2 ms·

> If you allow someone to have rights to another person's product or service Who said this should ever be the case? You're assuming I support a right to healt

by mises 8y ago

> If you allow someone to have rights to another person's product or service Who said this should ever be the case? You're assuming I support a right to healthcare. I don't support that, nor do I support most positive rights. Especially if they're not constitutional and are federally implemented. The obvious solution to all the problems you mentioned is that nobody has a right to anyone else's product or service, which goes back to my original point: what right have you to the fruits of my labor?

dgzl 8y ago
I was agreeing with you, maybe I didn't make that clear.
lixtra 8y ago
> what right have you to the fruits of my labor? You mentioned the constitution so you agree that some effort has to be made to enforce it. This effort has to be paid for by tax on your labor. Once you agree on that you only haggle if it is more tax efficient to put someone in jail for stealing a pizza or handing out free pizza. You’re free to take part in this democratic process.
- mises 8y ago
  The constitution has been enforced via tax, yes, but I would argue that income tax is (or was and ought to be) unconstitutional (and wrong) and amendment XVI was an overt power grab. Sales tax, excise tax, sin tax, road toll, pick some other way. The goal is not tax efficiency but upholding the most basic freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and performing the very few duties specifically outlined in the Constitution. Notice how there is, for instance, no "right to healthcare" in it. Point me to the clause in the Constitution where it says anyone has a right to healthcare or that the federal government is allowed to dispense it.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Point me to the clause in the Constitution where it says anyone has a right to healthcare or that the federal government is allowed to dispense it. The latter, and it's the militia clause read together with the elastic clause. Arguably, depending on whether one views health status identification and health maintenance as more essential to training or organization of the universal militia, it may require the states to operate as delivery intermediaries, but it certainly allows federal funding.
    - mises 8y ago
      The latter what? What does the militia clause have to do with it, outside of providing healthcare to the military? The necessary and proper execution of which federal power? The federal government no longer calls up a militia, so you can make no pretense of this being anything but an unconstitutional reach. Also, militiae are not composed of all the populace, therefore you could at most justify a certain subgroup. Arguably the most vulnerable groups are the least covered by this. Also, the necessary and proper clause is a bs justification in most senses of its use, possibly tied with the commerce clause for most-abused.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > The latter what? The federal government is allowed to dispense it as opposed to anyone has a right to it. > What does the militia clause have to do with it, outside of providing healthcare to the military? The military clauses would be what authorizes healthcare to the military. The militia is not the military (and the militia clause is not the military clauses), and is universal. > The necessary and proper execution of which federal power? The militia power, as specified in the militia clause, hence the “read together with”. > The federal government no longer calls up a militia, The militia power expressly is not just about calling up and using a militia, but keeping one in readiness should a desire to call it up be made in the future. (Also, the federal government does calls up part of the militia, what is in current statute defined as the “organized militia”.) The militia power does not go away just because Congress does not anticipate a near-term need for a call-up. > Also, militiae are not composed of all the populace, therefore you could at most justify a certain subgroup. Arguably, the Constitutional militia is universal, and the statute purporting to limit the scope of the “unorganized militia” (currently to able-bodied males 17-45 [0]) is simply an application of the power to organize the militia based on anticipated likelihood of call ip, and does not alter the Constitutional scope of the militia. [0] the “males” part being in tension with the recent ruling against the male-only draft registration, as draft registration is also an exercise of the organizing part of the militia power.

by mises 8y ago

dgzl 8y ago

I was agreeing with you, maybe I didn't make that clear.

lixtra 8y ago

> what right have you to the fruits of my labor? You mentioned the constitution so you agree that some effort has to be made to enforce it. This effort has to be paid for by tax on your labor. Once you agree on that you only haggle if it is more tax efficient to put someone in jail for stealing a pizza or handing out free pizza. You’re free to take part in this democratic process.

mises 8y ago
The constitution has been enforced via tax, yes, but I would argue that income tax is (or was and ought to be) unconstitutional (and wrong) and amendment XVI was an overt power grab. Sales tax, excise tax, sin tax, road toll, pick some other way. The goal is not tax efficiency but upholding the most basic freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and performing the very few duties specifically outlined in the Constitution. Notice how there is, for instance, no "right to healthcare" in it. Point me to the clause in the Constitution where it says anyone has a right to healthcare or that the federal government is allowed to dispense it.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Point me to the clause in the Constitution where it says anyone has a right to healthcare or that the federal government is allowed to dispense it. The latter, and it's the militia clause read together with the elastic clause. Arguably, depending on whether one views health status identification and health maintenance as more essential to training or organization of the universal militia, it may require the states to operate as delivery intermediaries, but it certainly allows federal funding.
  - mises 8y ago
    The latter what? What does the militia clause have to do with it, outside of providing healthcare to the military? The necessary and proper execution of which federal power? The federal government no longer calls up a militia, so you can make no pretense of this being anything but an unconstitutional reach. Also, militiae are not composed of all the populace, therefore you could at most justify a certain subgroup. Arguably the most vulnerable groups are the least covered by this. Also, the necessary and proper clause is a bs justification in most senses of its use, possibly tied with the commerce clause for most-abused.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > The latter what? The federal government is allowed to dispense it as opposed to anyone has a right to it. > What does the militia clause have to do with it, outside of providing healthcare to the military? The military clauses would be what authorizes healthcare to the military. The militia is not the military (and the militia clause is not the military clauses), and is universal. > The necessary and proper execution of which federal power? The militia power, as specified in the militia clause, hence the “read together with”. > The federal government no longer calls up a militia, The militia power expressly is not just about calling up and using a militia, but keeping one in readiness should a desire to call it up be made in the future. (Also, the federal government does calls up part of the militia, what is in current statute defined as the “organized militia”.) The militia power does not go away just because Congress does not anticipate a near-term need for a call-up. > Also, militiae are not composed of all the populace, therefore you could at most justify a certain subgroup. Arguably, the Constitutional militia is universal, and the statute purporting to limit the scope of the “unorganized militia” (currently to able-bodied males 17-45 [0]) is simply an application of the power to organize the militia based on anticipated likelihood of call ip, and does not alter the Constitutional scope of the militia. [0] the “males” part being in tension with the recent ruling against the male-only draft registration, as draft registration is also an exercise of the organizing part of the militia power.