4 ms·

Sure, but Denmark does have a different culture. Even most European countries are different from Denmark. We value property differently. We value entrepreneurs

by SllX 3y ago

Sure, but Denmark does have a different culture. Even most European countries are different from Denmark. We value property differently. We value entrepreneurship differently. We are a military superpower and provide most of the muscle in NATO that both the US and Denmark are part of. We have a larger border with both of our immediate neighbors. There isn’t a North American equivalent of the Schengen Area. We’re a lot more religious despite not having a State religion. Our Head of State is not Royal, but an elected position that churns every 4 to 8 years. We’re not a unitary State, but a Federation of 50 States, each with their own laws and histories and yeah, culturally we take that seriously here. We don’t even have a single Parliament, and our legislature does not function like one. Denmark is 86% people of Danish descent, while Americans aren’t 86% anything in particular, ethnically nor racially. No matter how you slice it, the differences do define us, much like the differences between Japan and Denmark or Australia and Denmark. As I already pointed out, America has lawfully implemented some forms of what are called positive rights, but what those look like do not closely resemble the Danish analogues, and one of those differences is how much we disagree with each other as much as we disagree with the rest of the world, but hey, one if the nicer things about the world we live in is if you find a place you like more, it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals and there’s nothing wrong with that. :)

ttonkytonk 3y ago
There is nowhere to go for Americans who have become completely disenfranchised. I read recently that many political philosophers think the U.S. has become a (de facto) oligarchy. In Republic book eight 552 it's argued that oligarchies "admit the greatest of all evils... Allowing someone to sell all his possessions and someone else to buy them...". Now this is particularly true in regards to land (which even when "owned" is essentially rented from the government in the form of property taxes). I don't know the history but I've seen hints that much of this land acquisition was pretty coercive. I think it's difficult for many Americans to admit this because their thinking is biased in the same way that someone becomes biased about a person they love - no matter what anybody tells them, "loving eyes never see". Only the love here is the love of "the good life" - the materially rich one.
- SllX 3y ago
  Yes, we (which is to say those of us of European descent) conquered much of our land, and also purchased lands that others conquered, and yes made some odd trades for land with cultures that didn’t understand our (as in historically Christendom’s) conception of property ownership and trade, but what does that have to do with this discussion vis a vis positive rights? We’re not discussing property rights, so please make the connection to this discussion since I’m afraid I’m not seeing it.
  - ttonkytonk 3y ago
    A place to live is not only a positive but a natural right.
    - SllX 3y ago
      If you want to argue against homelessness, I’m not the one you need to convince, but as stated above you cannot effectively conjecture a positive right into existence merely by claiming that it is a right. Positive rights are lawfully agreed upon, even public education has its own basis in statutes or written constitutional laws.
      - ttonkytonk 3y ago
        I was basically just responding to your flippant suggestion that someone just "go somewhere else" if they don't like it where they're at.
        SllX 3y ago
        Ah, this part: > but hey, one [o]f the nicer things about the world we live in is if you find a place you like more, it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals and there’s nothing wrong with that. :) This wasn’t flippant, nor limited to just Americans moving elsewhere. I actually took a small look into the difficulty of migrating to Denmark from America before I wrote that to see if there were any special difficulties and near as I can tell, the bar is much much lower than I was expecting, but it should be noted that if more people took advantage of that, then it’s probable Denmark would raise the requirements and immigration has at least somewhat recently been a political issue for them. > it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals It is often possible, but what I did not claim was that it was universally so and that’s because it’s not universally possible for all people. That was intentional. It requires the ability to actually meet the requirements of the host country, the ability to cover the travel and moving expenses for yourself and them accepting you into their country, at least if they have solid immigration controls, or the ability to live within their society without going through the official channels if not, as long as you can get yourself there. Almost all of that should have gone without saying though.

by SllX 3y ago

ttonkytonk 3y ago

There is nowhere to go for Americans who have become completely disenfranchised. I read recently that many political philosophers think the U.S. has become a (de facto) oligarchy. In Republic book eight 552 it's argued that oligarchies "admit the greatest of all evils... Allowing someone to sell all his possessions and someone else to buy them...". Now this is particularly true in regards to land (which even when "owned" is essentially rented from the government in the form of property taxes). I don't know the history but I've seen hints that much of this land acquisition was pretty coercive. I think it's difficult for many Americans to admit this because their thinking is biased in the same way that someone becomes biased about a person they love - no matter what anybody tells them, "loving eyes never see". Only the love here is the love of "the good life" - the materially rich one.

SllX 3y ago
Yes, we (which is to say those of us of European descent) conquered much of our land, and also purchased lands that others conquered, and yes made some odd trades for land with cultures that didn’t understand our (as in historically Christendom’s) conception of property ownership and trade, but what does that have to do with this discussion vis a vis positive rights? We’re not discussing property rights, so please make the connection to this discussion since I’m afraid I’m not seeing it.
- ttonkytonk 3y ago
  A place to live is not only a positive but a natural right.
  - SllX 3y ago
    If you want to argue against homelessness, I’m not the one you need to convince, but as stated above you cannot effectively conjecture a positive right into existence merely by claiming that it is a right. Positive rights are lawfully agreed upon, even public education has its own basis in statutes or written constitutional laws.
    - ttonkytonk 3y ago
      I was basically just responding to your flippant suggestion that someone just "go somewhere else" if they don't like it where they're at.
      - SllX 3y ago
        Ah, this part: > but hey, one [o]f the nicer things about the world we live in is if you find a place you like more, it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals and there’s nothing wrong with that. :) This wasn’t flippant, nor limited to just Americans moving elsewhere. I actually took a small look into the difficulty of migrating to Denmark from America before I wrote that to see if there were any special difficulties and near as I can tell, the bar is much much lower than I was expecting, but it should be noted that if more people took advantage of that, then it’s probable Denmark would raise the requirements and immigration has at least somewhat recently been a political issue for them. > it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals It is often possible, but what I did not claim was that it was universally so and that’s because it’s not universally possible for all people. That was intentional. It requires the ability to actually meet the requirements of the host country, the ability to cover the travel and moving expenses for yourself and them accepting you into their country, at least if they have solid immigration controls, or the ability to live within their society without going through the official channels if not, as long as you can get yourself there. Almost all of that should have gone without saying though.