@spruce112358 saidR&D mate.
Say there is already a traffic circle at Elm and Main. Then gummint replacing that circle with a less-safe traffic light because of lobbying down at the statehouse from a wealthy donor who manufactures traffic lights would not qualify. Because that expenditure in no way protects our right to freely (i.e. safely) associate, it should be disallowed.
We have 4,000 M1 Abr ...[text shortened]... ederal funding for a pedestal for the Statue of Liberty which ended up being privately funded.
😆
Start another thread on farming. I have thoughts.
@spruce112358 saidBy the same type of argument you made for the traffic light being a necessary ancillary of the right to free association, it would be child's play to make analogous arguments that all those expenditures protect "rights" (example: right to life is to right to free association as health care is to safe roads).
Say there is already a traffic circle at Elm and Main. Then gummint replacing that circle with a less-safe traffic light because of lobbying down at the statehouse from a wealthy donor who manufactures traffic lights would not qualify. Because that expenditure in no way protects our right to freely (i.e. safely) associate, it should be disallowed.
We have 4,000 M1 Abr ...[text shortened]... ederal funding for a pedestal for the Statue of Liberty which ended up being privately funded.
😆
But since I don't regard any of the things you mention as Natural Rights (see my last post above), your questions are meaningless to me. All those are policies choices the majority (or their elected representatives as the case may be) should be able to decide for or against.
@wildgrass saidIt's wise of the government to fund R&D.
R&D mate.
Start another thread on farming. I have thoughts.
It's certainly not required by any type of "rights" argument though.
Let's say government funds research for defense purposes, and some of those inventions can later be usefully commercialized.
That expenditure was in support of our right to defend ourselves - so allowable. The fact that it produced something we use in our day-to-day lives is just a bonus. Rockets and satellites, for instance. 😆
Most people would agree we have a right to clean air and water - not spelled out in the Constitution. We should add it. EPA works to protect those rights.
People agree that when we buy a can of beans, we should have a right to know what is in it AND be relatively sure it will not kill us if we eat them. FDA protects those rights.
Etc., etc.
😆
@no1marauder said'The right to life' is unfortunately worded in a rather vague way. What does it mean?
By the same type of argument you made for the traffic light being a necessary ancillary of the right to free association, it would be child's play to make analogous arguments that all those expenditures protect "rights" (example: right to life is to right to free association as health care is to safe roads).
But since I don't regard any of the things you mention as Nat ...[text shortened]... ority (or their elected representatives as the case may be) should be able to decide for or against.
I would say it means 'the right not be placed at significant risk of death without consent.' 😆
@wildgrass saidHAHA! But this is fun... 😆
R&D mate.
Start another thread on farming. I have thoughts.
@spruce112358 saidPeople with treatable conditions that are often fatal if they have no access to health care would fit under that definition.
'The right to life' is unfortunately worded in a rather vague way. What does it mean?
I would say it means 'the right not be placed at significant risk of death without consent.' 😆
This is just Devil's Advocate work for me though. I've already stated my position and would say that a right to life is a classic negative right.
@spruce112358 saidIt's extremely clear. It means that arbitrarily killing people is immoral.
'The right to life' is unfortunately worded in a rather vague way. What does it mean?
I would say it means 'the right not be placed at significant risk of death without consent.' 😆
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidThere is plenty to criticize about Biden but Trump has TWO impeachments AND 34 FELONY CONVICTIONS, COURT AND JUDGE CONVICTIONS and all you can say is RIGGED FAKE DEM POLITICAL ATTACKS.
Criticize Trump? Did you ever once criticize Biden, any time? Ever? Your 13 brothers killed in Afghanistan? I could go along with about 1400 things to criticize Biden about. But you never did. So don’t come at us about how we should be criticizing Trump. That is my subject on this post. Isn’t it refreshing to not read 29 different things in one post. Your posts are beggin ...[text shortened]... ou have ever said all of the above in Starbucks as I , and the people around us,stared in amazement?
You DESPARETLY want to pass over Impeachments AND convictions but when Trump gets out in 28, his pass will catch up with him on many fronts, old convictions not completed to sentencing, I guess you thought that was totally over with but for your Lord, no such luck. When REAL people get put in AG and such, it will come back to bite Trump in the ass, sentencing LONG overdue.
Another thing you could care less about is Trump killing R@D research here in the US.
Who cares he fires the scientists running the gauntlet to stop the measles epidemic in waiting, now over ONE THOUSAND with measles, one of the most contagious diseases on the planet.
Or bird flu scientists, FIRED for DARING to want to control bird flu, find a vaccine before THAT becomes another epidemic.
Yeah, your Lord Trump is a GENIUS, right? Just ask him.
@no1marauder saidHow are the 'members of the majority' qualified to answer questions and make decisions regarding engineering matters (and all that that entails about traffic flow, traffic studies, etc)?????
By the same type of argument you made for the traffic light being a necessary ancillary of the right to free association, it would be child's play to make analogous arguments that all those expenditures protect "rights" (example: right to life is to right to free association as health care is to safe roads).
But since I don't regard any of the things you mention as Nat ...[text shortened]... ority (or their elected representatives as the case may be) should be able to decide for or against.
If that were the case, why would engineering degrees even be required of city engineers if a simple majority could decide what lights to put where!!!?!!?!?!?!???!?!!?!?!?!?
( will try to find a link on that 😆 )
@AverageJoe1 saidDo the engineers pay the cost of the traffic light or do the People?
How are the 'members of the majority' qualified to answer questions and make decisions regarding engineering matters (and all that that entails about traffic flow, traffic studies, etc)?????
If that were the case, why would engineering degrees even be required of city engineers if a simple majority could decide what lights to put where!!!?!!?!?!?!???!?!!?!?!?!?
( will try to find a link on that 😆 )
Of course, it's common for the People to delegate such specific decisions to administrative agencies but the ultimate power still rests properly in their hands.
@no1marauder saidMarauder says that the people who PAY for the lights should decide where they are put.
Do the engineers pay the cost of the traffic light or do the People?
Of course, it's common for the People to delegate such specific decisions to administrative agencies but the ultimate power still rests properly in their hands.
I like to put points in plain English, not cynical sarcastic back ass-ward statements.
So, everyone, if Mr Moneypenny who lives on the top of the hill commits to donate all the lights to the city,.....follow me here.....should he be the one and only person to decide where they go?
@spruce112358 saidIs it required that every government expenditure be linked to an explicit right described in the Constitution?
Let's say government funds research for defense purposes, and some of those inventions can later be usefully commercialized.
That expenditure was in support of our right to defend ourselves - so allowable. The fact that it produced something we use in our day-to-day lives is just a bonus. Rockets and satellites, for instance. 😆
Most people would agree we have a rig ...[text shortened]... relatively sure it will not kill us if we eat them. FDA protects those rights.
Etc., etc.
😆
@wildgrass saidWell, for one, the Constitution doesn't list all our rights yet. For example, the explicit right to privacy and the right to a balanced government budget which results in a non-fiat, non-inflating currency. Those rights aren't in the Constitution. Yet. 😆
Is it required that every government expenditure be linked to an explicit right described in the Constitution?
But quibbles aside - yes. Government doesn't make money - it lays taxes. Taxes infringe on our right to property. So how can government justify violating our property rights? By using those funds to protect a greater number of equally or more important rights.
It is the same as the 'fire in a crowded theatre' argument. Why did the government take away the right to free speech? To protect people's right to freely associate (i.e. watch a movie) without being put at risk without their consent.
Saying gummint can spend money on 'anything the majority wants' takes the weight off one side of the rights-balancing scale. It means gummint can violate your property rights (ie. tax you) for any reason as long as the majority's representatives approve of it. Creating more lesbian-owned gas stations, say. Or supporting the price of cheese. 😆