The 2018 Midterms

sturg33 said:
Because rights mean that the government must provide it.

That means the government needs money, so they have to confiscate that. That means the government needs land. That means the government needs builders.

What if they don't get the voluntary action of any of those? Then they have to force it or take it.

This isn't hard.

We have to stop calling everything we want a right. Why isn't food and water a right? Internet? Cars? Hell - if we want to guarantee the well-being of everyone just call making everyone rich a right.

Problem is, it doesn't work. It never has and never will. We're already ****ing $21T in debt with 4x that in unfunded liabilities and this moron wants to add free housing for all to the list.

Oh, AND she wants free higher education for all added to the list.

And here's the best one:

She wants to make a "federal jobs guarantee" LOL



Let's add this to the human rights shall we?
Click to expand...

What's genuinely hilarious about this fulminating is that funding a lot of these things is actually pretty simple, and quite contrary to your narrative.

I'm not sure about the ins and outs of housing policy, but I suspect that providing stability through greater tenant rights would be an economic benefit in the long term. It would immediately benefit the relatively more disadvantaged to the detriment of the very wealthy, though, so I see why you're not down.

But that leads to an interesting conversation about so-called rights. Rights are what we the people decide they are, correct?

I am quite comfortable with the idea that America--the broadest swathe of America--would be better off with more stable housing, subsidized child care, and subsidized higher ed. You can cloak your opposition to this in abstract libertarian terms, but what you're saying at the end of the day is that the very wealthy shouldn't bear the cost of increased opportunity for the rest of the populace. You want a working class that is socially immobile and desperate.
 
No what I'm saying is I believe in individual liberty and you believe in forced coercion.

And I love the idea of "this all could be funded simply"

And your last paragraph is typical liberal talking point trash. Once again the middle class is doing better than ever and we don't have to spoon feed every necessity for that to happen. the idea that I want any group of people "immobile and desperate" is nonsense. You're better than that
 
Doctors are not going to take a pay cut especially with Tort reform and the ability to be sued for more than the Euro docs get sued for which is a set amount, regardless. You have to deal with lawyers and they want to be paid.
Teachers want to get paid.
Health Administrators and staff including nurses is not going to take a pay cut and like doctors the hospitals are under the same Tort Reform umbrella unlike the Euro hospitals, who have a set amount on each case.
Schools staff want to get paid their fair share.

Where is all this money they need is coming from when it is free?

That is what I think Sturg is trying to say. There is no Djinn in a bottle that can make money appear on a wish.
 
sturg33 said:
No what I'm saying is I believe in individual liberty and you believe in forced coercion.

And I love the idea of "this all could be funded simply"

And your last paragraph is typical liberal talking point trash. Once again the middle class is doing better than ever and we don't have to spoon feed every necessity for that to happen. the idea that I want any group of people "immobile and desperate" is nonsense. You're better than that
Click to expand...

Well, it could be funded simply. You just dislike the funding mechanism.

And, well, you're right that I can't say that you, personally, WANT the working class to be immobile and desperate for scraps. But you nearly universally support policy that does exactly that.

So why is that a lower blow than you positing that you support liberty and I support coercion. We ALL support coercion at some level, and are all similarly coerced. I don't like paying taxes that support killing civilians overseas or locking babies in private prisons. Tough luck for me.
 
Julio3000 said:
Well, it could be funded simply. You just dislike the funding mechanism.

And, well, you're right that I can't say that you, personally, WANT the working class to be immobile and desperate for scraps. But you nearly universally support policy that does exactly that.

So why is that a lower blow than you positing that you support liberty and I support coercion. We ALL support coercion at some level, and are all similarly coerced. I don't like paying taxes that support killing civilians overseas or locking babies in private prisons. Tough luck for me.
Click to expand...

I'm with you that we are all coerced. I'm not with you in wanting to expand that coercion further.

And no, I don't support policies that make people desperate. There is ample data showing that government welfare leads to such dependency and desperation. I support giving people the liberty to make a better life for themselves.

It's lazy to say "ending entitlements means you want people to suffer." It's the exact opposite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
sturg33 said:
So... We can force people to do things against their will?

And y'all think I'm the facist?
Click to expand...
Doesn't society mold individual will towards what is best for the group? How do we even know what a person's will is when it has been shaped from birth? I'm responding to you in a civil way when my inclination is to ignore you.

The group comes first, especially when the strength of the group provides the safety and freedom necessary to pursue individual will.
 
"the group comes first" is how you get slavery, nazism, etc. Collectivism is not what our republic or constitution is founded on

The governments role is to protect individual rights.

Your response begs the question. Are you OK with forcing an individual to do something against their will in order to "help the group?"
 
This is a weird construction, because the founding documents you're referring to, protecting individual liberty, etc., explicitly endorsed slavery. Perhaps it's not so simple?
 
Julio3000 said:
This is a weird construction, because the founding documents you're referring to, protecting individual liberty, etc., explicitly endorsed slavery. Perhaps it's not so simple?
Click to expand...

Well - at the time - blacks weren/t even considered to be human (which is ridiculous, but I digress).

The idea of "benefit the group" is dangerous, though. That's basically saying majority rule. That's why gays can't get married. Or you can't smoke pot. Or we need to invade Iraq. Or worse, blacks need to be chained and jews exterminated - all for the benefit of the "group"

Meanwhile, the conversation we're having about providing free everything to everyone has parallels to slavery in my opinion. Many who argued to keep slavery did so in good faith that the slaves (today's poor people) were better off with white owners (today's government) than they would be if they'd be freed. The folks who supported their rights to liberty (today's libertarians) insisted that you're not free until you are no longer dependent.

Now I wouldn't call those people "wanting black slaves to be desperate," would you?
 
sturg33 said:
"the group comes first" is how you get slavery, nazism, etc. Collectivism is not what our republic or constitution is founded on

The governments role is to protect individual rights.

Your response begs the question. Are you OK with forcing an individual to do something against their will in order to "help the group?"
Click to expand...

Like go to prison or obey laws?
 
I am interested in the framing of "were not considered human." By whom? Certainly, even many opponents of slavery took the paternalistic view that non-whites were lesser creatures, but should not be subject to chattel slavery. But there were certainly others--not least of which, the slaves themselves--which took quite a different view. I wonder if you might find any kind of parallel in your own attitudes towards evolving societal understanding of other issues.
 
Zerlina Maxwell
‏Verified account @ZerlinaMaxwell
3h3 hours ago

1 in 3 women have an abortion by age 45.

Ending roe doesn’t end abortions it only ensures

women die from unsafe abortions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top