I'm not sure it's a great example. The line between political speech, incitement, and violating human rights is blurry.
because the right to property is inalienable, the eradication of any natural right makes illegitimate the *concept* of natural rights, and do you really want to live in a world where “can you give me a good reason socialists are legally allowed to speak” is a valid question?https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/1206656298625966081 …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Then maybe we should stop trying to hysterically convince people they can't improve their lives under the status quo?
End of conversation
-
-
-
Can you give me a good reason one person should determine how much of your own property you should be allowed to keep?https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/1206656298625966081?s=20 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are limitations on the right to property equivalent to eliminating the right to property?
-
yes, as with speech and association, you either have the right or you don’t. we’re not even talking about taxation here, it’s just an arbitrary cap on wealth. absolutely a violation of the right.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
I thought only conservatives weren't allowed to speak.
-
Or maybe that was "Weren't allowed to be heard."
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.