Nominations for understatement of the year are now closed.
The combination of socially liberal and economically conservative isn’t that unusual in the population, but I’m hard pressed to find any examples in political office.
Funny how many governments of the world’s nations disagree with you, and provide exactly those.
So? Does that in some way invalidate his opinion on what a government should be doing? Seems to me his opinion is just as valid as an opinion that says that those things are definitely government’s job, indeed, high on the list of things government should be providing.
Which makes it very hard for those of us who are socially “liberal”, but fiscally “conservative”. We often end up having to wait for someone who is moderately Republican or conservatively Democrat to show up and then hope for the best. :dubious:
The distinction is not between secure and insecure rights - it is between positive rights, and negative rights.
Negative rights are things that you can do, and nobody can stop you from doing, but don’t have to help you do either. Like freedom of speech - I can say what I like, but nobody is obligated to pay for my megaphone or publish my editorials if they don’t want to. Likewise the right to abortion - I can choose whether or not to have an abortion, or to pay for someone else’s abortion. No one can stop me from having an abortion, but they shouldn’t have to pay for it.
Positive rights are things other people have to do for you. Children have to supported by their parents, you have the right to speak to an attorney if you are arrested, and if you can’t pay for one, the state has to supply you one.
It is perfectly possible for the government to protect my right to an abortion by not allowing anyone to stop me from getting one.
What happens when I want an abortion, and cannot afford it? That’s where libertarians and liberals disagree. In general, libertarians say, in essence, “tough noogies”. No one is obligated to pay for anyone else. Liberals say that if you can’t afford to exercise some right, then the government is obligated to pay for the expenses. And that leads into the idea that everyone is not equal until the government pays for everyone to be equal. And that morphs rather quickly into social liberal and fiscal liberal.
Regards,
Shodan
He can be of the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, it doesn’t make it right, especially when that opinion is in the wilderness compared to the rest of the world.
Trump is of the opinion that thousands of Muslims were dancing in NJ, celebrating 9/11, on the day. And that global warming is a Chinese hoax. And that Obama was personally involved in wiretapping him. And that facts don’t really matter. And that ignorance is the proper state for decision-making. Do you respect any of those opinions?
Who gives a shit about Trump’s opinions on something else?
You apparently believe that other countries’ opinions about the proper role of government should decide the question for the US. How about if you defend that opinion, and not try to change the subject?
Regards,
Shodan
I have a novel idea. Why don’t you stop trying to inject yourself into a conversation which doesn’t involve you, and controlliing what I say? Seems to be a pattern with you.
My second paragraph was in support of my first, which was a direct answer to DSYoungEsq. I respect someone’s right to have an opinion on a particular topic, but I am not obligated to respect the opinion itself. I gave a series of examples, of opinions which I don’t respect, coincidentally all belonging to Trump.
See, you missed the boat there. No one is saying anyone has the right to have an abortion. They’re saying they have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and the govt should not be allowed to prevent that choice. (and last time I checked, freedom from govt interference is not strictly a liberal concern)
And no one is saying that the govt has to pay for abortions, but govt supported medical insurance should not prohibit a procedure that private insurance allows. No one should be prevented from access to a medical procedure that others have access to because they are on govt assistance. The govt is not obligated to pay for anyone to exercise their rights; but they are obligated to not prevent them from doing so by withholding support.
And to the OP; as many have said paying for social programs does not require reckless spending. You just have to properly prioritize what you spend your money on.
mc
That’s not very accurate.
Many governments also believe or believed that genocide, mass murder of problematic people, etc were or are fine. Doesn’t make the appeal to authority any more convincing.
Not to be confused with the “I” who wants to start a war but not pay for it but instead cut tax rates. That makes one a social conservative (usually) and a fiscal liberal.
An opinion cannot be “right” or “wrong”. A belief can be demonstrably wrong, but an opinion is not a belief. He is of the opinion that government has certain things it should focus on, certain things it should not bother doing. You can disagree with him, but you cannot say his opinion on the subject is “wrong”, because his opinion is based upon different assumptions than yours is. And it’s the height of hubris to believe that your own particular assumptions are per se better than anyone else’s.
And the simple fact that lots of other governments do something doesn’t make it “better”. After all, before we tried it, almost no one was using representative democracy, a strong federal system, and separated powers to run a government. Did that mean we were “wrong”? :dubious:
Hmm. One thing that’s odd about this country is that more politicians don’t say they are even half-seriously.
There’s definitely a constituency for tradition and norms. There’s also definitely a constituency for ‘populist’ economic stimulus. Someone could talk about how they want to keep the laws and customs of the people, but not a tax base too low to cover expenses. Just make it clear that you’re taxing upper marginal incomes, and then promise to let money flow like water on good old stimulative pork-barrelling. I bet it would work.
You don’t seem to be clear on how this whole message board thing works. Here’s how it works - I post anything I want on any thread I like. If you don’t want that, too bad.
And pointing out that an argument is silly isn’t controlling what you say. You are free to post whatever nonsense you like, just like me. I will point out that it is silly, but again, you will just have to deal with it.
You are correct. Abortion is a negative right, in the sense I am discussing - one can choose whether or not to have an abortion (or pay for someone else to have it). The government cannot stop you from having an abortion.
Here we disagree. Government-supported health insurance is the government paying for abortions, by definition.
If the right to choose involves the choice whether or not to pay for someone’s abortion, then it must involve the choice whether or not to have tax dollars pay for someone’s abortion. Whether or not private insurance covers it isn’t relevant, unless the principle is “you have the right to choose whether or not to support something unless that something is sometimes paid for by a private business”. I have collision insurance on my car - does that mean somebody else is obligated to pay to repair my car if I get into an accident?
I believe abortion is like freedom of speech - the government cannot stop me from announcing my opinions on the SDMB, but the taxpayer is not obligated to pay for my membership or my computer.
That’s the difference between a positive right, and a negative right. Many of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are negative rights - freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances, etc. Some few are positive rights - you have the right to an attorney when accused of a crime, and the government has to pay if you can’t.
But not the rest. You have the right to vote, but the government can withhold support by not paying you for your time or the car to get you to the voting booth. You have the right to express your opinions, but the government doesn’t have to buy you the advertising space. Etc.
Regards,
Shodan
Here’s how it doesn’t work. You are not the arbiter of anything here, least of all what I write about, though the interactions we have had since our original one where you refused to support your own statements have consisted of nothing more from your side than telling me what I should talk about. Please feel free to abstain from such in future, as I am guaranteed to ignore any ‘directives’ you may have for me.
Because universal health care is so comparable to mass murder. Right.
I suspect his belief (and opinion) have more to do with what he should or shouldn’t pay for than what government should do for its citizens. I also suspect that he’d be alright with the government not providing other basic services like welfare, so long as he doesn’t need it. But then that’s for him to state.
Once again, are you comparing our being the first major democracy to being one of the last major nations not to have universal health care?
And let me get this straight…are you advocating that not having universal health care is better than having it? That (by far) the highest per capita cost for health care and prices for pharmaceuticals is worth not providing a basic service to all of its citizens which is provided by nearly every major nation in the world so that a few major corporations can make runaway profits?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
I AM the arbiter of something here - exactly the limits of that haven’t been tested, but this I know is within my purview. Knock off the petty sniping.
[/moderating]
If there was a govt program. however, to provide financial assistance to those too poor to pay membership fees to message boards then they, the govt, shouldn’t be allowed to say which message boards the assistance is good for. If the only place someone can exercise their freedom of choice is through a govt sponsored program, and that program doesn’t allow for that choice, then the govt is essentially prohibiting that freedom.
mc