TakeYouToTasker

Rights do not come from democracy, or majority, or government. If they do, then you have no basis to claim it would be wrong to strip you of them.

Then a belief in the absolute and intrinsic nature of rights becomes even more important.

No, women always had those rights. Just as blacks did. (voting aside, as that's not a right, but rather a civil privilege) What was happening is that the rights of women (inalienable and intrinsic) were being systematically violated, and were not protected by law. What women fought for was to have their natural rights acknowledged and protected by their government. This is not a semantic difference If women did not have natural rights prior to their "emancipation" then there was nothing wrong with subjugating them, and no moral argument to be made for their liberation. If those rights did not exist prior, then no injustice existed in need of correction. Further, if they did not exist, then you are, quite literally, making the argument for the democratization of your (the literal you) rights; granting majority the just prerogative of stripping you of your rights with no moral argument against.

My only quibble is that you've always had those rights. They weren't earned nor awarded. What was fought for was the protection of those rights under the law, throwing off those who would oppress you (the larger you), and violate those rights, which are immutable and intrinsic. It's that single notion which made (makes) the subjugation of women a moral wrong. IE. If those rights are not intrinsic and immutable, then nothing was being violated through the general oppression of women.

That said, special prosecutors operating without rigid boundaries, manufacturing process crimes and perjury traps out of thin air is just about the most anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-justice concept I can think of.

They really didn't have any choice. You can't have laws against perjury, and regular citizens sitting in jail for it, and then look the other way for the President.

Correct. The framers of the ACA designed a Trojan Horse with the intention of destroying markets and driving up prices in order to collapse the US system.

Is... Is that... Is that a screwdriver? Possessing a screwdriver... makes you a coward...?

Leaving the incredible stupidity of your choice of words mostly alone, you're coming down on the side of modern human slavery and child sex trafficking? Interesting choice.

Individuals do not need to be politically centered to offer valuable insights.

The math isn't the worst part of the argument. It's not even the second worst part. The logical problems are peak; the moral problems second.

You're making a massively intellectually dishonest argument, if we isolate it as you have here. Massively. That's not even touching your argument's other failings, most of which you've failed to effectively address.

It's not even just that, though it starts there. He's attempting to co-mingle two logically irreconcilable positions (positive and negative rights), by stating that if access to the protection of property rights under the rule of law isn't a commodity, then essentially nothing is, because of how he feels about it. It's one of the worst arguments I've ever seen made here.

Yup. They're called "racists".

Perhaps he could contrast that with guys like Bowles and Jackson getting far longer leashes than was prudent. It's not about black and white. It's about green.

As Tom said, this is a gross misunderstanding. I'll let you break down your own argument. Start with explaining the difference between shared utility and single use utility. This is a dumb argument. First, I don't advocate for our current system. I advocate for a market based system. I've posted a detailed list of necessary changes here before. Secondly, you're now simply regurgitating Marx's critique of bureaucratic and management redundancies within a competitive capitalist system. It was a dopey critique when he made it, and it's even dopier now with 150 years of hindsight.

No, none of this is accurate no matter how much you wish it to be. Healthcare is a commodity. It is individually applied, has no shared utility, and is finite. Your wishcasting and handwavium does not change this. Other nations reported health care costs are also not an accurate accounting of their actual expenses. Other nations have massive health care black markets which are not reported in the official statistics for political reasons. Other nations also manipulate their outcome reporting with legal refusal of care for sectors of the their populations which generate the worst outcomes. For example: In England smokers and the obese are denied orthopedic surgeries by law. Their outcomes and our outcomes are not an apples to oranges comparison. These same other nations have health care provider shortages, and many of their systems are on the verge of collapse; yet here you sit spouting off about unicorns.

I'm not sure he reads this board.

I'd like to see him back, especially with Kyle sunsetting. We need veteran leadership in that locker room, as young as we are.

The exploratory committee isn't designed to gauge the potential support of the electorate, but rather is designed to test her favorables with the donor class.

Punishing criminals and pulling them out of civilized society and fierce protection of the Second Amendment is the other part of the solution. A society of laws necessitates a prison population for those who refuse to live under them, and demands that individuals be able to arm themselves to protect themselves, their families, and their property.

No, I am not missing what is taking place in society. I am lamenting it, because the healthy family unit is the foundational building block of intergenerational success, wealth building, and raising well adjusted children. That individuals are selfishly rejecting it in favor of instant gratification hedonism doesn't degrade it's value or necessity, but rather reinforces it with volumes of data. The only thing that works: social Darwinism. Make the chains of poverty so unbearable to live under that it drives better decision making out of fear. Quit making financial incentives which drive single parent families. Shame people who are on the public dole. Dismantle the welfare state.

The point is, that there is nothing that can replace that responsibility. Their choosing to be irresponsible and selfish will lead to worse outcomes for their children.