Unfortunately, our education system does not teach us that the Constitution is a framework setting form constraints upon the government, but as a framework establishing and itemizing a list of freedoms citizens are allowed.
So, we have an entire population that assumes if it is not enumerated in the Constitution, you do not have that right. For example "hey, the Constitution doesn't say privacy is a right". Well, no. It doesn't need to. You already have that right, without a piece of paper declaring it.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that this understanding of the Constitution has become so pervasive that it can not be changed, thereby completely reversing the entire intention of the founding fathers in constructing it. Thereby giving the government all the rights and citizens only the rights specifically declared in it (and, these days, not even that).
It's kind of stomach-turning to see that reversal.
Though this is slightly unrelated, today I tried to buy some Antibiotic eye droplets for my dog. It's not possible without a prescription. For a DOG! I love my dog, he is awesome. But legally, he is my property. I can kill him if I want to, sell him to a research center to be experimented on, or just let him go blind from the eye infection he picked up. But I can not buy meds for him without first taking him to an undereducated, glorified nurse (vet). So I had to go to a vet, pay $50 so he can poke my dog around with his finger, and then write me a prescription for the exact fucking drug I was trying to buy in the first place!
The point is, like you mentioned, the constitution enumerates the Power of the federal government, not JUST the limitations on the said government! This means, if it's NOT in the constitution, then the government does NOT have that power, and I DO. The constitution says nothing about regulation of drugs, mass surveillance, or privacy. This means I HAVE those rights and the government has NO right to infringe my rights. Pretty soon I'll have to consult with a "licensed professional" to take a shit, and the NSA will have a camera at the bottom of my toilet, thus completing their constitutionally prescribed mission of crawling up the ass of every American, to make sure that no terrorists hide there, of course.
The restriction on antibiotics is for the protection of everyone, it's not just to screw you out of $50.
If people are allowed to throw antibiotics at any problem they think might be cured with them, then they eventually lose their effectiveness (as is becoming the case already). It doesn't matter that they were for your dog either, the same antibiotics are often used to treat human and animals, so misuse in one group can still cause problems for the other.
The overprescription of antibiotics is indeed a problem. But notice, it's still a problem, even though you can only get antibiotics with prescription. This is mostly due to the fact that many doctors, and most veterinarians I have ever had the displeasure of meeting are woefully incompetent. I am 30, and used antibiotics twice in my life, and needed it twice for my dog (because he has a genetic condition that effects his eyes). How about just educating people about the dangers of antibiotics, and letting them make up their own mind. The situation couldn't get any worse than it already is. Right now doctors give out steroids and antibiotics as if they were candy, especially in large hospitals. But now we are getting off topic, sorry for the rant, it was just a touchy subject today.
"How about just educating people about the dangers of [thing], and letting them make up their own mind."
Most of us are stupid, not by birth but by training and experience. It's not our fault. Most of us don't do anything for a living that requires us to be more than stupid.
Staking your future and safety on the actual abilities of the actual population is pretty damn risky, I think.
I don't think I've ever used antibiotics, but I'm concerned that in the next decade (when I'll be in my mid 40s), I will have a fairly major surgery that exposes me to a lot of potential infection. The idea of not having proper antibiotic solutions by that time (compounded by the notorious lack of protection from infection in hospitals) has be terrified.
This was one of the arguments the Antifederalists made against the Bill of Rights, that it would eventually be construed as "itemizing a list of freedoms citizens are allowed."
The flip side is that I find it hard to imagine history not eventually resulting in the transmutation of a limited central government into an all powerful one, following the strong tendency of republics turning into empires, as ours has in form. I think the Swiss have avoided this, but I don't follow them closely; I'm not aware of any other counterexamples.
On the other hand our political system is still a lot better than many others, including the Westminster parliamentary one we deliberately rejected unlike almost all others. We can look at the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a natural right acknowledged in the Bill of Rights, for a good historical example. It was judicially nullified or outright ignored for all the nation's history until 2008, and on the ground that's still essentially true outside of the Federal courts that cover Illinois. It was the political process that brought us back from the brink (and there's enough political power outside of Chicago and its closest suburbs that Illinois is also partly a example of the latter).
I'd say half the population never question laws. If they even know the Constitution they still believe that every law is constitutional, and judges who strike down laws are "activist judges". This type of person would've jailed Rosa Parks and thought she was a bad person. Marijuana illegal? Then of course it should never be legal. Etc.
Comments
Unfortunately, our education system does not teach us that the Constitution is a framework setting form constraints upon the government, but as a framework establishing and itemizing a list of freedoms citizens are allowed.
So, we have an entire population that assumes if it is not enumerated in the Constitution, you do not have that right. For example "hey, the Constitution doesn't say privacy is a right". Well, no. It doesn't need to. You already have that right, without a piece of paper declaring it.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that this understanding of the Constitution has become so pervasive that it can not be changed, thereby completely reversing the entire intention of the founding fathers in constructing it. Thereby giving the government all the rights and citizens only the rights specifically declared in it (and, these days, not even that).
It's kind of stomach-turning to see that reversal.
Though this is slightly unrelated, today I tried to buy some Antibiotic eye droplets for my dog. It's not possible without a prescription. For a DOG! I love my dog, he is awesome. But legally, he is my property. I can kill him if I want to, sell him to a research center to be experimented on, or just let him go blind from the eye infection he picked up. But I can not buy meds for him without first taking him to an undereducated, glorified nurse (vet). So I had to go to a vet, pay $50 so he can poke my dog around with his finger, and then write me a prescription for the exact fucking drug I was trying to buy in the first place!
The point is, like you mentioned, the constitution enumerates the Power of the federal government, not JUST the limitations on the said government! This means, if it's NOT in the constitution, then the government does NOT have that power, and I DO. The constitution says nothing about regulation of drugs, mass surveillance, or privacy. This means I HAVE those rights and the government has NO right to infringe my rights. Pretty soon I'll have to consult with a "licensed professional" to take a shit, and the NSA will have a camera at the bottom of my toilet, thus completing their constitutionally prescribed mission of crawling up the ass of every American, to make sure that no terrorists hide there, of course.
The restriction on antibiotics is for the protection of everyone, it's not just to screw you out of $50.
If people are allowed to throw antibiotics at any problem they think might be cured with them, then they eventually lose their effectiveness (as is becoming the case already). It doesn't matter that they were for your dog either, the same antibiotics are often used to treat human and animals, so misuse in one group can still cause problems for the other.
The overprescription of antibiotics is indeed a problem. But notice, it's still a problem, even though you can only get antibiotics with prescription. This is mostly due to the fact that many doctors, and most veterinarians I have ever had the displeasure of meeting are woefully incompetent. I am 30, and used antibiotics twice in my life, and needed it twice for my dog (because he has a genetic condition that effects his eyes). How about just educating people about the dangers of antibiotics, and letting them make up their own mind. The situation couldn't get any worse than it already is. Right now doctors give out steroids and antibiotics as if they were candy, especially in large hospitals. But now we are getting off topic, sorry for the rant, it was just a touchy subject today.
"How about just educating people about the dangers of [thing], and letting them make up their own mind."
Most of us are stupid, not by birth but by training and experience. It's not our fault. Most of us don't do anything for a living that requires us to be more than stupid.
Staking your future and safety on the actual abilities of the actual population is pretty damn risky, I think.
I don't think I've ever used antibiotics, but I'm concerned that in the next decade (when I'll be in my mid 40s), I will have a fairly major surgery that exposes me to a lot of potential infection. The idea of not having proper antibiotic solutions by that time (compounded by the notorious lack of protection from infection in hospitals) has be terrified.
Given that we've failed to educate doctors and nurses about the effects I don't like the odds of being able to educate everyone.
This was one of the arguments the Antifederalists made against the Bill of Rights, that it would eventually be construed as "itemizing a list of freedoms citizens are allowed."
The flip side is that I find it hard to imagine history not eventually resulting in the transmutation of a limited central government into an all powerful one, following the strong tendency of republics turning into empires, as ours has in form. I think the Swiss have avoided this, but I don't follow them closely; I'm not aware of any other counterexamples.
On the other hand our political system is still a lot better than many others, including the Westminster parliamentary one we deliberately rejected unlike almost all others. We can look at the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a natural right acknowledged in the Bill of Rights, for a good historical example. It was judicially nullified or outright ignored for all the nation's history until 2008, and on the ground that's still essentially true outside of the Federal courts that cover Illinois. It was the political process that brought us back from the brink (and there's enough political power outside of Chicago and its closest suburbs that Illinois is also partly a example of the latter).
I'd say half the population never question laws. If they even know the Constitution they still believe that every law is constitutional, and judges who strike down laws are "activist judges". This type of person would've jailed Rosa Parks and thought she was a bad person. Marijuana illegal? Then of course it should never be legal. Etc.