7 ms·

30% of Americans would rather have nothing than see people who they consider undesirables have anything.

zarathustreal 2y ago
A charitable interpretation would be that they consider justice (consequences that fit the choices one makes) more important than ownership of material things ..and frankly they’re not wrong. No unjust system can maintain itself in the long term, the choice is “personal sacrifice” or “destroy everything” and it’s quite easy to make
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  That seems like a narrow definition of "justice." Shouldn't it also encompass freedom from the consequences of prejudicial choices made by others? Not every negative consequence arises from one's personal actions, after all.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > Shouldn't it also encompass freedom from the consequences of prejudicial choices made by others Not necessarily? That’s hardly within the traditional American notion of the scope of government. Core american principles focus on protecting people from the government, not the government protecting people from each other.
    - candiddevmike 2y ago
      > Core american principles focus on protecting people from the government, not the government protecting people from each other. What part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" do you think doesn't involve protecting people from each other?
      - rayiner 2y ago
        Thomas Jefferson coined that phrase. Show me where he talks about a muscular government protecting people from each other. To a certain extent, that’s a baseline function of every government, sure. But there is a tension between “a government big enough to protect people from each other” and a “government big enough to deprive citizens of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The founding American principles draw the line between those two in a different place than other traditions.
    - wnoise 2y ago
      > not the government protecting people from each other. That's literally the purpose of both criminal and civil laws.
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  You can choose your race? Or the social hierarchy you're born into? Or your gender? What is unjust about equality?
  - zarathustreal 2y ago
    Everything about equality is unjust, it’s literally the opposite of justice. You cannot have equality without injustice, there’s no way to fairly redistribute resources without taking from people who’ve earned what they have and giving to people who haven’t
quickthrowman 2y ago
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” President Lyndon Baines Johnson
- potato3732842 2y ago
  And that wasn't even his most spicy quote. That man is a goldmine when it come to politicians saying the quiet part out loud.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    This is a critique on his part, of opposition to the Civil Rights Act he eventually got passed.

A charitable interpretation would be that they consider justice (consequences that fit the choices one makes) more important than ownership of material things ..and frankly they’re not wrong. No unjust system can maintain itself in the long term, the choice is “personal sacrifice” or “destroy everything” and it’s quite easy to make

CamperBob2 2y ago
That seems like a narrow definition of "justice." Shouldn't it also encompass freedom from the consequences of prejudicial choices made by others? Not every negative consequence arises from one's personal actions, after all.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > Shouldn't it also encompass freedom from the consequences of prejudicial choices made by others Not necessarily? That’s hardly within the traditional American notion of the scope of government. Core american principles focus on protecting people from the government, not the government protecting people from each other.
  - candiddevmike 2y ago
    > Core american principles focus on protecting people from the government, not the government protecting people from each other. What part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" do you think doesn't involve protecting people from each other?
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Thomas Jefferson coined that phrase. Show me where he talks about a muscular government protecting people from each other. To a certain extent, that’s a baseline function of every government, sure. But there is a tension between “a government big enough to protect people from each other” and a “government big enough to deprive citizens of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The founding American principles draw the line between those two in a different place than other traditions.
  - wnoise 2y ago
    > not the government protecting people from each other. That's literally the purpose of both criminal and civil laws.
candiddevmike 2y ago
You can choose your race? Or the social hierarchy you're born into? Or your gender? What is unjust about equality?
- zarathustreal 2y ago
  Everything about equality is unjust, it’s literally the opposite of justice. You cannot have equality without injustice, there’s no way to fairly redistribute resources without taking from people who’ve earned what they have and giving to people who haven’t

quickthrowman 2y ago

“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” President Lyndon Baines Johnson

potato3732842 2y ago
And that wasn't even his most spicy quote. That man is a goldmine when it come to politicians saying the quiet part out loud.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  This is a critique on his part, of opposition to the Civil Rights Act he eventually got passed.