Kamala Marx

[crazed_hoosier2]

Barry Goldwater made the argument that Title II was unconstitutional.

And I have to say that I found his argument pretty persuasive. However, the SCOTUS disagreed. And I think it may have been unanimous.

Thing is: anybody who makes this argument today is basically cast as a defender of segregated public facilities (water fountains, hotels, restaurants, etc).

We sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between an argument which says “people should be free to do X” and “people should do X”….with almost everything other than abortion, anyway.

Here’s a speech where Goldwater explained his opposition to Titles II and VII, which caused him to vote against the CRA of 1964.

Again, I think a lot of people (probably most people) today would confuse this for an argument in favor of segregated public accommodations. And that’s because the virtue of principle and the proper scope of federal governance have gone out of style.

 

[TomEric4756]

Rumors of Dr. Sowell’s death have been…greatly exaggerated. 😋

Didn’t say he was dead … but imagine a younger Dr Sowell appearing weekly … this election cycle.

Victor Davis Hansen is insightful, but Sowell’s impact would be greater.

 

[BradStevens]

So you’re saying that participation in a UHS would be voluntary? You only pay for it if you opt-in (or don’t opt-out)?

Interesting. Doomed to instant failure…but interesting.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I think I'm being very transparent here: the govt (the society en masse basically) pays for rights.

With "positive" rights, we pay with money. No doubt. And with our tax system, that comes from a redistribution of wealth. I'm not hiding the ball here. With "negative" rights, it might be money or it might be something else--safety, security, deaths, govt inefficiencies, etc. They all cost something. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[hookyIU1990]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I think I'm being very transparent here: the govt (the society en masse basically) pays for rights.

With "positive" rights, we pay with money. No doubt. And with our tax system, that comes from a redistribution of wealth. I'm not hiding the ball here. With "negative" rights, it might be money or it might be something else--safety, security, deaths, govt inefficiencies, etc. They all cost something. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

When do we start subsidizing guns for those unable to exercise that right due to the cost?

 

[BradStevens]

Here’s a speech where Goldwater explained his opposition to Titles II and VII, which caused him to vote against the CRA of 1964.

Again, I think a lot of people (probably most people) today would confuse this for an argument in favor of segregated public accommodations. And that’s because the virtue of principle and the proper scope of federal governance have gone out of style.

Even Buckley changed his stance on the Civil Rights Act.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I think I'm being very transparent here: the govt (the society en masse basically) pays for rights.

With "positive" rights, we pay with money. No doubt. And with our tax system, that comes from a redistribution of wealth. I'm not hiding the ball here. With "negative" rights, it might be money or it might be something else--safety, security, deaths, govt inefficiencies, etc. They all cost something. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Given the present financial condition of our welfare state - one major plank of which has been seeking to establish a “right” to healthcare after retirement - this is quite a development to fathom.

I don’t think people fully realize the extent of this sort of thing that we already have and aren’t anywhere near able (or willing, I suppose) to pay for.

All that I’ll say is that, if they want to try to pour a massive tanker truck of fuel on the fire, at least give those of us who think it’s a terrible idea the freedom to be left out. I’ll disclaim any and all right to the first dime of services - and I’ll tend to my own healthcare needs.

We’re gluttons for punishment, I tell ya.

 

[BradStevens]

When do we start subsidizing guns for those unable to exercise that right due to the cost?

When you convince enough people to support that notion and enact a constitutional provision or a set of laws laying that out. If you do, and there is enough legal fortification for the notion, congrats, you will have created a positive right to own a gun.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Even Buckley changed his stance on the Civil Rights Act.

Perhaps. But Goldwater made a rational and sound argument against those two provisions.

But again, appreciating that on its merits is tough in today’s world — because of the confusion I cited above.

 

[BradStevens]

Given the present financial condition of our welfare state - one major plank of which has been seeking to establish a “right” to healthcare after retirement - this is quite a development to fathom.

I don’t think people fully realize the extent of this sort of thing that we already have and aren’t anywhere near able (or willing, I suppose) to pay for.

All that I’ll say is that, if they want to try to pour a massive tanker truck of fuel on the fire, at least give those of us who think it’s a terrible idea the freedom to be left out. I’ll disclaim any and all right to the first dime of services - and I’ll tend to my own healthcare needs.

We’re gluttons for punishment, I tell ya.

Sorry, that's not how civilization works. You want to opt out, you have to leave.

But at least you've now come to the argument that drives this whole thing: it's a matter of practicality, not some abstract notion of logic surrounding "rights." I'm with you on being very skeptical of the cost and needing to figure out a way to pay for it before going forward with such a notion. But I'm all for exploring it for a certain level of healthcare (and you've already pointed out that we have one now).

 

[snarlcakes]

Given the present financial condition of our welfare state - one major plank of which has been seeking to establish a “right” to healthcare after retirement - this is quite a development to fathom.

I don’t think people fully realize the extent of this sort of thing that we already have and aren’t anywhere near able (or willing, I suppose) to pay for.

All that I’ll say is that, if they want to try to pour a massive tanker truck of fuel on the fire, at least give those of us who think it’s a terrible idea the freedom to be left out. I’ll disclaim any and all right to the first dime of services - and I’ll tend to my own healthcare needs.

We’re gluttons for punishment, I tell ya.

You have a choice to be left out.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Sorry, that's not how civilization works. You want to opt out, you have to leave.

But at least you've now come to the argument that drives this whole thing: it's a matter of practicality, not some abstract notion of logic surrounding "rights." I'm with you on being very skeptical of the cost and needing to figure out a way to pay for it before going forward with such a notion. But I'm all for exploring it for a certain level of healthcare (and you've already pointed out that we have one now).

Oh, I still fervently maintain that nothing can actually be a right when it must be allocated. There’s no such thing as a right to healthcare - anywhere in the world.

As you correctly noted, even where it supposedly exists, it’s nothing more than a right “in name only” - because we’re (understandably) enamored with the prospect.

But I’ve never been one for countenancing bullshit to make myself feel better.

People with a “right to healthcare” get denied healthcare services every single day. And that’s because they don’t actually have this right, whatever they believe or have been assured.

My recognizing this in no way precludes any practical arguments against such an undertaking. The arguments can both exist, and do.

We’re drowning in a sea of red ink from the welfare state we’ve constructed over the past century. Given this, it’s astonishing to me that so many people think it wise to further open the spigots.

 

[snarlcakes]

Sorry, that's not how civilization works. You want to opt out, you have to leave.

Not anymore. I don’t have to go anywhere besides Auburn 😁

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You have a choice to be left out.

Heh. Maybe you’re onto something.

The people who dream these things up always make the miscalculation that the folks they’re expecting to depend on to pay the bills for those dreams are going to willingly shoulder the burden…out of a sense of patriotic duty or something along those lines.

I doubt they’ll ever learn.

It’s easy to forget that the Berlin Wall was built some 15 years after the partition of Berlin. And they didn’t build it because they were worried about Western marauders. The wall’s guards always faced East.

 

[BradStevens]

Oh, I still fervently maintain that nothing can actually be a right when it must be allocated. There’s no such thing as a right to healthcare - anywhere in the world.

As you correctly noted, even where it supposedly exists, it’s nothing more than a right “in name only” - because we’re (understandably) enamored with the prospect.

But I’ve never been one for countenancing bullshit to make myself feel better.

People with a “right to healthcare” get denied healthcare services every single day. And that’s because they don’t actually have this right, whatever they believe or have been assured.

My recognizing this in no way precludes any practical arguments against such an undertaking. The arguments can both exist, and do.

We’re drowning in a sea of red ink from the welfare state we’ve constructed over the past century. Given this, it’s astonishing to me that so many people think it wise to further open the spigots.

Well, if you're accusing me of "countenancing bullshit," I guess we can end this now.

As for the denial of healthcare in certain circumstances, so what? You think a right guarantees something is never denied or violated? I don't believe you're that naïve.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Well, if you're accusing me of "countenancing bullshit," I guess we can end this now.

As for the denial of healthcare in certain circumstances, so what? You think a right guarantees something is never denied for violated? I don't believe you're that naïve.

I’m not accusing you of that, really. I’m saying that the notion that healthcare (or anything else that isn’t available in abundance) can truly be a right is bullshit. It can’t be - as evidenced by how much people with this right have to go without healthcare services they supposedly have a right to.

And, yes, anything we truly do have a right to cannot lawfully be denied us. That’s what a right is. And, for added measure, we often tack on the word “universal” on top of it.

But we are so enamored with the idea of having a right to X, Y, or Z, that we’ll even allow ourselves to lose the language to say we have something we don’t actually have.

One of my competitor friends here runs the US operations of a Canadian company. He’s from Toronto. Get him going sometime on the ugly reality of the “right to healthcare” as practiced in Canada. I’ve had that conversation with him.

For chrissakes, Brad, even you conceded that you’re ultimately talking about a right in-name-only because of practical limitations. You’re right about that.

Why would the discussion need to go even one sentence beyond that observation? You’re saying the same thing I said with softer language.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

because of lawyers (I know, you hate us, while we protect you)

I wanted to respond to this.

First of all, I don’t hate lawyers.

I do have a profound disdain for lawyers who make a living on BS lawsuits - especially when they do so under the guise of justice. I find that an Incredibly disingenuous sanitizing of their cynical, destructive racket.

As such, I’m quite proud to have this disdain, as I believe it’s richly deserved. I’m also proud to have disdain for payday lenders and other kinds of predatory actors in our society.

As for other, more reputable kinds of lawyers who actually do make gainful contributions to society, I have no particular beef. But I don’t really see them as “protecting me” in some kind of altruistic way. They’re people I pay to receive services I need, just as I pay accountants, consultants, tech services, insurers, and others.

We have two primary firms we use. And there isn’t an attorney in either of them who would express any issue with me - or me with them. But in no way do I view those relationships as you’ve described. I’m well aware that they’d just as easily represent the other guy in any dispute - and I’d expect nothing less of them.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

One of the wisest men on the planet.

Guys like Sowell, George Will and Victor Davis Hanson have been removed from public service by “the politics of oersonal destruction” choices of the DNC.