Kamala Marx
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
Businesses have the right to deny their products and services to any person they please within the bounds of the law.
That is not true if said product or service is a “right”. Rights mean something entirely different.
not more than Project 2025 but it does not matter to you, you are not female or a POC, work for the FBI ,or in public education, or have trumps minions replace you.
Employees don't have that right. Are they operating "under a form of servitude?" If not, why not?
I’m talking about the difference between negative and positive rights. Not at will employment. Obviously if a doctor is tired of being a doctor, they can quit. It’s not servitude.
My main gripe is that I don’t believe in positive rights and most Democrats do. If a business if forced to provide services, it is no longer a private and independent business. It is being subject to government coercion or even servitude.
If doctors in nations with universal healthcare felt they were operating under a form of servitude, I think it reasonable to predict that there would be fewer of them, per capita, then in the US.
That's not true, though. Scandinavian nations that have free healthcare also have more doctors per capita than the US does.
List of countries by number of physicians - Wikipedia
Note, I am not saying we should operate a Scandinavian style system here with this post. I'm just challenging the servitude hyperbole.
Positive rights exist whether or not you believe in them. Example: people charged with a crime in the United States have a positive right to legal representation if they cannot afford it themselves. The govt pays.
Sounds like some penumbra building here. You should have been a lawyer.
Actually quite enjoyed Business Law, L201. For a second I thought corporate lawyer might be in the cards.
CoH School of Law is accepting applications. I can put in a word for you.
The government doesn’t provide anything. They take people’s money (or time), which forces people to work more.
There are multiple republicans who don’t like Trump for almost 8 billion in debt while talking about the “greatest economy ever”, some of us read the pilot testimony from Maxwell trial stating under oath Trump was “frequent flyer on Lolita Express” and Trump seems to mainly gravitate to non democratic autocrats. Many Trump supporters avoid under oath testimony, I do not.
I did 26 years in the military. If that’s a lifetime attached to the government tit, so be it and **** you. I made more in 12.5 years after retirement. **** you again, you ankle biting Ruskie.
I’m fine with subsidizing healthcare for the poor, but I’m not going to pretend it’s a right. You’re asking other people to work more and pay for it. That’s what it is.
Typically how it goes. Parlay that civil or gov servitude into a nice payday.
Sacrifice and all…
I think you’re arguing semantics and degrees. A right just denotes something we apply to individuals and execute through rules, laws, norms, etc. that has a certain level of protected legal status.
They are culturally contingent and don’t exist in the world absent human invention.
People pay for expertise and skills which increase the bottom line. It’s the American way. I was paid well in the Navy too, by the way. No complaints.
Businesses shouldn't be forced to provide their services. But if they choose to refuse service to the public they can't use any publicly funded entities. No mail, roads, fire, police, etc. If you want to operate on the public square you need to serve the public.
Ridiculous. The businesses and their proprietors and employees pay just as much for those services as anyone else.
You have no justification for what you are saying. Reminds me of the “you didn’t build that” malarkey often spewed by closeted Marxists.
Good luck with that idea. They pay taxes for all those services. Probably more than you. What services do you provide to show you deserve to use them?
Just not a big fan of "We don't serve your kind here!"
You know assholes. Actually I'm sure you know.
Being a racist asshole isn’t illegal. Although it was made illegal in 1964 in some instances. Which is pretty clearly unconstitutional.
Not at all like public defenders. To receive public defender benefits, you got to be charged with a crime committed in the United States that has a potential penalty of a year in jail. . According to Kamala and many democrats, if an individual makes their way from Afghanistan to the U.S and needs cancer treatment or wants a sex change, they have a right to have it. Kamala has said often, that anybody who is here and needs health care, they have a right to have it. So when we speak about a right to health care, we aren’t just talking about those who are legally here, we are potentially talking about the world.
Exactly like public defenders. Govt pays for that system, just as those who favor a universal health care system/right to healthcare would also pay for that system.
Ehh . . . .With a public defender, the moving cause for payment occurs in the USA where all are entitled to due process of law.
With health care for illegal migrants, the moving cause for payment has nothing to do with the U.S.
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.
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.
Yes Sowell is missed … this is an election where he could of had a big influence.I wouldn't necessarily equate egalitarianism to Marxism (or any strand of communism).
But what's missing is how exactly she plans to realize that vision. And that's where she'd run into a problem. It's where egalitarians always run into a problem. They ultimately have to heighten restrictions on the natural order -- where outcomes are always going to be disparate -- to try to bring about their utopian vision of less inequality. You can't pay Paul without first robbing Peter.
The central tenet of this is that "Peter will be fine. He has more money than he could ever need. But the Pauls of the world actually need it. And why should a small handful of people have all this excess wealth when so many other people live (at best) subsistence level lives?"
And that makes sense, as far as it goes. It's certainly alluring. And it also happens that even the freest of economies will have (and need) some wealth/income redistribution. It's so easy to get caught up in black/white, 1/0, either/or, all/nothing thinking on this. But only people on the fringes think we should either have little or no redistribution or little else but redistribution. What's actually being sought is either less or more.
And she's making the case here for more. People on the left will always clamor for more. I've never known any of them to say "OK, I'd say we've done enough." As such, they tend to get oblivious to tradeoffs on the other side -- because they're so fixated on the ideas that (a) "Peter will be fine", and (b) "We haven't yet gotten the results we wanted yet for Paul, so we must continue doing more."
They rarely give much consideration to the idea that Peter may not go along with their plans -- which is why I think they always eventually end up having to figure out ways to eliminate Peter's options to avoid it. That's what Lula is seeking with the global minimum wealth tax. It's also why the Berlin Wall was built -- fully 15 years after the city was partitioned into half capitalist/half communist. Too many East German Peters had voted with their feet by leaving.
I always thought that Thomas Sowell described this myopia brilliantly:
Similar threads
