Politics Thread

I didn't say these are Constitutional rights. I suggested that most of us believe that in a civilized and wealthy society like the United States, most people (other than the far right and Libertarians) believe that all people have a right to basic living requirements which include food, housing, education, and medical care. In other words, these are things that we collectively believe everyone should have access to (on some basic level) regardless of income. That is why we have welfare programs like food stamps, subsidized housing and education, and Medicaid. I would also submit that even House Republicans, other than the far right Tea Party Freedom caucus...and maybe even some of them, publicly support that proposition. But when they make the claim that Trumpcare insures access to health insurance and therefore access to healthcare, they are lying hypocritical bastards and unworthy of holding positions of leadership in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

If those things are "rights", would it be ok someone broke into your house, ate your food, and slept in your bed, for an indefinite amount of time? If housing is a "right", should we prohibit landlords from evicting tenants who don't pay? Should everyone come to XU for free, since education is a "right"?

---

Give me a f**ing break. Are you that dense? Why does our society subsidize food, housing, education, and healthcare? And under what universe would you interpret a belief that people are entitled to those necessities for living as meaning that they can live anywhere they want, eat anyone's food they choose, go to any school they want, and have all the healthcare they want? Either you continue to be incredibly obtuse, or you just muddy the discussion with red herring interpretations. For your sake, I assume it is the latter.

You are confusing "rights' with "things we as a society want people to have".

Freedom of speech and religion are "rights". Forcing someone else to pay for your food, shelter and medical care are not rights.

P.S. And I see that you responded to my previous post in your standard fashion, You get mad, yell at your computer and start cussing, and call people names. Well done. I just await for your standard line of "You must lack reading comprehension."

P.P.S. Oops, I left out your calling someone "obtuse".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

You are confusing "rights' with "things we as a society want people to have".

Freedom of speech and religion are "rights". Forcing someone else to pay for your food, shelter and medical care are not rights.

---

I stand corrected. You are obtuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X-man

I stand corrected. You are obtuse.

---

That's not an argument for your position or against mine. Name calling is usually an indication that you have nothing further to say in support of your argument.

Here is a good editorial from Walter Williams which discusses the difference between "rights" and "wishes":

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/02/wishes.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

That's not an argument for your position or against mine. Name calling is usually an indication that you have nothing further to say in support of your argument.

Here is a good editorial from Walter Williams which discusses the difference between "rights" and "wishes":

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/02/wishes.html

---

Walter Williams is an embarrassment to the economics profession. But let me ask you something...do you believe in any of the US entitlement programs like food stamps, public universities, housing assistance programs, Medicaid? If so, why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X-man

Walter Williams is an embarrassment to the economics profession. But let me ask you something...do you believe in any of the US entitlement programs like food stamps, public universities, housing assistance programs, Medicaid? If so, why?

---

We are not discussing whether or not I believe in some sort of public assistance. We are discussing your fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between "rights" and "wishes".

And instead of calling Walter Williams names, could you attempt to refute what he wrote? Like I said, resorting to name calling is indicative of having nothing meaningful to argue. So you resort to "you're obtuse" or "he's an embarrassment" without ever arguing your point.

We all probably believe that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights.
That forms the basis of many of our amendments and laws. And we use that to create societal support to protect them.
(i.e. police to protect our right to life)

Some countries in their social contracts (in fact most of the industrialized world) have decided they will get all their citizens to join in and provide universal, basic health care benefits. Most do it with a nonprofit administration. Only one is truly "socialized" where the doctors are paid by the government directly (Great Britain).

So, they decided (using our constitutional base) that the "right" to life that includes police protection for each and every citizen, should also include basic health care for each and every citizen.

It's not a stretch to say we couldn't do the same. It might save us a lot of money. The thought process may sound like it's out of left field for many conservative leaning people. But it's been done successfully around the world. Our hodge podge system is a veritable nightmare, and hopefully someday it will be fixed. Not in my lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

We all probably believe that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights.
That forms the basis of many of our amendments and laws. And we use that to create societal support to protect them.
(i.e. police to protect our right to life)

Some countries in their social contracts (in fact most of the industrialized world) have decided they will get all their citizens to join in and provide universal, basic health care benefits. Most do it with a nonprofit administration. Only one is truly "socialized" where the doctors are paid by the government directly (Great Britain).

So, they decided (using our constitutional base) that the "right" to life that includes police protection for each and every citizen, should also include basic health care for each and every citizen.

It's not a stretch to say we couldn't do the same. It might save us a lot of money. The thought process may sound like it's out of left field for many conservative leaning people. But it's been done successfully around the world. Our hodge podge system is a veritable nightmare, and hopefully someday it will be fixed. Not in my lifetime.

---

Police protection is not a right either. Some of you really need to read the Constitution. Particularly Article 1, Section 8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

We are not discussing whether or not I believe in some sort of public assistance. We are discussing your fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between "rights" and "wishes".

And instead of calling Walter Williams names, could you attempt to refute what he wrote? Like I said, resorting to name calling is indicative of having nothing meaningful.l to argue. So you resort to "you're obtuse" or "he's an embarrassment" without ever arguing your point.

---

Answer my question, please. My use of the term "rights", as I stated earlier, does not mean Constitutional rights. I would have thought you would understand that rather than confusing the term with "wishes" (I wish I had a Porsche, but I have no right to one, OK?). And my use of the term explains why I support the programs I do. So again, do you support them? And if you do, on what basis? It's not a difficult question to understand.