenship is important and there is a certain reverence toward being a citizen. There will be strict criteria for citizenship since they are expected to run the country. 

What makes a good citizen? They will contribute to the whole and consider it dishonorable to be a taxation to the country they belong to. This general principle applies on the community level as well as for officeholders. The better quality the people, the better quality governing can be. What we are after is protection innovation for each person. Oppressive laws and relationships can stifle it. Some cultures spend more time chasing violations than encouraging innovation. This is a waste of time for lawmakers, enforcement, and the citizens alike. This can hold true in family relationships too. The more a person lives under another's shadow, the less of that person can shine in their own passions. But we need each other's help. So this is why we set criteria and limits yet still push them. The objective is to help one another get what they want out of life, but not use each other. It takes strong individualism along with realistic cooperation. We are working with humans though and wrong perceptions can be hard to break.