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
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Are you making an empirical or normative statement? If the former you’re completely wrong.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
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.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
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.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
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.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.