If you got one thing free every day what would it be???

I am neither Liberal nor Conservative. This is one issue where I agree with Liberals.

I am 100% against Progressive attacks on Free Speech.

 

Not end, but greatly reduce from a level to horrible to contemplate.

If guns are legal, why is carfentanil banned?

 

Our "Declaration of Independence" covered those 'rights', they're included in the unalienable rights as being the "pursuit of Happiness".

 

Unfortunately the 44 million Americans with Mental Disability have far fewer chances to pursue happiness. I also have Autism and Depression.

 

Then it IS possible. Unless something is changed, a dollar will become 3% of its present value in about 100 years.
Worst case 2129, best case 2184, by my calculations.
The dollar is only worth 5% of what it was worth the year I was born.

 

You either have a choice in committing suicide, or you don't. Which is it?
Tell us again about how the mentally disabled cannot make choices - about how they have no choice in the act of killing themselves.

 

That is unfortunate. Any effort being made to determine the causation?

 

End the ban on carfentanil?
While guns can be used offensively, they also can be used defensively. Even Obama had enough sense to recognize the superiority of a gun over a knife when defending ones self.
How about a law requiring labeling of illegal drugs with their contents?

 

You might call it a bad choice, but as long as no one other than you, yourself is forcing it on you, it is a choice.

 

Makes sense. Though some chains are worth it. Depending on who holds them, of course.

 

Housing I think would be best. Everything else can be worked for from there.

 

Well, good for you. But you never answered my query. You need to justify your belief on these things being the most important rights that humanity should have. You could have those things and live in a hell hole when it comes to basic rights, listed in our constitution. So they are not the most important. And I do not see them in the same ball park as the rights acknowledged by our Founders.

Like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are much greater and more important than the right to housing, food, medical care. For the basic reason that I just mentioned.

Now, to address your rights, the 3 you mentioned. No one has these rights and to my knowledge, have ever had them. For very obvious reasons. One being up until more modern history it was impossible to finance such rights. Today, in western civilization, it is possible to have such rights via the redistribution of income from the producers of wealth, to those that do not produce wealth. But is it something that is workable, over the long haul, for given human nature you would create a culture that demanded this entitlement, while producing no wealth of their own to contribute. How great would this number be? Well, we do not know. So you rights, your 3, might be nothing short of rainbow and unicorn thinking. Or it might be workable. I do not know and neither do you.

Although IMO, given advancing AI and robotics, the loss of much of the human element in capitalism, we may be forced there at some point, with U.I. that provides enough money, redistributed, from the work done on our behalf by AI and robotics, to provide housing, food and medical care to those displaced by AI and robotics. We shall have to wait and see how this actually plays out.

Honestly, it keeps me up at night thinking about what I see as inevitable, with the other option being a huge and perhaps violent revolution, coming from the have nots, the displaced against this gov't that has only looked out for the interests of the FEW at the top. For historically, this is what history evidences, and it is because of basic needs of humans, and human nature itself.

 

I have never been a purist, and will never be one. I would have to see what you are talking about. And more than likely, I would agree with most of his position. I can remember Truman and the democrats mentioned universal healthcare, or perhaps I read about it. So this goes back a long ways. I agree with it, medicare for all, removing the middle men that necessarily must drive up costs.

FDR was against public unions. You knew this of course?

 

An Ewok, I would eat it.

 

I'll go for 1 oz. gold coins.

 

We might be able to manage some "Green"

 

I prefer my gold in teeth.

 

Second Bill of Rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

 

I am neither a liberal or conservative but I do believe in working for what we get. I also believe in helping those who can't work either for medical
or social reasons.

 

The exact opposite of the German's in the the 1940's then....

 

Which is a bit different from the right to be clothed, housed, not starved, and medical care that would originate from a living wage job. That isn't what the other forum member was thinking.

I have always believed that if there is a demand for a service or a good, and if a living wage cannot be paid to supply such things, then we do not need to supply either. Paying someone a low enough wage that does not provide for basic existence is immoral capitalism, with no social responsibility at all.

I have brought up several times that the mom and pop business model, that provided the goods bought at walmart, auto parts stores, hardware stores and even toy stores, did provide a living wage, when you included the hourly wage of salary plus a sales commission on the sales the employee made. And the predominate service sector business model today involves their wages being supplimented by taxpayer funded welfare, that allows these corporations to max out their own profits and income. Or socialism for businesses. Although it really isn't socialism, but crony capitalism, at its worse.

Now, in my state, if the new laws passes, Medicaid can only be sourced if you have a job, or disabled. So if you are unemployed, you best not get sick or be in an accident that requires medical care. This insures that people will take part time, working poor jobs, to keep the corporations who use this neoliberal business model, with enough employees so they can max out their own profits. It took my nephew almost 8 months of looking everyday for a job that he would be hired to do. In the end, out of desperation he had to take a working poor job, and welfare reforms do not take such people into account at all.

So then, I told my nephew that if he would get into welding school, at the local junior college, I would finance that for him, since my brother cannot afford to do so. Then came the snafu. It seems that unlike in the past, in order to learn a trade such as welding or even being a truck driver, you are now required to score a particular score on the ACT in order to even being enrolled! WTF?? And that score is the same score required by those people who get some of their core courses out of the way, before they enter into a regular 4 year university!!

Have these institutions forgotten that people who want to learn a trade, like welding, are doing that because they are not college material, but are capable of learning a skill like welding? And if you subject them to the same requirements as academics, you will make it impossible for many people to be able to learn a skill which will provide them with a living wage?

And yet for most of my life, getting into a trade school only required a HS diploma or passing a GED exam? And some trade schools required neither! WTF is driving this? Not the best interests of the people who must learn a skilled trade in order to support themselves! Who is being served, given this huge change?

Sorry for the off topic rant, but I have been pissed off for two weeks now, on the utter absurdity and the hurdles thrown down in front of people who want to earn their own way, never have to be on welfare, and then to have such changes instituted that keeps the non college material in poverty! What is a passing score in grammar, english, history, and so on have to do with learning how to properly weld different materials? Why keep those people out of a field who would make damn good welders, because of an aptitude for such work? Is this required by the federal gov't before such schools are eligible for some federal, tax payer money, or what?

The idiocy involved is utterly absurd, and reveals a disconnect of those gov't employees and politicians who are there to serve citizens, but make it almost impossible with their rules and policy for the poor to work their way up in this nation. And for those who would make great welders, but are kept out of learning such a trade by an ACT score!

 

Where do you come up with "greatly reduce"? There are now more drug ODs and deaths than ever. There were more than 72,000 drug induced deaths last year. Up from 33,000 in 2015. What kind of idiot sees that as "greatly reduce"? That is a moronic statement.

For one thing "guns" are protected by the second amendment, carfentanil is not. Beyond that carfentail use is seeing a steep increase. Another ban that is working well, Huh?

 

As a guy who has pushed for more trade training in the public sector, I can give you their reasoning. There is a lot more to welding than striking an arc. You need to be able to do layouts. You need to be able to read blueprints. You need math and reading skills to do that. In the trades we are not looking for someone who is to stupid or unmotivated to finish high school.

 

The main rights are
-- food
-- shelter
-- medical care

People who have no access to them can not live a meaningful life. Indeed, these are the most important rights any person can have.

 

Very many people find it very hard to work. Disability is not laziness.