Huh, none of that has anything to do with communism. I basically agree with everything except the guns part (I believe that to be a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of the wording of the 2nd amendment), but in a “the government has no business or right to regulate those things” libertarian way.
It’s also not woke because the principle of bodily and personal autonomy is old school “don’t tread on me” libertarianism, and thus “right wing”. I think I agree with Linus about the inability to define those terms, carry on.
I may not be the target audience though as I also totally want socialized healthcare, free education extending into the collegiate level, and a UBI replacing all welfare programs, because those fall under the “General Welfare” set out by the Constitution and those things would cost less than what we have now for far better outcomes.
The 2nd Amendment is a single sentence and the first four words, “a well regulated militia”, are the subject. This is grammar. Unless you think the authors were bad at grammar, there’s not much to misinterpret.
I’m actually against that. Not against an UBI per se, but against it replacing all welfare programs.
The main issue here is that needs vary a lot, and depending on your specific needs, an UBI might not begin to cover them.
One of my kids has Cystic Fibrosis, which leads to frequent hospital stays. One of the main medications (Kaftrio, that stuff is a miracle drug, it’s crazy how well it works) costs ~€350k per year.
UBI would be a drop in the ocean in this regard.
The same goes for a lot of other conditions. For example, a nursing home costs way more than any UBI would cover, but also if you have a disability that would require frequent assistance and/or a modified home or some special kind of transport, UBI would be just not enough.
Huh, none of that has anything to do with communism. I basically agree with everything except the guns part (I believe that to be a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of the wording of the 2nd amendment), but in a “the government has no business or right to regulate those things” libertarian way.
It’s also not woke because the principle of bodily and personal autonomy is old school “don’t tread on me” libertarianism, and thus “right wing”. I think I agree with Linus about the inability to define those terms, carry on.
I may not be the target audience though as I also totally want socialized healthcare, free education extending into the collegiate level, and a UBI replacing all welfare programs, because those fall under the “General Welfare” set out by the Constitution and those things would cost less than what we have now for far better outcomes.
“Communism” and “woke” are the same in this context, because both are pejoratives right wingers use for “everything I don’t like”.
The 2nd Amendment is a single sentence and the first four words, “a well regulated militia”, are the subject. This is grammar. Unless you think the authors were bad at grammar, there’s not much to misinterpret.
I think the authors lived during the mid to late 1700s when “well regulated” meant “well equipped”
I’m actually against that. Not against an UBI per se, but against it replacing all welfare programs.
The main issue here is that needs vary a lot, and depending on your specific needs, an UBI might not begin to cover them.
One of my kids has Cystic Fibrosis, which leads to frequent hospital stays. One of the main medications (Kaftrio, that stuff is a miracle drug, it’s crazy how well it works) costs ~€350k per year.
UBI would be a drop in the ocean in this regard.
The same goes for a lot of other conditions. For example, a nursing home costs way more than any UBI would cover, but also if you have a disability that would require frequent assistance and/or a modified home or some special kind of transport, UBI would be just not enough.