5 ms·
So it's the right to bear arms in the US Constitution, but that does not stop us from wondering whether it is archaic and whether it should be changed. Or is t
by hyperliner 9y ago
So it's the right to bear arms in the US Constitution, but that does not stop us from wondering whether it is archaic and whether it should be changed.
Or is there a difference?
- mnglkhn2 9y agoIf we are of the opinion that everything should be private, then why not privatize Central Park?! What could go wrong if some poor kids will never get to see the beach? It makes it even more of an incentive to work hard, am I right? /sarcasm The truth is that the bigger the disparities between rich and poor the more violent the environment gets. So, let those poor kids access to the beach and you'll be able to enjoy your wealth.
- chroma 9y agoNobody in this thread is arguing that all beaches should be private. I'm arguing in favor of privatizing a tiny fraction of coastline, taxing the hell out of it to pay for other social programs, and keeping the rest public.
- greglindahl 9y agoI look forward for your initiative to change the California constitution to appear on the ballet. Until then, maybe we should obey what the courts say the constitution means?
- chroma 9y agoI remember people saying this to me in 2009. They were arguing against my position that same-sex marriage should be legal.
- arkitaip 9y agoComparing same-sex marriage to private beaches for the ultra rich is fucking gross.
- chroma 9y agoNobody is doing that. I'm talking about bad arguments, not bad policies. Also, read my comments. If anything, my proposed idea would reduce the number of de-facto private beaches and increase wealth transfer to the less fortunate.