I'm not sure it's a great example. The line between political speech, incitement, and violating human rights is blurry.
-
New conversation
-
-
-
did we tell the colonized ppl this or indians etc ?
-
that people have throughout history violated their neighbors' rights does not mean the rights have ceased to exist
- 3 more replies
New 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
-
-
-
Logic doesn’t stand a chance against emotion. Given the choice between long term systemic good vs short term selfish gain, a majority will ALWAYS choose the latter in a complex system with opaque incentives. Welcome to democracy
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
More evidence that a government can never grant rights, it can only take them away.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
property is theft
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If this person earned it, I find to be a good enough reason already
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This won't persuade people + property rights are philosophically pretty sketch - I mix labor with something, then I own it? Georgists are more right about this imo There are enough practical reasons why allowing people to make billions is useful, no need to say "my property!"
-
How are they philosophically sketchy?
- 6 more replies
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.