A brits view on Trump

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

S. I still maintain I am not a socialist. (Not by British standards anyway.) 

You aren’t. By American standards either. 

[zil2]

15 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

I think the difference here is purely cultural.

It's not cultural, it's philosophical and logical.  You're stuck in the current, practical, the-system's-already-in-place-in-the-UK mindset.  We're telling you to step back and follow your assertion to its logical conclusion - which in the case of healthcare, is slavery (of the healthcare providers).

If you HaggisShuu, have a right to [thing], then force (yours and/or government) can be used to get or defend [thing] - that's the definition of "right".  If [thing] is not a natural / conceptual thing (like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or speech, conscience, self-defence, etc.), then either someone must give you [physical object thing] or do for you [service thing].  And in that case, we have either theft (and indirect slavery) or slavery because someone was forced to give you [thing].

If your desired right would force another to do something, then it's not a right - unless of course, you'd like to say that people don't have a right to life and liberty, in which case, your right to healthcare is kinda meaningless.

You may think this is all theoretical nonsense, but it's only theoretical so long as enough people stand up for freedom.  Slavery was the norm for the vast majority of human history.  There are still people in slavery right this very second.  There's no shortage of very wealthy and sick men who would like to enslave the whole planet (except themselves, of course).  The only thing keeping it from becoming the norm again is the fact that enough people are actively fighting against it.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

do I just lose my family for not being able to afford medical bills?

Welcome to the entire history of mortality. 

[The Folk Prophet]

17 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

I think the difference here is purely cultural.

The concept that culture defines my rights is baffling. Take that to the extreme. If culture dictates that it's legal or otherwise acceptable to rape and murder, you'd argue that those being raped and murdered should just accept that because of the so-called "rights" set forth by said culture or legality? Or do those being murdered and raped have the God-given right to rise up in rebellion against that abuse?

I'm not even arguing for or against free Healthcare. But it's not a cultural question. Abusive is abusive. 

By the way... there's no such thing as "free". Someone is paying. It's only a question of who. 

Obviously higher taxes because of so- called "free" Healthcare isn't in the same class as rape and murder. But the logic applies, generally. 

That's not even my problem with a welfare state though. I'd be fine with higher taxes and free Healthcare IF... government didn't suck at everything!

There may be exceptions... but they're few and far between. By and large, if you want to make something worse...put it into the government's hands. 

Socialist government's aren't compassion. They're beauracratic, wasteful, self-serving, corrupt machines of destruction. By human nature and the fact that they have their priorities wrong.

ALL governments are beauracratic, wasteful, self- serving, corrupt machines of destruction.  The best have checks and balances against such, and prioritize freedom above ALL else, including Healthcare or other welfare issues.

Governments that prioritize welfare over freedom and/or have no checks and balances allow for unrestrained evil, pure and simple.

No one is against welfare. But at the cost of freedom? Nope. Because welfare without freedom is for no one's welfare at all. 

Moreover... government can't and won't understand what's actually beneficial when it comes to things they can't and won't understand, because they're politicians and driven by politics.

Capitalists have to understand or they don't make money.

It's not a complicated idea, actually. 

Edited March 8 by The Folk Prophet

[LDSGator]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

By and large, if you want to make something worse...put it into the government's hands. 

In my dream world a government would have a monetary policy, enforce contracts, wage war, and punish those who hurt others. Other than that, nothing else. 

Edited March 8 by LDSGator

[HaggisShuu]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The concept that culture defines my rights is baffling. Take that to the extreme. If culture dictates that it's legal or otherwise acceptable to rape and murder, you'd argue that those being raped and murdered should just accept that because of the so-called "rights" set forth by said culture or legality? Or do those being murdered and raped have the God-given right to rise up in rebellion against that abuse?

I get what you're saying but I think that's a stretch. Allow me to rephrase. 
 

Legally, what I am entitled to, and what you are entitled to, are not the same, which has lead to culturally different world views. It is therefore not productive, to try and convince each other otherwise. In the context of healthcare. 

Edited March 8 by HaggisShuu

[HaggisShuu]

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Welcome to the entire history of mortality. 

Well I find that barbaric. 

[HaggisShuu]

7 hours ago, zil2 said:

It's not cultural, it's philosophical and logical.  You're stuck in the current, practical, the-system's-already-in-place-in-the-UK mindset.  We're telling you to step back and follow your assertion to its logical conclusion - which in the case of healthcare, is slavery (of the healthcare providers).

If you HaggisShuu, have a right to [thing], then force (yours and/or government) can be used to get or defend [thing] - that's the definition of "right".  If [thing] is not a natural / conceptual thing (like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or speech, conscience, self-defence, etc.), then either someone must give you [physical object thing] or do for you [service thing].  And in that case, we have either theft (and indirect slavery) or slavery because someone was forced to give you [thing].

If your desired right would force another to do something, then it's not a right - unless of course, you'd like to say that people don't have a right to life and liberty, in which case, your right to healthcare is kinda meaningless.

You may think this is all theoretical nonsense, but it's only theoretical so long as enough people stand up for freedom.  Slavery was the norm for the vast majority of human history.  There are still people in slavery right this very second.  There's no shortage of very wealthy and sick men who would like to enslave the whole planet (except themselves, of course).  The only thing keeping it from becoming the norm again is the fact that enough people are actively fighting against it.

Okay, so I understand your argument correctly:

An entitlement to X thing, means that somebody has no choice but to provide X thing, as it will be enforced by either the government, or the revolting people who want X thing. 
 

Working in a prison, if an obviously innocent man is convicted, if I make attempts to aid his escape, I will go to prison myself. Am I being coerced against my will? Am I a slave to the government? 
 

Is the police officer who is called out to something petty, that he really doesn't want to go to, a slave, if his superiors instruct him to go? 
 

Were the soldiers sent to Iraq and Afghanistan slaves? 
 

You can apply this train of thought to literally anything, even, private healthcare. 
 

If I have the ability to pay for a treatment my physician does not want to provide, but his bosses demand he provide, because afterall, his still only an employee of the hospital and could lose his job for poor conduct. Is this an example of coercion and slavery? 

You may say yes or no to some of these example, but the point I was trying to make is that everybody who works for somebody else, agrees to give up some degree of autonomy, in return for money. A prison Officer voluntarily agrees not to release anybody when he joins. A policeman voluntarily accepts that he may end up in petty situation, a soldier (one who isn't conscripted at least) voluntarily accepts that he may be sent to war.  These are the priced people pay, for employment. 
 

People working at the bottom of the hierarchy in private and public hospital have only one meaningful distinction, which they voluntarily agree to, when they choose to enter the field. 
 

Public - Treat anybody who walks through your door. 

Private - treat anybody who walks through the door, and can pay. 
 

Both groups of people are bound by contracts and employers which restrict autonomy to some degree. 

Additionally, I would argue that if slavery were the norm for most of human history, then concepts like freedom, pursuit of happiness, liberty etc, are not natural ideals. But exceptional ideals which we are blessed with due to living in an exceptional time in human history. I would argue that, a right to healthcare is part of a right to life. 
 

 

Edited March 8 by HaggisShuu

[Vort]

5 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

Well I find that barbaric. 

History is barbaric? Life is barbaric? Reality is barbaric?

[Vort]

5 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

I get what you're saying but I think that's a stretch. Allow me to rephrase. 
 

Legally, what I am entitled to, and what you are entitled to, are not the same, which has lead to culturally different world views. It is therefore not productive, to try and convince each other otherwise. In the context of healthcare. 

Your idea of justice and my idea of justice aren't the same. Therefore, it is unproductive to discuss justice. 

Where does it end?

[Vort]

5 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

Okay, so I understand your argument correctly:

An entitlement to X thing, means that somebody has no choice but to provide X thing, as it will be enforced by either the government, or the revolting people who want X thing.

No. Let me try. We need to have a common foundation for discussing these fundamental ideas.

If I have a right to some act or condition X, that means that the government must defend that right with force--even deadly force. For example, I have a right to life. That means that as long as I am operating within my right (e.g. not trespassing), the government must defend my life. Even if I smell bad and people hate me.

Another example: I have a right to speak freely. As long as I am operating within my right (e.g. not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater), the government must defend that right. Even if what I say is unpopular. Even if what I say is offensive.

Great Britain used to understand this principle, but the last couple of generations of Brits seem to have completely forgotten it.

5 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

I would argue that, a right to healthcare is part of a right to life. 

That is because you've forgotten, or perhaps never understood, what a right is and how it is to be defended.

 You have a right to own private property. Specifically, you have a right to own an automobile. What does this mean? Does this mean that if you do not possess an automobile, the government is required to buy one for you? Nonsense. Clearly, that is not what is meant by the right to own a motor vehicle.

 You have a right to free speech. Does this mean the government must provide you with a platform on which you get to state whatever you think? No. That's absurd. That's not what it means to have the right to free speech.

 You have the right to receive healthcare. Does this mean that the government must provide you with health care if you don't have it? Again, that's not what is meant by right to receive something, any more than the right to marry implies that the government has to provide you a spouse.

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

History is barbaric? Life is barbaric? Reality is barbaric?

Actually yes. If you read history you’ll find it’s incredibly barbaric and violent. Today is a cake walk of flowers and sunshine compared to the past.

Life and reality? Again, yes. Talk to families who have lose loved ones in DUI accidents. 

[zil2]

8 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

An entitlement

Not entitlement.  Right.  They are two completely different things.  I have to assume that you have not read any philosophers discussing the concept of rights or you would be familiar with the logic.  And it's not mine - it's from people who are waaaayy smarter than I am.

I'll wait and see if @Vort's explanations have worked any better than mine.  But I think until we have a common understanding of what a "right" actually is (either from a philosophical or a legal perspective), there's no way to continue the discussion.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

Legally, what I am entitled to, and what you are entitled to, are not the same, which has lead to culturally different world views

Yeah, it's led you to philosophically misunderstand the nature of what a right is or should be.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

Well I find that barbaric. 

Welcome to mortality. 

[HaggisShuu]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Your idea of justice and my idea of justice aren't the same. Therefore, it is unproductive to discuss justice. 

Where does it end?

Well, this was initially an attempt to declare my intention to bow out of the discussion. As you have implied, it could probably go on forever, which is exactly why I find it unproductive. 
 

HOWEVER, 

3 hours ago, Vort said:

You have a right to own private property. Specifically, you have a right to own an automobile. What does this mean? Does this mean that if you do not possess an automobile, the government is required to buy one for you? Nonsense. Clearly, that is not what is meant by the right to own a motor vehicle.

 You have a right to free speech. Does this mean the government must provide you with a platform on which you get to state whatever you think? No. That's absurd. That's not what it means to have the right to free speech.

 You have the right to receive healthcare. Does this mean that the government must provide you with health care if you don't have it? Again, that's not what is meant by right to receive something, any more than the right to marry implies that the government has to provide you a spouse

I do find this to be an interesting perspective. I suppose the reason as to why I have been so guards up this thread, is because it feels as though what has been implied by some contributors, is that because my wife and I used a public hospital for her birth instead of a dangerous home birth, or taking on unsustainable debt privately, that I have indirectly supported theft and slavery - an accusation guaranteed to make anybody defensive. My original response with @mirkwood was a poorly executed attempt at demonstrating how my experiences have formed my world view. Which is just as effective as bearing my testimony to an atheist.

So, if I concede, that healthcare is not a human right and alter my position. "Free healthcare is a moral good." Will it help lead to a less contentious resolution? 

[HaggisShuu]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

History is barbaric? Life is barbaric? Reality is barbaric?

Yes it is, but I see no reason to allow barbarity to continue, when in some situations, we have the capability to eradicate it. 

[Just_A_Guy]

 

On 3/6/2025 at 7:14 AM, HaggisShuu said:

The media coverage on Trump is hardly favourable in Europe. While I think his anti-woke efforts are commendable. I'm not able to wrap my head around what's going on. 
 

The tariffs, attempts of slashing of foreign aid, the bluster over annexing the Panama canal, Greenland, Gaza and Canada, the generally unpopular view of how he is attempting to force a peace in Ukraine and the unanswered question of how he plans to handle Taiwan and distancing himself from NATO, in my view, leads to a diplomatically isolated USA, and a shattered American hegemony. America is really the only global rival to China, and it feels like Trump is handing China the win. I'm no economist, but his tariffs are leading to retaliation tariffs, meaning importing and exporting will become less feasible over time and history shows autarky's rarely work out for the best. 
 

What's the angle here? Do you believe this is best for your economy? Is this what you voted for? 
 

I don't have a hate for Trump, I don't froth at the mouth when I hear his name, I just don't understand his game plan here. 

Sooo . . . I consider myself a conservative.  I'm also pretty ardently NeverTrump.  I believe he's a bad guy.  The evidence that he is a sexual predator is, to me, convincing.  I believe he abjectly fails every one of the criterion set out in D&C 98:10.   I think he frequently exhibits a flagrant disregard for truth and a contempt for political adversaries that is incompatible with the way civic discourse is supposed to work in a functional democratic republic.  (That said, I think his style is a natural and expected--if not "logical"--reaction to the way the American left and center-left have chosen to do politics over the last fifty years).  I'm intensely proud of the fact that I never voted for him.  

With that being said, I think a lot of the critiques against him are unfair, dishonest, and/or histrionic.  He's not a Nazi.  He's not a racist (at least, as we've been brought up to define that term.  "Cultural chauvinist" may be more apt.)  He's not really even all that isolationist, given the American history of isolationism.  

With regard to the specific points you raise:

• Tariffs:  I grew up being taught about the economic virtues of free trade--that the result was cheaper goods and a better lifestyle for everyone; and that even if someone else is tariffing your stuff, it's better for you in the long run not to tariff theirs.  I still have a lot of sympathy for that position, and a presumptive suspicion against those who make a "we must protect these vital/infant industries!" argument. 

At the same time:  It's pretty hard to ignore the reality that by and large, American industrial/manufacturing capability seems to have been hollowed out compared to where it was fifty or even twenty years ago; and it's starting to have national security ramifications (vis a vis China especially).  I don't think that's all due to the fact that other countries have been tariffing our stuff while we haven't been tariffing theirs--labor and materiel supply and costs, regulation, culture, and other factors certainly play a role.  And I'm sure that evaluating a single nation's entire network of trade regulations and formulating a conclusion about whether that nation is "exploiting" us in a way that demands retaliation--and then repeating that analysis for each of the the 190-odd other countries in the world--is something I have neither the time nor the inclination to do. 

But at this particular moment in time, I'm glad the analysis is being done by people who recognize that there are costs to free trade and aren't merely applying a "cheap goods uber alles, and let the blue-collar workers learn to code" framework.

• Foreign Aid:  From a national-interest standpoint:  foreign aid "feels" nice.  But I'm not sure it has earned us any truly lasting friends who could and would, in a pinch, inconvenience themselves to meaningfully help us out.  Obviously, Humanitarian-oriented foreign aid is a good thing to do if we can actually afford it and if it's actually accomplishing a certain amount of good within certain parameters of efficiency. 

But the financial state of the US government is dire.  I don't think we can afford it.  We're going to need draconian cuts across the board; and when it turns out we're sending billions of dollars in the name of "foreign aid" to subsidize LGBTQ+ propaganda in third-world nations whose majorities and governments don't want it--well, anytime you're trying to trim a budget, you're going to start by cutting the low-hanging fruit.  

• Panama Canal:  I don't care if we own it or collect the profit from it, as long as we can use it on equal terms with other countries and get priority for our naval vessels.  If it's true that China is positioning itself to be able to control and potentially lock out canal traffic--that's unacceptable, at least for the short-term.  (Though I think Trump is telling a number of lies about how it was built and who bore the brunt of the construction deaths, which of course I'm not a fan of.) 

Longer-term, I think we need to reconcile ourselves to the idea that we can't control what goes on in Panama or any other country; and we need to develop whatever infrastructure/redundancies we can so that we aren't so reliant on the Panama Canal.  That probably means ramping up shipbuilding/refitting infrastructure on both of our coasts, exploring canal alternatives through Nicaragua or wherever else, just planning that more commercial ships may have to take the trip around Cape Horn, etc.)  

• Greenland:  They are a socially progressive people, and no Republican in their right mind would want to give Greenland two Senate seats or any electoral votes.  And acquiring new, permanently non-voting "territories" just feels un-American.  We *should* keep Greenland strategically available to and engaged with the "free world" [whatever THAT means these days, though that's another rant entirely!], both in terms of access to arctic transportation routes and commercial access to natural resources; and we should box out the powers that want to monopolize and exploit Greenland for their own ends.  If that means a little Trumpian Kabuki theater for the next few months . . . I'm content to let that play out.  
• Gaza:  I think the last year and a half has borne out the notion that by and large, there are very few (if any) Gazan adults or adolescents who, given the chance, wouldn't enslave/starve/beat/rape/kill a Jew if they had the chance.  It's a sick, sick, sick society--sicker by far than Nazi Germany or any of the other totalitarian regimes we typically associate with 20th century industrialized warfare.  I pity the children born into this society, but . . . I don't know how you rehabilitate a people that is that far gone.  I'm not convinced anything short of turning the whole area into a glass parking lot, really solves the problem. 

Trump is, of course, free to propose whatever pie-in-the-sky he wants; and if it changes the conversation and brings in some other stakeholders and ultimately gets the Gazans to give up the most degenerate of their hobbies--so be it.  Just so long as it doesn't involve American lives or American dollars.  We all saw how that goshawful "pier" turned out . . .

• Canada:  See "Greenland". 
• Ukraine:  I feel bad for the Ukrainians.  The Russian invasion of Ukraine was totally unjustified.  Territorial guarantees were made back in the 1990s to induce Ukraine to give up their nukes, and those should have been respected in the 2000s and 2010s, regardless of how many ethnic-so-and-sos were living in which regions. 

At the same time:  The $170 billion the US has given/committed to Ukraine, plus even larger amounts from the Europeans, seems to have accomplished a stalemate at best. The price of re-taking Donbas and Crimea seems likely to be American boots on the ground, or another $170 billion, or some combination of the two; and frankly--that's not a price I, as an American, am willing to pay.  I'm sorry, I'm just not.  If that makes me a crappy "citizen of the world", then I guess I'll just have to embrace that part of my identity and sit on my couch and feel bad about myself while my moral superiors show their compassion and virtue by signing themselves and their families up to join the Ukrainian International Legion.

If Ukraine continues to stick with the line that they won't accept peace without getting Donbas and Crimea back, then I think it's right for the US to say "If you don't end this thing then we're going to scale back our aid on such-and-such a timeline, which we will make public; and after that you're going to be on your own."  My gut is that Trump should have left it there (and maybe offered the Ukrainians a few dozen nuclear warheads), rather than trying to work out the nuts and bolts of a ceasefire and trying to get the US some mining privileges along the way. 

That said, I am inclined to think that the debacle at the White House was primarily Zelensky's fault--he was trying to goad Trump publicly into making a specific security guarantee that he must have known from the earlier private conversations, Trump wasn't ready to make.  But a potential silver lining to the debacle is that the Europeans seem to have gotten the message loud and clear that they need to develop an independent credible deterrent force against Russia.  (Then again:  Will they actually use that new force against Russia?  Or will they use it to force regime change in socially-conservative eastern countries like Romania or Hungary or Poland?)

• Europe/Russia/NATO, generally: I'm sort of in "a plague on all your houses" mode here.  IMHO, NATO was supposed to push back against the global spread of a specific expansionist totalitarian ideology backed by military force, not the local (or even continental) territorial ambitions of a particular European power.  NATO was supposed to champion liberty, free speech, free religion, free elections, free markets, and general Western enlightenment ideals and traditions.  At this point I think the US needs to ask itself some hard questions about whether whatever it is that NATO now represents is worth spending American blood and treasure to defend; and questions about what the nature of the current threat actually is. 

I grew up on, and love, the vision of America, and the West generally, as defenders and propagators of liberty and justice.  But VP Vance made some potent points in Munich about modern European commitment to some of those principles.  Our misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to have shown that as an outsider you can't prop up a free society by giving more for their liberty than they themselves are willing to give. 

And while Putin is clearly an evil SOB and Russia may indeed have continental ambitions--I can't help but notice that the great bugaboo of Russia has gotten bogged down in a quagmire against what was until recently a third-rate military fighting for what was considered to be more-or-less the redneck capital of Europe.  Do the Eurocrats really think that the combined armies of western Europe couldn't do as well as Ukraine has done?  Really?  And for all the Eurocrat histrionics about the Russian threat to western Europe and global peace as a whole--their own actions, in terms of defense spending and military buildup, suggests that they aren't really all that worried about Russian expansionism (or weren't, until very recently).  

When I was practicing as a lawyer in the private sector, I used to tell my clients "I'm not going to take your case more seriously than you do".  But that's precisely what my European friends seem to want my country to do.  In the past, I've argued that America-as-world's-policemen made sense from a mathematical standpoint—better to lose 2,500 men/year for a hundred years, then half a million men in a once-in-a-century world war.  But why are we the only ones who have to do that math?  And why do we have to put up with the rest of Europe posing and preening and spitting in our eyes while we do it?  "Autarky", as you call it, has definite drawbacks; but on the whole it's starting to look preferable to having a crew of European wannabe dictators perennially scheming to use my kids as cannon fodder in their grudge-matches against other European wannabe dictators.   

• China:  I'm not sure what "handing China the win" actually means here.  Letting China surpass us in military capabilities (almost, if not already, there), surpass us in shipbuilding capacity (exceeded long ago, by several orders of magnitude), surpass us in manufacturing generally, steal our technology and then surpass much of it, lock up repositories of natural resources around the globe, spread propaganda around the globe, and bully its neighbors who had previously expected us to be able to effectively protect them?  That has already happened.  China is *already* winning.  The post-cold-war order, championed by presidents of both parties (but most notoriously Clinton and Obama), let them win.  It's not defeatism to say "holy crap, we're behind, we'd better work harder to catch up".  It's the opposite of defeatism.  And to his credit, Trump was one of the earliest and loudest voices sounding the alarm on this issue (hence the "stop Asian hate" business a couple of years ago, which was calculated to paint him and others who stood up to the CCP as "racists" and which, IIRC, actually had support from Confucius Institutes around the country). 

If part of the process of "waking the sleeping giant" against Chinese aggression entails a tariff war that may succeed at getting certain concessions out of the Chinese that will foster long-term stability and prosperity--well, finding American alternatives to Chinese imports is an American tradition that goes back to the Revolution itself.  

• Taiwan:  As noted above, our hand in supporting Taiwan at the moment is extremely weak--and more so due to simple geography.  We cannot effectively defend them against a Chinese invasion without tremendous loss (and the likelihood of effectively defending them at all diminishes every day.  The Chinese know this; and there's no sense in our strutting around like impotent roosters pretending we can do what everyone knows we can't do. 

We should build redundancies for Taiwanese microchip manufacturers on American soil.  We should offer asylum to freedom-loving Taiwanese who want it.  Maybe we could even give them land- and sub-based nuclear ICBMs.* (Actually, the UK could do all those things as easily as we could.)  But beyond that--what would the UK, which infamously handed Hong Kong back to the CCP, have us do to safeguard the liberty and security of the Taiwanese people?  

So I guess, in total, my thought would be:  We're at a precarious moment in history.  The old status quo is not sustainable.  I wish the US were led by someone with a universally acknowledged and acclaimed vision for what the next century of international relations are going to look like (and if that person were a decent human being and worthy of inspiration by the Spirit of God in the same way that--say--Pahoran and Moroni and Helaman were, so much the better!)

But other than Russell M. Nelson (who I voted for, but who I'm sure doesn't want the job), we have no such person in the world today.  And I think Trump's instincts aren't actually terrible on this.  So my inclination is to, as the kids say, "let him cook".  

* Long-term, I think the notion of an international peace secured by the implicit of American-guaranteed MAD, needs to be replaced by an international peace secured by a series of regional "Mini-MADS" that need not go global or result in counterstrikes on the US--the UK, France, Poland, and maybe Ukraine countering bad actors in Europe; India and Israel securing southwest Asia; Japan and Taiwan and maybe South Korea in east Asia; and Australia in the western Pacific.

Edited March 8 by Just_A_Guy

[HaggisShuu]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Not entitlement.  Right.  They are two completely different things.  I have to assume that you have not read any philosophers discussing the concept of rights or you would be familiar with the logic.  And it's not mine - it's from people who are waaaayy smarter than I am.

I'll wait and see if @Vort's explanations have worked any better than mine.  But I think until we have a common understanding of what a "right" actually is (either from a philosophical or a legal perspective), there's no way to continue the discussion.

 

I was using the terms interchangeably, and no I haven't read any philosophy books on rights, I don't have the time, and its sounds like a very slow burning topic. 

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

I was using the terms interchangeably, and no I haven't read any philosophy books on rights, I don't have the time, and its sounds like a very slow burning topic. 

If you want to read an easily accessible one, start with Free To Choose by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman. 

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

Will it help lead to a less contentious resolution? 

I guess that depends on what you consider contention. Do we all have to agree? 

[HaggisShuu]

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I guess that depends on what you consider contention. Do we all have to agree? 

No of course not, I just feel like the thread could have erupted into contention. 

[HaggisShuu]

23 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

If you want to read an easily accessible one, start with Free To Choose by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman. 

I will add it to my list. I did a philosophy class in school, and found it quite boring at the time. 

Edited March 8 by HaggisShuu

[NeuroTypical]

I just wanted to say I've been arguing healthcare rights vs entitlements vs moral good with our neighbors across the pond for decades now.  I've often found y'all to be the more civil in most such debates.  Not always, but often.   I've almost never seen anyone budge on their existing opinion about govt support of healthcare, but folks (usually the UK folks) will often bend on their definition on RvEvMG the more they think about the definitions.  

No matter what the outcome of this thread, I'm glad you're here @HaggisShuu.   If you ever get bored of arguing politics and healthcare, we can argue gun rights!   

[HaggisShuu]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I just wanted to say I've been arguing healthcare rights vs entitlements vs moral good with our neighbors across the pond for decades now.  I've often found y'all to be the more civil in most such debates.  Not always, but often.   I've almost never seen anyone budge on their existing opinion about govt support of healthcare, but folks (usually the UK folks) will often bend on their definition on RvEvMG the more they think about the definitions.  

No matter what the outcome of this thread, I'm glad you're here @HaggisShuu.   If you ever get bored of arguing politics and healthcare, we can argue gun rights!   

I actually don't have an issue with gun ownership. If people in the UK could carry guns, the gangs in major cities (which already have an use guns) would die out very quickly, as people are sick of their nonsense. 
 

I appreciate your post all the same. 

Edited March 8 by HaggisShuu