If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If

[valcont]

The moral foundation is stated in the declaration of independence, and it is this: every human being has a right to their own life. It doesn't belong to the state, or the collective, or anyone else. Happiness is the purpose of life, and people have a moral right to pursue it. No one else gets to dictate with a gun how you go about achieving it. What is the moral foundation for the idea that your life is to be decided by everyone but you?

 

"every human being has a right to their own life"

 

Lets just stop here because the right hasn't even settled on this yet. I doubt if they include blacks,women or muslims and their leader has openly stated that. Let them get to that intellect level first and then we can read the rest.

[rb]

"those freedoms are pretty much available"...

I can't not pay my social security tax and invest it now instead,

I can't stop paying for older people's medicare

I can't stop funding the EPA with my tax dollars

Taxes

I can't hire someone for $6 an hour

Yea that one you can't. I'll give you that one. Though I'm not really sure it's an individual freedom. You're still free to pay them nothing though.

I can't start a medical practice. I can't open a shampoo parlor for that matter.

Lots of people people open medical practices. But for some weird reason society decided that you should be a doctor to do that. Crazy I know. There's also lots of people opening shampoo shops and there's tons of private schools - those are actually really easy to open. Also don't think those fall under the bill of rights.

 

Hiring Mexicans doesn't fall under the bill of rights either, but I'm also fairly sure you'll be able to hire Mexicans in the future. There may be somewhat less of them around, but u'll be able to hire them.

 

[DonFanucci]

So what if it's taxes? I should be able to keep my property and do with it as I see fit. If I can't, then I'm a slave. That why private property flourished as the right to life was discovered. They are intertwined. As James Madison believed, private property is the implementation of all rights. What is the right to open a shampoo parlor other than the right to use your property? What is the right to free speech other than the right to use your printing press, or your radio station, or your computer? If someone takes my money, they've impaired my ability to control my life. Theft is a violation of individual rights and it's wrong.

 

[All those freedoms are pretty much available in all countries no matter they left or right lean with a few exceptions like Cuba or whatever. So the freedoms are there. You're just complaining about the price.

 

If this is the case, then everywhere on earth is a free country. North Korea is a free country. In fact, I bet if you asked Kim Jong Un if North Korea is free, he'd argue the same thing. You want to start a newspaper in North Korea? Well, you're completely free to do so. You just have to get permission from Kim. It's just a higher price.

 

You are providing an argument that justifies unlimited dictatorship. The world is moving in the wrong direction, and if we want to figure out why, the first place we need to look is our own opinions.

[rb]

Well that's what I've said in the beginning you just don't want to pay taxes. So give me a break with the personal liberty bullshit.

 

Like it or not you are part of a society. The society has decided to oppress people like you and me by not letting us open up medical practices because we didn't graduate from med school. I'm willing to bet that's not gonna change no matter who wins the presidency in the future. So you and I will have to continue being slaves.

 

One thing you never consider is that you enjoy the standard of living you do and you have the amount of money and property that you do because of such oppression. There are places in this world that conform to your world view: you can do whatever you want, open whatever business you want without any approval or regulation, you don't have to pay taxes, ext. The problem is that for some reason nobody wants to live there.

 

 

[Tim Eriksen]

The moral foundation is stated in the declaration of independence, and it is this: every human being has a right to their own life. It doesn't belong to the state, or the collective, or anyone else. Happiness is the purpose of life, and people have a moral right to pursue it. No one else gets to dictate with a gun how you go about achieving it. What is the moral foundation for the idea that your life is to be decided by everyone but you?

 

"every human being has a right to their own life"

 

Lets just stop here because the right hasn't even settled on this yet. I doubt if they include blacks,women or muslims and their leader has openly stated that. Let them get to that intellect level first and then we can read the rest.

 

This has to be the dumbest comment I have seen in a while.  Who supports the right of the unborn?  Who supports freedom not to buy health insurance?  Who supports charter schools?  Who supports smaller government?  Who supports freedom not to sell a wedding cake for a same sex marriage?   

[Rainforesthiker]

Well that's what I've said in the beginning you just don't want to pay taxes. So give me a break with the personal liberty bullshit.

 

Like it or not you are part of a society. The society has decided to oppress people like you and me by not letting us open up medical practices because we didn't graduate from med school. I'm willing to bet that's not gonna change no matter who wins the presidency in the future. So you and I will have to continue being slaves.

 

One thing you never consider is that you enjoy the standard of living you do and you have the amount of money and property that you do because of such oppression. There are places in this world that conform to your world view: you can do whatever you want, open whatever business you want without any approval or regulation, you don't have to pay taxes, ext. The problem is that for some reason nobody wants to live there.

 

There is nothing about personal liberty that is bullshit.  The standard of living we enjoy is due to liberty, free markets, and capital accumulation, not the State.  The growth of the State detracts from our standard of living.  Governments don't create any wealth, they can only redistribute it, and they waste half or more of it in the process. 

 

And by the way, medical licensing requirements, while in small part well intentioned, are just a way of limiting supply of medical services and hence raising prices.  If I want to go see a non-registered practitioner to have a small skin cancer removed for $50, instead of paying an MD $300 for the same service, why can't I make that choice?

 

I'm 100% with DonFanucci.

 

Btw, where is this mythical place with no business regulations and no taxes, but with the rule of law and strong private property rights? 

[rb]

 

Btw, where is this mythical place with no business regulations and no taxes, but with the rule of law and strong private property rights?

That place doesn't exist and I never claimed it did. I never said anything about rule of law and strong private property rights. That's the cognitive dissonance I was trying to point out. Once you're talking about rule of law and strong private property rights you're talking about state, government, and taxes to pay for it.

 

Btw, since you're looking for those things, which are provided by the state/government. I'd argue that it's exhibit number 1 that the state can contribute to the standard of living and the creation of wealth.

[onyx1]

Once you're talking about rule of law and strong private property rights you're talking about state, government, and taxes to pay for it.  Btw, since you're looking for those things, which are provided by the state/government.

 

News flash:  In the USA, the Constitution provides that the people give rights to the government, not the other way around.

[rb]

And why does that make any difference to what I've said?

[Rainforesthiker]

 

Btw, where is this mythical place with no business regulations and no taxes, but with the rule of law and strong private property rights?

That place doesn't exist and I never claimed it did. I never said anything about rule of law and strong private property rights. That's the cognitive dissonance I was trying to point out. Once you're talking about rule of law and strong private property rights you're talking about state, government, and taxes to pay for it.

 

Btw, since you're looking for those things, which are provided by the state/government. I'd argue that it's exhibit number 1 that the state can contribute to the standard of living and the creation of wealth.

 

I never said there was no role for the State; my point was that our current manifestation of the State, far beyond what our Founding Fathers envisioned or the Constitution literally allows, hugely infringes on our personal liberty.  In the prior discussion you seemed to be arguing for all of the taxes and government regulations currently proffered by our DC overlords.  Government should be for the most part limited to enforcing the rule of law / property rights and defense.  When it does more than that, by and large it destroys both our standard of living and liberty.

[onyx1]

And why does that make any difference to what I've said?

 

Because you appear to believe that government is responsible for the high standard of living we enjoy in the USA.  Sadly mistaken:

 

One thing you never consider is that you enjoy the standard of living you do and you have the amount of money and property that you do because of such oppression.

[rb]

 

Btw, where is this mythical place with no business regulations and no taxes, but with the rule of law and strong private property rights?

That place doesn't exist and I never claimed it did. I never said anything about rule of law and strong private property rights. That's the cognitive dissonance I was trying to point out. Once you're talking about rule of law and strong private property rights you're talking about state, government, and taxes to pay for it.

 

Btw, since you're looking for those things, which are provided by the state/government. I'd argue that it's exhibit number 1 that the state can contribute to the standard of living and the creation of wealth.

 

I never said there was no role for the State; my point was that our current manifestation of the State, far beyond what our Founding Fathers envisioned or the Constitution literally allows, hugely infringes on our personal liberty.  In the prior discussion you seemed to be arguing for all of the taxes and government regulations currently proffered by our DC overlords.  Government should be for the most part limited to enforcing the rule of law / property rights and defense.  When it does more than that, by and large it destroys both our standard of living and liberty.

See now it would be nice if you brought some evidence to back those facts up. I would say that empirical evidence would indicate that there's a point of balance between gov't and private market. Too much gov't is bad and too little again bad. This sweet spot also depends on the people and society, also on recognition on efficiencies that gov't can bring and also new trends such as entrepreneurial government etc.

[rb]

And why does that make any difference to what I've said?

 

Because you appear to believe that government is responsible for the high standard of living we enjoy in the USA.  Sadly mistaken:

 

One thing you never consider is that you enjoy the standard of living you do and you have the amount of money and property that you do because of such oppression.

Who exactly is part of this we? The 42 million Americans living in food insecure households? The 47 million Americans living in poverty? Or are those just the soon to haves? The working class, most of whom are not part of those statistics but yell that they were left behind anyway? You may want to be a little careful with that "we" term.

 

It's hard for me to prove. But I'll tend to agree with you that the gov't hasn't done as much for the people in the US as in other places. But is that such a surprise when you try to sabotage it at every turn and hope for its failure?

[Tim Eriksen]

You do realize that poverty statistics exclude from income all government benefits?  to say we have 47 million living in poverty is not accurate.  In other words, yes we have some poor, but no one is starving.  There is substantial assistance to the poor in this country in terms of education, food, housing, healthcare, unemployment, etc.       

 

The government has done and continues to do an immense amount for the poor in this country.  Of course "government" is an entity funded by income and corporate tax payers, so the upper middle class and rich have done this for them.  The goal is not make the poor middle class.  It is a safety net, which for most should be short term, to allow them to better their own lives. 

 

For most of my life I have been solidly middle class, and I received far more in benefits just from public education than what I or my parents contributed.  I am thankful to the wealthy for their generosity because I do not have a right to expect another to pay for me or for my children.   

 

[rkbabang]

You do realize that poverty statistics exclude from income all government benefits?  to say we have 47 million living in poverty is not accurate.  In other words, yes we have some poor, but no one is starving.  There is substantial assistance to the poor in this country in terms of education, food, housing, healthcare, unemployment, etc.       

 

The government has done and continues to do an immense amount for the poor in this country.  Of course "government" is an entity funded by income and corporate tax payers, so the upper middle class and rich have done this for them.  The goal is not make the poor middle class.  It is a safety net, which for most should be short term, to allow them to better their own lives. 

 

For most of my life I have been solidly middle class, and I received far more in benefits just from public education than what I or my parents contributed.  I am thankful to the wealthy for their generosity because I do not have a right to expect another to pay for me or for my children.   

 

 

Tim you are absolutely correct.  There are a few mentally ill people living on the streets because they refuse to go to the homeless shelters and get help, but for the most part no one in America is poor by historical or even current 3rd world standards.  It is quite extraordinary that there are 350M people and no one is starving, even if they refuse to lift a finger to be productive or help themselves.  In fact the poorest among us regularly consume too many calories not too few, while playing video games on their large screen TVs in their temperature controlled homes.  We have such phenomenal abundance of wealth that it is insane what seems poor to us.  I'm sure a truly poor child in Haiti would be quite amazed at the wealth of those "47 million Americans living in poverty" that rb talks of.

 

 

[onyx1]

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/images/reports/2011/09/b2607/b2607_chart1.ashx?w=500&h=536&as=1

 

 

Americans in poverty today live better the the richest people in the world did 100 years ago.

[onyx1]

And why does that make any difference to what I've said?

Because you appear to believe that government is responsible for the high standard of living we enjoy in the USA.  Sadly mistaken:

 

One thing you never consider is that you enjoy the standard of living you do and you have the amount of money and property that you do because of such oppression.

Who exactly is part of this we? The 42 million Americans living in food insecure households?

 

Food insecure household?  This is another government contrived term that is designed to mislead the gullible.  Laughable.

 

The definition is so broad that someone who wanted organic kale but can only afford regular kale is considered "food insecure", and most people labeled "food insecure" are obese.

 

The non-profits exploit the gullible by creating an illusion of a nationwide hunger crisis.  September is Hunger Action Month, got to keep the money coming in!

 

Sadly this charade dilutes the very small portion of people who are truly in need.

 

 

 

[vinod1]

You do realize that poverty statistics exclude from income all government benefits?  to say we have 47 million living in poverty is not accurate.  In other words, yes we have some poor, but no one is starving.  There is substantial assistance to the poor in this country in terms of education, food, housing, healthcare, unemployment, etc.       

 

The government has done and continues to do an immense amount for the poor in this country.  Of course "government" is an entity funded by income and corporate tax payers, so the upper middle class and rich have done this for them.  The goal is not make the poor middle class.  It is a safety net, which for most should be short term, to allow them to better their own lives. 

 

For most of my life I have been solidly middle class, and I received far more in benefits just from public education than what I or my parents contributed.  I am thankful to the wealthy for their generosity because I do not have a right to expect another to pay for me or for my children.   

 

 

Tim you are absolutely correct.  There are a few mentally ill people living on the streets because they refuse to go to the homeless shelters and get help, but for the most part no one in America is poor by historical or even current 3rd world standards.  It is quite extraordinary that there are 350M people and no one is starving, even if they refuse to lift a finger to be productive or help themselves.  In fact the poorest among us regularly consume too many calories not too few, while playing video games on their large screen TVs in their temperature controlled homes.  We have such phenomenal abundance of wealth that it is insane what seems poor to us.  I'm sure a truly poor child in Haiti would be quite amazed at the wealth of those "47 million Americans living in poverty" that rb talks of.

 

+1

 

I generally in agreement with rb on most political/economic issues, but not this one.

 

Poor or those in poverty in say a country like India, is an entirely different thing than what it is in USA. You cannot compare a family whose 9 year old daughter works at another family home cleaning dishes and many many other such chores to "poverty" in USA. Do you think that the kid gets play time? or even food in the morning? This is a very benign example.

 

If you do not see it in person I do not think one can even comprehend what poverty looks like in a country like India.

 

Vinod

 

[vinod1]

If I had to guess, I would say that the bottom 20% in US by family income would be in the top 5% in India by PPP.

 

Vinod

[wachtwoord]

If I had to guess, I would say that the bottom 20% in US by family income would be in the top 5% in India by PPP.

 

Vinod

 

I think you can go with top 1% of India there https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-income-levels-for-the-top-1-in-India

[Jurgis]

+1

 

I generally in agreement with rb on most political/economic issues, but not this one.

 

Poor or those in poverty in say a country like India, is an entirely different thing than what it is in USA. You cannot compare a family whose 9 year old daughter works at another family home cleaning dishes and many many other such chores to "poverty" in USA. Do you think that the kid gets play time? or even food in the morning? This is a very benign example.

 

If you do not see it in person I do not think one can even comprehend what poverty looks like in a country like India.

 

Vinod

 

The fact that poverty in India is much worse than poverty in USA does not subtract from issues of poverty in USA.

Yeah, I would rather alleviate poverty in India and other super poor countries. Yeah, I mostly donate for charities outside USA.

 

But rich rightwingers like people in previous messages who casually dismiss US poor likely haven't seen their living conditions either. It's very easy to dismiss US homeless who die in the streets as mentally unstable or addicts. A lot of them are, but there are numerous examples of normal people who lose their mobile houses (haha, let's perhaps read about BRK's Clayton again), have no employment, are buried in debt, and have no money for medicine or other necessities. Should we read about Flint again? Should we read about native American reservations?

 

It's always possible to blame them as clearly they've had much better opportunities than people in India, but that's the common practice of blaming the victim.

[rkbabang]

+1

 

I generally in agreement with rb on most political/economic issues, but not this one.

 

Poor or those in poverty in say a country like India, is an entirely different thing than what it is in USA. You cannot compare a family whose 9 year old daughter works at another family home cleaning dishes and many many other such chores to "poverty" in USA. Do you think that the kid gets play time? or even food in the morning? This is a very benign example.

 

If you do not see it in person I do not think one can even comprehend what poverty looks like in a country like India.

 

Vinod

 

The fact that poverty in India is much worse than poverty in USA does not subtract from issues of poverty in USA.

Yeah, I would rather alleviate poverty in India and other super poor countries. Yeah, I mostly donate for charities outside USA.

 

But rich rightwingers like people in previous messages who casually dismiss US poor likely haven't seen their living conditions either. It's very easy to dismiss US homeless who die in the streets as mentally unstable or addicts. A lot of them are, but there are numerous examples of normal people who lose their mobile houses (haha, let's perhaps read about BRK's Clayton again), have no employment, are buried in debt, and have no money for medicine or other necessities. Should we read about Flint again? Should we read about native American reservations?

 

It's always possible to blame them as clearly they've had much better opportunities than people in India, but that's the common practice of blaming the victim.

 

No one disputes that there are people out on the tail who really are in need, but throwing around numbers like 42 or 47 million is not even close to reality.  The numbers of such people are very small.  The fact is that those 47 million are taking resources from very few who are truly in need.

 

[Peregrine]

For those who enjoy long-form journalism, the following New Yorker piece on Obama is one of the best articles I've read this year. Whether left or right, I think we as human beings can all admire the man's rationality, integrity and perhaps most importantly, optimism.

 

I think that we will miss him.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency

[RichardGibbons]

Here is what it means to be poor in America, from Scalzi.

 

Certainly not the same as being poor in India, or in America 200 years ago.  Nevertheless, I'd greatly prefer not to be there. The biggest problems for me would be the constant, wearying grind, and the knowledge that even if I work really hard, and I'd still have a high chance of never getting out of poverty. In combination, these things would be crippling.

[Cardboard]

But, you worked hard and made millions selling the business that you built Richard. Why change the trend of the system that has worked so well towards the left? 

 

Why do you believe that it would be easier to get out of poverty if there was more entitlements (what a terrible word after all), more regulations and a larger safety net?

 

All these things make it more difficult for people to get out of poverty: reduced motivation, complications. And when one gets out of poverty in the current system, he or she likely gets out a few more along the way with whatever business was created and/or the inspiration.

 

I am not saying that we should eliminate all safety nets but, we should certainly be worried about its expansion and effects.

 

Cardboard