9 ms·

That isn't a counterpoint, it's completely ancillary to what we are discussing. Whether someone is affected by something does not matter. The only thing that ma

That isn't a counterpoint, it's completely ancillary to what we are discussing. Whether someone is affected by something does not matter. The only thing that matters are rights. People have freedom and the freedom to live their life as they see fit as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

onemoresoop 5y ago
How about the right to a decent life? You don't see the decimation of the middle class as a problem for a democracy? I'm not sure what you're getting at, technically you may have a point (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) but at the end of the day when all resources are owned by a few, things start to break down.
- friedman23 5y ago
  >How about the right to a decent life? Everybody has the right to achieve a decent life. What you are actually asking for is the right to have material wealth. Which isn't a right. >technically you may have a point (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) I don't want the benefit of the doubt from you. You advocate robbing people and spread hate against a group you don't like because you don't have enough toys to make you happy. You are just a part of a mob that has repeated the same mistake countless times in history, with your beliefs you are practically not an individual.
  - nemothekid 5y ago
    >Everybody has the right to achieve a decent life. What you are actually asking for is the right to have material wealth. Which isn't a right. I don't see how you can so easily divorce the two. If I can't afford to send my kids to school - do I have a decent life? If I can't afford to see the doctor, do I have a decent life? I'm not arguing that everyone should be afforded to drive Lamborghini's, but that the American project of guaranteeing individual liberties and freedom is predicated on some wealth distribution; otherwise the working class are effectively slaves to their own existence. Democracy is a means on how that power is utilized in order to control the individual lives of others. You wouldn't reject that standard for any other law; you wouldn't allow rich people to openly commit murder because you didn't want to infringe in their individual liberty.
  - onemoresoop 5y ago
    Everybody has the right to a achieve a decent life, yes, I'm not advocating giving a Mercedes Benz to any street bum. But the former is becoming harder and harder these days solely because all resources are in the hands of the few who do not contribute anything, risk nothing and take in more and more. And I advocate robbing anyone? No, I advocate pointing the finger to the robbers instead. I withdraw the benefit of the doubt I have given you earlier, you are very unreasonable and dogmatic in your views. Look around you from time to time, you're going to see a lot more people failing who should have not, hard working people with good work ethic.
guerrilla 5y ago
Yes, I was suggesting a right: The right not to be effected by decisions you're not involved in making and the right to be involved in all decisions that effect you. I see that as necessary for freedom and thus any alternative infringing on that right.

onemoresoop 5y ago

How about the right to a decent life? You don't see the decimation of the middle class as a problem for a democracy? I'm not sure what you're getting at, technically you may have a point (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) but at the end of the day when all resources are owned by a few, things start to break down.

friedman23 5y ago
>How about the right to a decent life? Everybody has the right to achieve a decent life. What you are actually asking for is the right to have material wealth. Which isn't a right. >technically you may have a point (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) I don't want the benefit of the doubt from you. You advocate robbing people and spread hate against a group you don't like because you don't have enough toys to make you happy. You are just a part of a mob that has repeated the same mistake countless times in history, with your beliefs you are practically not an individual.
- nemothekid 5y ago
  >Everybody has the right to achieve a decent life. What you are actually asking for is the right to have material wealth. Which isn't a right. I don't see how you can so easily divorce the two. If I can't afford to send my kids to school - do I have a decent life? If I can't afford to see the doctor, do I have a decent life? I'm not arguing that everyone should be afforded to drive Lamborghini's, but that the American project of guaranteeing individual liberties and freedom is predicated on some wealth distribution; otherwise the working class are effectively slaves to their own existence. Democracy is a means on how that power is utilized in order to control the individual lives of others. You wouldn't reject that standard for any other law; you wouldn't allow rich people to openly commit murder because you didn't want to infringe in their individual liberty.
- onemoresoop 5y ago
  Everybody has the right to a achieve a decent life, yes, I'm not advocating giving a Mercedes Benz to any street bum. But the former is becoming harder and harder these days solely because all resources are in the hands of the few who do not contribute anything, risk nothing and take in more and more. And I advocate robbing anyone? No, I advocate pointing the finger to the robbers instead. I withdraw the benefit of the doubt I have given you earlier, you are very unreasonable and dogmatic in your views. Look around you from time to time, you're going to see a lot more people failing who should have not, hard working people with good work ethic.

guerrilla 5y ago

Yes, I was suggesting a right: The right not to be effected by decisions you're not involved in making and the right to be involved in all decisions that effect you. I see that as necessary for freedom and thus any alternative infringing on that right.