Huh, none of that has anything to do with communism. I basically agree with everything except the guns part (I believe that to be a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of the wording of the 2nd amendment), but in a “the government has no business or right to regulate those things” libertarian way.
It’s also not woke because the principle of bodily and personal autonomy is old school “don’t tread on me” libertarianism, and thus “right wing”. I think I agree with Linus about the inability to define those terms, carry on.
I may not be the target audience though as I also totally want socialized healthcare, free education extending into the collegiate level, and a UBI replacing all welfare programs, because those fall under the “General Welfare” set out by the Constitution and those things would cost less than what we have now for far better outcomes.
“the government has no business or right to regulate those things”
If you believe this, then you need also believe the government has no business regulating murder, rape, mass shootings, terrorism and domestic violence. Those two concepts cannot be extricated from one another. I get that right now in America is kind of the entire point of the 2nd amendment, but when you don’t have a constitution that’s fundamentally broken, this stuff doesn’t happen so readily. Plus none of those 2nd amendment types are actually doing diddly squat to stop it.
I will assume that you mean only the 2nd amendment and not that preventing anti-transition and/or anti-abortion legislation would also prevent laws on murder, rape, etc. If I am wrong, I think my response will cover those as well.
The purpose of the government is to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. All those things you listed infringe on the rights and bodily autonomy of others, which falls under justice and general welfare at the very least. What anyone does with and to their own body under their own consent does not, and if thus overreach of the government.
Self defense, whether armed or unarmed, passive or active, is a natural right belonging to any living thing to prevent loss of their autonomy. Guns are tools to enable self defense and even the playing field. They can be and frequently are used without infringing on the rights and autonomy of others.
I also did not include guns under the government not having the right or business to regulate. I think they certainly can, and they have through the 2nd amendment. If you want to change this, you must follow the established and agreed upon rules to do so. If you do not, you weaken all other laws by establishing loopholes where they can be ignored.
The 2nd Amendment is a single sentence and the first four words, “a well regulated militia”, are the subject. This is grammar. Unless you think the authors were bad at grammar, there’s not much to misinterpret.
Yeah, but you have to take the whole sentence to actually identify the grammar, not just the first 4 words. Beyond what has already been said about well regulated meaning ‘in good functional order’, that is a explanatory preposition to why the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is important. The Federalist papers back this up well enough as well.
If I said “Because being hungry sucks, access to the fridge shall not be restricted”, this does not imply that one must be hungry to have access to the fridge. Maybe it would be better if it were so people couldn’t over eat or eat out of boredom, but you would need to change that sentence to make it mean you had to be hungry to access the fridge.
There is also the fact that under federal law, everyone not serving in the standing military or the national guard (the organized militia) is legally classified as the unorganized militia, but I don’t think that even matters to the reading of the amendment.
I’m actually against that. Not against an UBI per se, but against it replacing all welfare programs.
The main issue here is that needs vary a lot, and depending on your specific needs, an UBI might not begin to cover them.
One of my kids has Cystic Fibrosis, which leads to frequent hospital stays. One of the main medications (Kaftrio, that stuff is a miracle drug, it’s crazy how well it works) costs ~€350k per year.
UBI would be a drop in the ocean in this regard.
The same goes for a lot of other conditions. For example, a nursing home costs way more than any UBI would cover, but also if you have a disability that would require frequent assistance and/or a modified home or some special kind of transport, UBI would be just not enough.
I would think that having procedures, medications and other medical costs covered under universal healthcare and having a non-means tested or work gated UBI would be a hell of a lot better than the current Medicaid and SSI disability nightmares.
I include both of these together because currently the overhead expenditures for managing and running both the collective welfare programs at all levels and our for-profit healthcare system run at the behest of and for the profits of health insurance burn a significant amount of both money and time.
Needs may vary a lot, but having hoops to jump through to maintain eligibility for multiple welfare programs and under constant threat of being kicked off of any of them doesn’t seem to be the right answer to me.
But that’s where socialized healthcare comes in. None of what you brought up would have to be covered by any sort of UBI. Especially since if we had a national UBI we would probably already have socialized healthcare since the latter would be easier to get through than the former.
That’s the thing, though: many people advocating for UBL argue that it should replace ALL benefits (like the person I responded to) because, according to them, the UBL would cover all issues already. Generally speaking, people who argue like that are under 30 and haven’t had any serious contact with chronic conditions and don’t even consider the existence of anything worse than a broken leg.
Special needs (not only disabilities but all sorts of special circumstances) are complex, and UBL is a simple solution for complex issues. And a system like UBL needs to work for everyone, not only for most people.
First guy was like “UBI should replace everything”. Then I said “Watch out, everything is not a good idea because e.g. health care costs vary wildly”. Second guy was like “Nobody is arguing for UBI without socialized healthcare”. To which I said “Well, some people do”. And then you came here and said “But second guy literally said he wants socialized healthcare”.
Here, let me quote his last paragraph before the edit for you:
I may not be the target audience though as I also totally want socialized healthcare, free education extending into the collegiate level, and a UBI replacing all welfare programs, because those fall under the “General Welfare” set out by the Constitution and those things would cost less than what we have now for far better outcomes.
See that “I also totally want socialized healthcare” line?
I would like to point out that I did 100% say Universal Healthcare, and nowhere did I implay keeping our shitty healthcare system with a UBI. To further clarify, UBI should only replace welfare programs, so stuff like food stamps, WIC, TANIF, state welfare, social security, etc. because those have restrictions and fuck people over almost as many times as they help them.
Social Security probably won’t be solvent in 50 years, food stamps are great until you make a dollar over the max allowable and lose all food assistance, WIC is great until your infant is just a little older and you lose all assistance. SSDI takes years to begin receiving and is, once again, subject to being dropped for any of a variety of reasons.
Huh, none of that has anything to do with communism. I basically agree with everything except the guns part (I believe that to be a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of the wording of the 2nd amendment), but in a “the government has no business or right to regulate those things” libertarian way.
It’s also not woke because the principle of bodily and personal autonomy is old school “don’t tread on me” libertarianism, and thus “right wing”. I think I agree with Linus about the inability to define those terms, carry on.
I may not be the target audience though as I also totally want socialized healthcare, free education extending into the collegiate level, and a UBI replacing all welfare programs, because those fall under the “General Welfare” set out by the Constitution and those things would cost less than what we have now for far better outcomes.
If you believe this, then you need also believe the government has no business regulating murder, rape, mass shootings, terrorism and domestic violence. Those two concepts cannot be extricated from one another. I get that right now in America is kind of the entire point of the 2nd amendment, but when you don’t have a constitution that’s fundamentally broken, this stuff doesn’t happen so readily. Plus none of those 2nd amendment types are actually doing diddly squat to stop it.
I will assume that you mean only the 2nd amendment and not that preventing anti-transition and/or anti-abortion legislation would also prevent laws on murder, rape, etc. If I am wrong, I think my response will cover those as well.
The purpose of the government is to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. All those things you listed infringe on the rights and bodily autonomy of others, which falls under justice and general welfare at the very least. What anyone does with and to their own body under their own consent does not, and if thus overreach of the government.
Self defense, whether armed or unarmed, passive or active, is a natural right belonging to any living thing to prevent loss of their autonomy. Guns are tools to enable self defense and even the playing field. They can be and frequently are used without infringing on the rights and autonomy of others.
I also did not include guns under the government not having the right or business to regulate. I think they certainly can, and they have through the 2nd amendment. If you want to change this, you must follow the established and agreed upon rules to do so. If you do not, you weaken all other laws by establishing loopholes where they can be ignored.
The 2nd Amendment is a single sentence and the first four words, “a well regulated militia”, are the subject. This is grammar. Unless you think the authors were bad at grammar, there’s not much to misinterpret.
Yeah, but you have to take the whole sentence to actually identify the grammar, not just the first 4 words. Beyond what has already been said about well regulated meaning ‘in good functional order’, that is a explanatory preposition to why the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is important. The Federalist papers back this up well enough as well.
If I said “Because being hungry sucks, access to the fridge shall not be restricted”, this does not imply that one must be hungry to have access to the fridge. Maybe it would be better if it were so people couldn’t over eat or eat out of boredom, but you would need to change that sentence to make it mean you had to be hungry to access the fridge.
There is also the fact that under federal law, everyone not serving in the standing military or the national guard (the organized militia) is legally classified as the unorganized militia, but I don’t think that even matters to the reading of the amendment.
I think the authors lived during the mid to late 1700s when “well regulated” meant “well equipped”
I’m actually against that. Not against an UBI per se, but against it replacing all welfare programs.
The main issue here is that needs vary a lot, and depending on your specific needs, an UBI might not begin to cover them.
One of my kids has Cystic Fibrosis, which leads to frequent hospital stays. One of the main medications (Kaftrio, that stuff is a miracle drug, it’s crazy how well it works) costs ~€350k per year.
UBI would be a drop in the ocean in this regard.
The same goes for a lot of other conditions. For example, a nursing home costs way more than any UBI would cover, but also if you have a disability that would require frequent assistance and/or a modified home or some special kind of transport, UBI would be just not enough.
I would think that having procedures, medications and other medical costs covered under universal healthcare and having a non-means tested or work gated UBI would be a hell of a lot better than the current Medicaid and SSI disability nightmares.
I include both of these together because currently the overhead expenditures for managing and running both the collective welfare programs at all levels and our for-profit healthcare system run at the behest of and for the profits of health insurance burn a significant amount of both money and time.
Needs may vary a lot, but having hoops to jump through to maintain eligibility for multiple welfare programs and under constant threat of being kicked off of any of them doesn’t seem to be the right answer to me.
But that’s where socialized healthcare comes in. None of what you brought up would have to be covered by any sort of UBI. Especially since if we had a national UBI we would probably already have socialized healthcare since the latter would be easier to get through than the former.
That’s the thing, though: many people advocating for UBL argue that it should replace ALL benefits (like the person I responded to) because, according to them, the UBL would cover all issues already. Generally speaking, people who argue like that are under 30 and haven’t had any serious contact with chronic conditions and don’t even consider the existence of anything worse than a broken leg.
Special needs (not only disabilities but all sorts of special circumstances) are complex, and UBL is a simple solution for complex issues. And a system like UBL needs to work for everyone, not only for most people.
He literally said “I totally want socialized healthcare”.
Follow the thread, read the context.
First guy was like “UBI should replace everything”. Then I said “Watch out, everything is not a good idea because e.g. health care costs vary wildly”. Second guy was like “Nobody is arguing for UBI without socialized healthcare”. To which I said “Well, some people do”. And then you came here and said “But second guy literally said he wants socialized healthcare”.
Here, let me quote his last paragraph before the edit for you:
See that “I also totally want socialized healthcare” line?
I would like to point out that I did 100% say Universal Healthcare, and nowhere did I implay keeping our shitty healthcare system with a UBI. To further clarify, UBI should only replace welfare programs, so stuff like food stamps, WIC, TANIF, state welfare, social security, etc. because those have restrictions and fuck people over almost as many times as they help them.
Social Security probably won’t be solvent in 50 years, food stamps are great until you make a dollar over the max allowable and lose all food assistance, WIC is great until your infant is just a little older and you lose all assistance. SSDI takes years to begin receiving and is, once again, subject to being dropped for any of a variety of reasons.
“Communism” and “woke” are the same in this context, because both are pejoratives right wingers use for “everything I don’t like”.