dapf

10 ms·

31.
by dapf 5y ago
More important that what you are mentioning is the fact that a ban does nothing. Is actually the opposite of doing, it's the prevention a certain type of action. OK, you are going to ban the use of fuel-powered cars, where is your alte
32.
by dapf 5y ago
How about significantly reducing taxes for everyone? Say, no more than 5% of anyone's income?
33.
by dapf 5y ago
Awful idea, and also wrong. The only two true rights are freedom and property. You are born with free will, and you can do whatever you want, unless someone actively prevents you from doing it. You are born with your body, which is yours, y
34.
by dapf 5y ago
My question is who cares more, which you didn't answer. Also, more qualified? What makes the bureaucrat more qualified? Does the bureaucrat know the child better? Is the bureaucrat better equipped to make decisions about the child futu
35.
by dapf 5y ago
It's all about getting that 51%. This is why a democracy without a very strong republican and individual rights constraints is nothing but soft-core communism.
36.
by dapf 5y ago
Exactly. Is a very loose and ambiguous definition.
37.
by dapf 5y ago
Even in this not-so-good system, in which some people get taxed for a service they won't use, there is the assumption that if you have children than you have the right to be supplied with state-provided education. Is the state decides
38.
by dapf 5y ago
Ups, sorry, English my first language is not. Thanks for letting me now.
39.
by dapf 5y ago
So, other people has the right to demand what you inject in your veins.
40.
by dapf 5y ago
The point of freedom is to be free to take decisions about your life, including injecting substances in your veins. Would you agree with that?
41.
by dapf 5y ago
Yes, that is a beautiful example of freedom... It presupposes that some bureaucrat in Berlin should be entrusted with the educational decisions has the kids best interest at heart. The bureaucrat cares more about a child than the child&#x27
42.
by dapf 5y ago
It makes total sense. You shouldn't be taxed if you don't use a service. We have an easy way to deal with roads: tolls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust
43.
by dapf 5y ago
You never had a right to eat your neighbours. Neither Homo sapiens nor other animals. Your human rights are yours because you are human, they don't derive from any social contract, they are not granted by society. Society can only resp
44.
by dapf 5y ago
So we must surrender our rights?
45.
by dapf 5y ago
That would be fine if the Czech government returned said families the taxes they took from them to finance public education. No service, no charge.
46.
by dapf 5y ago
The whole thing doesn't make sense: > "The measures could be regarded as being 'necessary in a democratic society,'" What does vaccination has to do with democracy? Also, freedom is the most basic human right.
47.
by dapf 7y ago
This looks like direct quotation out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged.
48.
by dapf 8y ago
You're right. I find these kind of "initiatives" quite condescending.
49.
by dapf 9y ago
They have had the good sense of not taking away http://reddit.com/.compact