3 ms·
But maybe it should be? What does it say about the US government apparatus and its basic claims to legitimacy if it can't even guarantee safe drinking water? Wh
by vrganj 1mo ago
But maybe it should be? What does it say about the US government apparatus and its basic claims to legitimacy if it can't even guarantee safe drinking water? What lack of aspiration and ambition does such a denial demonstrate? Why should its citizens accept such an abdication of even the most basic duties?
- dotancohen 1mo agoWhat national government _does_ guarantee safe drinking water to its citizens? You are attacking the legitimacy of the US government by holding it to a standard that no nation on Earth is held to. The US has regulations and they are enforced, with some local problems. Just like every other nation on Earth.
- vrganj 1mo agoYou did a neat rhetorical trick there where you swapped out "recognizing a right" for "guarantee". A right is not a guarantee of perfect outcomes. Most countries do recognize the right, though implementation is obviously challenging. The US abstained, tellingly: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/687112?ln=en https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/687112?ln=en
- dotancohen 1mo agoThe rhetorical trick was not mine. There are numerous people in this comment thread that used the word guarantee as a synonym or implied outcome of the word right. What do you think a right is, if not a guarantee?
- vrganj 1mo agoDo you think there's never been an instance of an unfair trial in the US despite the codified right to a fair trial? A right is always just a declaration of aspiration and an accountability mechanism should said aspiration not be lived up to - it cannot by itself guarantee any outcome because implementation will always be imperfect.