What aggravates me about this is that it is framed as a "right to", without talking about the use of force that is implied in those so-called rights.
we can, and should, work towards a world of abundance. but there is no such thing as an inalienable "right" to negate another man's right to labor, property, association.https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1168592173589094404 …
-
-
-
if it isn't something you can honor on a desert island with five other people and scarce resources, it can't be a right
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Are you making an empirical or normative statement? If the former you’re completely wrong.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Any talk of rights without responsibilities is BS. Your right is someone else’s responsibility. What happens when someone is irresponsible? You take away their right? Under Bernie bern bern the answer is No. You keep the upside and escape the downside, unsustainable.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Aren”t most of those “rights” obligations, anyway? Is there out-out from paying for state-funded colleges for those that think college? Or for those that would rather not have insurance? From each according to their means, to each according to their needs is bad incentives.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
He can't have his 21st century "positive rights" without violating the more fundamental (and truly inalienable) 17th century negative rights. But hey, demagogues gonna demagogue.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.