Exh hegyyhbfeed

 

My reactions:

I think Joe Walsh wrongly believe believes that the most fundamental right of them all: the right to prevent other people from exercising their rights!

I support those positive rights, but let’s talk about abusing these rights. I have the self awareness to realize that abusing these rights can lead some people to turn against these "rights" . 

Some people feel these rights are at their best when other people are not forced to provide them. There is no shame with living like a rolling stone “Papa was a rolling stone, wherever he lay his hat was his home”

Joe Walsh is making a bad faith argument because he is acting like wanting BASIC NECESSITIES is "greedy". There is nothing wrong with wanting the basic stuff to need to stay alive, how can that be wrong? I mean not even luxuries, just absolute basics.

Bourgeoise people with Joe Walsh’s type of thinking are like  ”But I can't feel fine about being rich if others aren't suffering. I'm not really a rich person but some day I will be rich and I want to enjoy it properly” or “ I am looking forward to getting my house on the hill so I can observe my icky runoff flow down to the peasants at the bottom. Why can’t they just get better jobs and have more edibles if they don't desire to be poor and hungry” or “ If all people are rich then, no one is rich”

Sadly to those real life Ebenezer Scrooges this is their twisted The American Dream™ . A twisted American Dream where some restrictions apply and offer is void where prohibited. This twisted American Dream™ is for entertainment only and shouldn’t be used for investment reasons.

The US is one of only 10 countries that ensure the right to arms. And the US is only 1 of 3 countries where that right is considered a natural right and also only 1 of 2 countries where bearing arms a natural right without qualification.     The US and Honduras, leaders of the world on what the true human rights really should be./s

But positive rights are in the Declaration of Independence, but not the US Constitution. But I'll indulge counterpoints for a sec

We all have a right to life, meaning we cannot murder each other, and liberty which means we cannot put each other in bondage and own another person.

That does not mean I have to pay for someone’s video games (I am straw manning , owning video games is not a positive right or any right) and to pay for them to own a pool or to buy bubble bath makers or bathroom cleaners so someone doesn’t get an infection and die right

Where is the line drawn where people will take personal responsibility for themselves? After the rest of society subsidizes a job without a set or defined goal, pays for upgrades to their house, provides brunch and desserts, treats them for. minor illnesses, then what?

Do we have to buy them an automobile? How great of a house do they get? Are they eating PB&J sandwiches or Cavier ? Who decides what?

At which point do they have any clear incentive to contribute back to society?

I'm trying to see where the line is with "positive rights" - is it my duty to subsidize a healthy eating coach to keep someone from getting overweight? Is it my duty to subsidize a life coach to keep someone from spending their time and money on frivolous junk?

Once someone has all of the basic necessities covered , where is the incentive for them to work and make a more fulfilling life? Why teach their children to be responsible when all of their basic necessities will also be covered their entire life?  But no, the answer to most of those questions above tends to be no

Though smokers should be able to get healthcare for their breathing problems. We should in theory and ideally subsidize the doctor who gives their advice. Remember positive rights are not “frivolous junk”What is frivolous is a debate people can have once basic not-frivolous items are taken care of

Worrying about abuse of positive rights and luxuries being added them is just me  fear-mongering to myself out-loud.  I’m not intending to be fear-mongering however

The intention of providing healthcare and housing is to produce exactly the opposite effect. People aren’t able to be that productive when they are sick or when they don’t have homes. We would increase productivity by providing postive rights (i.e basic needs)

Provide it to all people and obviously, some people will sit back and eat and whatnot and do the bare minimum. Yet people already do that...so what is the issue? The society-wide laziness isn’t, I believe, a legit worry. 

And I am willing to find out that I am wrong by creating a society in which people have a place to call home and healthcare access that doesn’t cause them to be in poverty or to keep them in poverty for the entirety of their lives.

Because I'm not fully ignorant of what it would entail in a global economy to all of a sudden become the world's biggest centralized economy/welfare state.

Amazon's total revenue was $233,000,000,000. Amazons the world's biggest company, and if we took all of what they made last year alone it actually wouldn't cover 1 month of state spending at the current levels.

If we started to tax all of them too much guess what happens? They'll exit and take their jobs with them.

Conversely, if the US government wasn't causing interest to be artificially low,  then housing prices would not be real high.

If the federal government wasn’t flinging money at every single arts major who breaths, then tuition and books wouldn't be the highest tuition ever recorded.

Each time the problem appears to be the "free market" and people want to ask the government for a fix , I implore them to take a slightly closer look. They will see undue power and pressure being harnessed by the government, causing the problem in the first place.

Question What motivation do I have to work hard if 75 percent of my pay is garnished and all I can purchase is the same type of home as the person who doesn’t work?

What am I talking about? How is 75 percent of my income taken suddenly?

I should live in the real world and then I can come and have a conversation. I am making up stuff doesn’t have any relevance?

My Answer: In the real world houses don’t magically grow on house trees (though there are tree houses that people can live in) and medical care is not provided by a species of benevolent elves

Here is some napkin math (though equitable math might provide alternate numbers)

Universal Healthcare = $7 trillion per year, 35 percent of the GDP.

Bigger Federal Jobs program to have 100 percent employment: 12 million Americans times $15/hr  $374 billion a year ~2 percent of the GDP

Housing 125 million households (presumably conservatively in this land of plenty that only one fifth of people will file to receive their covered total rent @ $750 per month, and an additional 20 percent need half rent at $325 per month $322,500,000,000 - ~1 and half percent of the GDP

This equals 38.5 percent of the GDP before paying for any of the shiny new houses or materials that are a must to get that many people to work.

Which is somewhere around as much as I am paying in taxes now. So double that and we're seeing ~75 percent

"Wait!"?, "There will be more than a few savings because we won't have to pay for Medicare/Medicaid!" That's not a part of the regular income tax. I just rolled it into the 75 percent number.

And also, did you see that I just based this on the GDP? That would create a need for every dollar made to have that figure on it, not only the ones that impoverished people can't hide.

But those figures are likely off and may have been from non good faith sources. Healthcare spending is around ~18 percent of the GDP, but yesh, implementing universal health care will cost 35 percent of the GDP. I I might actually be selling it short number might be 60 percent

I pulled those numbers from thin air.

That figure is however my projection by Mercatus on how spending might (gigantic might) look in 2031, and a percent of the current GDP. So it's not too high. I'll give it maybe 5 percent, so 70 percent with taxes.

counterpoint: Even if we take it as a given the estimates of a right libertarian think tank, I am using my projected spending in 2031 in comparison against the US GDP right now. Even if we assume a historically low GDP growth of 2 percent each year, the economy of the US will be close to $7 trillion bigger by that date.

Good luck to people like right libs who are against positive rights in having a society with fair trials but without free attorneys being providing and enabling rich people to literally buy their justice.

Though, to be fair, that’s is precisely what happens even with rights to legal counsel.

We need to live in communal society to really build on positive rights the right way