The Trump presidency is in a hole

[piezoe]

A society is like a family : when one member of a family is ill, others help.
The same way normally when living in a society.

That is ingrained .i.e., instinct, in us. See E.O. Wilson, "The Social Conquest of Earth"

 

[piezoe]

A right is inalienable.

Actually that is not quite correct. But I think you must have meant. " it is a right that is inalienable." Some rights may be argued to be inalienable. The right to health care is perhaps one that it can be argued to have become, in modern times, "inalienable'.

Imagine we are at the dinner table. I am your older, wiser dad. You say something that is really outrageously stupid. But being your dad, I don't want to put you down or attack your ego, especially in front of your younger siblings. So I say "That's not quite correct, but I think you must have meant...".

As a nice example of an argument based partly on the idea of inalienability, see: Scalia's masterful opinion on 'Heller v District of Columbia.' (Keep in mind that "masterful" can be interpreted in the say way that "amazing" should be interpreted when describing the performance of a total fuck-up.)

I very much like your preamble. It seems correct to me. I like what follows too. It is clear what you mean, and that's enough. You mean if someone else is responsible they should pay. But if no one else is responsible, I should pay.

Now imagine how your introductory statement would be altered by adding one word. For example, what would be the affect on meaning of changing it to read, "Access to health care is an inalienable ..."?

But don't make the change. Keep it as it is, and just consider the practical aspects. You might conclude that it is to your advantage to help pay for my healthcare, even if you aren't responsible, as long as I help you pay for yours.

Maybe that seems like quite a risk. So instead consider if there might be a practical advantage to agreeing to paying for an insignificant portions of a small number of millions of other persons health care, as long as those millions agree to help pay for yours. Obviously what I am eluding to here is "risk sharing." Now I think we may be getting somewhere.

 

[java]

Actually that is not quite correct. Some rights may be argued to be inalienable. Imagine we are at the dinner table. I am your older, wiser dad. You say something that is really outrageously stupid. But being your dad, I don't want to put you down or attack your ego, especially in front of your younger siblings. So I say "That's not quite correct...".

As a nice example of an argument based on the idea of inalienability: see Scalia masterful opinion on Heller v District of Columbia.

I'm a trader, my ego was destroyed long ago. The point I was making is my right doesn't require you to do anything. Your benefit requires money. The BIG issue is the difference between a society and a government. The liberal view is that they are one and the same. And that is where we disagree and why we are always arguing over all the ills your misguided view has created for what should be matters that society always has and always will address.

 

[java]

you must have added the Scalia after i replied. What is the gist of Scalias opinion on inalienability, keep it simple, or you could just explain if in your opinion healthcare or education or food clothing and shelter are a right.

 

[piezoe]

I survived Obama and I didn't even get a hat. I won't get anything from any president. How will paying attention to your red flags improve life for anybody? Is that the new message? PLEASE WORRY!!! ??? You have not yet convinced me your fears are grounded because you have not explained what it is he is going to bring to the USA. So just keep waving those red flags and put a maple leaf on it while you're at it. Trump has brought patriotism back to our country. Should I be worried?

Patriotism can be a very bad thing, just like an amazing job performance can be a very bad thing. See Mark Twain, who said that the only time you should support your country when it is wrong is when the Republic's life is a stake.

 

[piezoe]

you must have added the Scalia after i replied. What is the gist of Scalias opinion on inalienability, keep it simple, or you could just explain if in your opinion healthcare or education or food clothing and shelter are a right.

You're too fast. You should have better things to do with a Sunday afternoon. I edited heavily.

To bolster his entire argument, and in this instance consistent with his professed originalism, Scalia fell back on English common law that is the basis for our own U.S. laws. In English law it is clearly established that the right to bear arms is inalienable. In other words if this right is inalienable, like life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is inalienable, then there is hardly a need at all for the second amendment! It was a powerful, over arching argument. In my opinion, it was the most convincing part of his very long opinion. Where his argument was weak was in dispensing with the introductory clause of the second amendment. That part, I don't buy.

The consequences of Scalia's Heller Opinion caould be far reaching. This opinion is now the law of the land. In effect it says even if you amend the constitution. and repeal the second amendment, you can't get rid of the right to bear arms. It is inalienable! Scalia was a lovable, insufferable bastard. He was a table pounder, Evil to the core. He and his clerks were smart as whips.

 

[piezoe]

I'm a trader, my ego was destroyed long ago. The point I was making is my right doesn't require you to do anything. Your benefit requires money. The BIG issue is the difference between a society and a government. The liberal view is that they are one and the same. And that is where we disagree and why we are always arguing over all the ills your misguided view has created for what should be matters that society always has and always will address.

Does your benefit not require money? I am more interested in what works in practice, versus what should work, or what I wish would work.

In that respect I don't think it much matters whether healthcare is an inalienable right. Universal access to healthcare, as a practical matter, is an essential feature of any modern nation. If your country doesn't feature it, your country is second rate. It is really that simple!!!

 

[Cuddles]

Does your benefit not require money? I am more interested in what works in practice, versus what should work, or what I wish would work.

In that respect I don't think it much matters whether healthcare is an inalienable right. Universal access to healthcare, as a practical matter, is an essential feature of any modern nation. If your country doesn't feature it, your country is second rate. It is really that simple!!!

health, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness doesn't have quite the same ring to it though.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

There main objective seems to be discrediting of the U.S. media -- try to get the American public to discount everything the mainstream media reports. Your post is just one of many that tells me they are being successful. Amazing!

The media have done this all by themselves. I know you like to patronize us to make yourself feel so sophisticated, but I read the WashPost every day. It's no longer a newspaper in he traditional sense of providing factual news. It is all about advancing various leftwing agendas, eg Trump hate, war with Russia, AGW, every conceivable LGBQXYZwhatever, racial divisiveness open borders, etc.

The mainstream media have been biased all my life. There are two major differences now. One, we have alternate sources, which the mainstream media bitterly resent. They view their role as setting the agenda, deciding what is newsworthy and what is not. They have lost much of that power and they are furious about that, so they attack the alternative media and try to discredit them.

Two, the media are not at all concerned with the truth. It is all about winning, specifically beating Trump. They hate Trump more than they did Richard Nixon. They will do and say anything to beat him.

The NYTimes isowned by the richest man in mexico, Carlos Slim. The WashPo is owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos, whose amazon business is largely based on selling cheap crap from china. No conflicts there. The TV and cable nets are run by a group of men who are, shall we say, not very religiously diverse. Unsurprisingly, they all, even Fox News, advance a narrative that is at odds with the way most of the country see things. But is all due to Russian interference no doubt.

 

[java]

You're too fast. You should have better things to do with a Sunday afternoon. I edited heavily.

To bolster his entire argument, and in this instance consistent with his professed originalism, Scalia fell back on English common law that is the basis for our own U.S. laws. In English law it is clearly established that the right to bear arms is inalienable. In other words if this right is inalienable, like life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is inalienable, then there is hardly a need at all for the second amendment! It was a powerful, over arching argument. In my opinion, it was the most convincing part of his very long opinion. Where his argument was weak was in dispensing with the introductory clause of the second amendment. That part, I don't buy.

The consequences of Scalia's Heller Opinion caould be far reaching. This opinion is now the law of the land. In effect it says even if you amend the constitution. and repeal the second amendment, you can't get rid of the right to bear arms. It is inalienable! Scalia was a lovable, insufferable bastard. He was a table pounder, Evil to the core. He and his clerks were smart as whips.

You pushed the button before you were done editing and I'm too fast? Ok, I'll go back and start all over, the only thing it is keeping me from is preparing my fathers taxes, but to cut to the chase, my right to bear arms does not mean you or the government have to buy me a gun. The rights are enumerated to put the government on notice that they must not infringe. The government is not required to provide me with life or liberty, they just can't take what little liberty and life I have left away.