In my fight for the freedom of choice, I am frequently on Martin Pion’s blog.  He is the President of MoGasp, I have spoken to Mr Pion and he is genuine in his beliefs and is willing to defend them, I do not want anyone to go on his site and attack his integrity,, this is to show the difference in our philosophies and is in response to the following statement.

mogasp comment: You state that “Health and welfare is an option.” I believe it’s a right and something we should expect. That is a fundamental difference.

While you are correct in your assessment of our fundamental differences you miss a key point, you think in terms of the European models where they think in terms of collective rights in the name of the greater good.  Much evil has been done with this philosophy, Nazi Germany, the USSR and Communist China immediately come to mind. This was all done in the name of the “Greater Good” In the United States we embraced a different model where individual rights and property rights trump the “Greater Good” Why? Because if it is indeed in the name of the greater good the majority would embrace the change through the sheer power of their numbers voting the almighty dollar as their voting tool.  A business is free to ignore the majority but if they lose a sufficient amount of business they will be forced to change their business model or suffer, That is why we have a constitutional Republic rather than a Democracy.

John Adams defined a constitutional republic as “a government of laws, and not of men.” Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the “tyranny of the majority” by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.

This concept is clearly defined in the following video.

This concept is reflected in the current Ohio Supreme court case under the Tyranny of the majority.

ii. Majority tyranny must be restrained.
Moreover, the procurement of benefits for some at the expense of others, through a simple majority
vote, warrants special scrutiny. This state’s authority to regulate property “was never meant to be a vehicle to
enforce the personal taste of one on another.”28 To that end, it “is not to be inferred
* * * whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of [the people], incompatible with the provisions of the existing Constitution, [the people or the Court] would on that account, be justified in a violation of those provisions.”29 Put more strongly: [W]ritten Constitutions have heretofore been framed chiefly to protect the weak from the strong, and to secure to all the people “equal protection and benefit.” They have been constructed upon the theory that majorities can and will take care of themselves; but that the safety and happiness of individuals and minorities need to be secured by guaranties and limitations in the social compact, called a”constitution.”3o Thus, special care must be taken to ensure that the momentary passions of voters in November of 2006 are compatible with Zeno’s longstanding and sacrosanct property rights.

Another concept that appears to be unique to our Constitution and laws is the concept of assumption of risk You and the European models play the victim mentality. Under the United states model the greater power is given to the individual, but along with that power comes the responsibility of ones choices. This concept volenti non fit injuri (To the consenting, no injury is done.)

If I walk up to you at a gym knowing that boxing is taking place, no assault charges can be placed because you willfully put yourself in that risky situation.  This too,  goes back to the power of the majority.  If sufficient numbers avoid that gym, it will either change its business model or suffer the consequences.  This too is reflected in the Ohio case.

This Court, in assessing the reasonableness of this regulation, should apply a legal principle frequently applied in negligence actions: “a premises owner owes no duty to persons entering the premises regarding dangers that are open and obvious.”62 This Court has explained that “the open and obvious nature
of the hazard itself is the warning, and an owner or occupier may reasonably expect persons entering the
premises will discover the dangers and take appropriate measures to protect themselves.”63

So yes we have fundamental differences. Yours, the collectivist European model and mine the libertarian model of our founding fathers that is reflected in our constitution.

It is the fundamental difference between the power belonging to the individual or the power belonging to the state!