Re:Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
by lhopki01 on Friday February 20, 2026 @02:41PM
(#47092872)
I can understand your point in terms of negative liberty but I tend to hold positive liberty to be just as important. It is not sufficient to me that there is no law preventing me from having healthcare, I expect that the government should ensure I have the ability to have a healthy life.
The 10th amendment isn't clear. Too many areas are dual responsibility. That's never going to be clear.
Re:Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
by tracker1 on Friday February 20, 2026 @03:58PM
(#47093867)
So if there is nobody willing to be a doctor for the pay rate the govt is offering, what happens? Does your "right" to healthcare extend to literal slavery?
I'm being a bit hyperbolic only to make the point... I don't think anyone's "rights" should include forced labor of anyone else. So certain things, even food cannot be a right... I would think that public lands and a right to hunt/gather or even some level cooperative gardening/farming might be okay as a middle ground though.
Re:Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court
by DangitBobby on Saturday February 21, 2026 @12:29AM
(#47097786)
What happens when no one is willing to be a public defender at the going rate?
There are clearly delegated responsibilities to the states... the 10th amendment specifies as much... that the govt has grown beyond this wouldn't have been stopped by a parliament any more than the current system.