Well the issue with China is one they steal our intellectual properties and then Profit off those stolen items, they have a myriad of ways they steal and or force companies to give up technology to them. They ignore American Patient laws with all the stolen intellectual properties they obtain.
China artificially manipulates it currency to over inflate the Dollar value to create a unfair competitive advantage in export and import situations. They Product and resource dump aka over produce dump into a market to drive prices down and cripple business to try and create a monopoly.
These Tariffs and such are meant to punish and get the attention of China in a effort to get them to play on a level field.
Oh and Universal health care is just plain stealing. Pay for your own Health and well being. Don't expect your neighbor to foot the bill. And Nope healthcare is not Like Roads, Energy and a strong Military. We all benefit from those and rely on them. Your ability to pay for your health and well being has no effect on me. And mine has no effect on you. Healthcare is a benefit and service for individuals. Why would we make is some Country wide responsibility to foot every Tom and Janes coverage?
I'm not sorry for the length of the novel that here follows:
Right or wrong, government-sponsored IP theft is how we built our economy from the ground up. It literally started and maintained our industrial revolution. I know you won't blindly trust my word on this, and you shouldn't, so here's an interesting read about it:
https://www.history.com/news/industrial-revolution-spies-europe
Naturally, we want to keep our top status. When one gets to the top, one wants to make sure one stays at the top, so now that we aren't stealing intellectual property on the scale that they are, we claim some kind of artificial moral superiority. This is all normal human behavior. Hypocritical, but normal. It would be nice if we recognized and acknowledged our hypocrisies, even if we don't change them, but ignoring them is also very normal human behavior.
On currency manipulation, one of many hypocrisies our government is most easily able to get its citizens (the purported not-sheep mostly) to latch onto to fit a narrative is that China (and apparently China alone) manipulates its currency to create an unfair trade advantage without addressing our own (and everybody else's) currency manipulation. The following article In the Emory International Law Review addresses this, while its central question is "are there any solutions to Chinese currency manipulation," it finds that maybe if the U.S. didn't also manipulate its currency, they might be able to find common ground:
https://law.emory.edu/eilr/content/volume-27/issue-2/comments/chinese-currency-manipulation.html .
I will point out one particular quote from this peer-reviewed (and authoritatively sourced) journal article: "
Interestingly, the IIE study, perhaps due to it being framed in relation to U.S. dollars, does not list one of the largest currency manipulators: the United States. Due to the Federal Reserves quantitative easing, which “prints money” to add liquidity to the domestic market, the United States has drawn criticism from the international community for its own currency manipulation. Currency manipulation is neither new nor isolated to one or two offending countries. Many countries devalue their currencies and have done so throughout history. China is the one that dominates the national media."
But here's what I wonder: Are the Chinese beholden to American patent laws in China? What obligation do we have to obey Chinese (or any foreign nation's) laws
here in the U.S.?
More rhetorical questions to consider:
Do countries have the sovereign right to value their currency as they see fit to benefit their own economy? They may do things that we see as unfair, or just ignorant, but is it not their right as a sovereign country to do what they think benefits them?
Is it not also the right of American businesses to choose to not do business there? Yet they do choose to do business there and have for quite some time.
Yet another: what
actual obligation do sovereign countries have to honor the agreements they make with other countries? I think they
should, if they want to be considered trustworthy and honorable and not have conflict, but clearly our government doesn't think it's super important...except when the shoe is on the other foot. Did the U.S. not implement tariffs that most (not all) of the world saw as violations of international trade rules in its own self-interest? I would argue that it's their right as a sovereign nation to do so, but then just because you
can doesn't mean you always
should. Rules vs. ethics.
With health care, I guess, for me it comes down to this: "Love your neighbor as yourself." In yet another of life's funny ironies, non-Christians are most willing to do this, but a very sizable portion of Christians, maybe most, are not, and I'm not even talking about just healthcare, though that is the most basic and fundamental way to show love for your neighbor: by caring enough that they are healthy and alive that you are willing to spend some of your hard-earned money. In this way, health care is far more important than roads, energy, and a strong military. It is putting your money where your mouth is on "the sanctity of human life."
I think this (along with his other writings) is worthy reading:
https://blog.heartsupport.com/lets-...ianity-is-even-christian-anymore-455f8897ba74 . It is written by a wounded combat veteran who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq and now works and writes for a Christian non-profit called HeartSupport. I think it encapsulates a lot of what we are seeing among purported people of faith in America.
Even in the Declaration of Independence, though it isn't a legal document, it does contain the ideology of our nation's founding and the basic rights we as humans have:
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Not, "life, if you have enough money (to pay for good insurance), liberty if you can afford a good lawyer, and pursuit of happiness if it matches my particular morals." It further says that governments are instituted
to secure these rights. If you have a good-faith, well-reasoned counter-argument that isn't at it's core based in naked self-interest, I'm all ears.