Do you have children?
Give me an example. Because they are frauds masquerading as progressives. The fraud squad is the example that comes to mind first. They vote for war and break strikes. Far from being an actual progressive. They back Biden who is essentially a corporate politician. Always has been and always will be.
All politicians bend the knee to the corporations.
In both cases they are shareholders.
I own shares in the company I work for, so try again.
2 Likes
No. We’re talking about legal obligations.
I didn’t prioritize either. The rights to life, liberty, and property are co-equal. You can’t(shouldn’t be permitted to, anyway) harm another or take his property, or punish him for doing something that doesn’t do either of those things to another.
Edit: They are also negative rights. The right to life doesn’t mean that everyone has to do everything they can to keep you alive; it means no one is permitted to murder you. The right to property doesn’t mean that you get property; it means that no one is permitted to steal from you.
2 Likes
Change is fine. What you are advocating for is a unicorn fart.
All it takes is one charismatic person and bunch of idiots (which are abundantly available) and this whole system of yours falls apart.
2 Likes
Exactly.
What they are wanting is the law to legislate morality at the tip of government violence.
Government has zero place legislating morality to anyone.
The people standing for this are usually pro-abortion too, which at least keep your logic consistent.
This never ends well.
1 Like
That’s Progressivism in practice.
Really? And you do this for a living? In a worker co-op things are typically set up to where your votes aren’t governed by the shares you own but your vote is equal to others. So you try again.
You’re arguing with an attorney about business law)?
Real smart move there.
2 Likes
Unless it’s a pregnant woman who wants an abortion? Then the life of one being trumps the rights of another.
And the truth is, if you did steal to feed your kids you would not believe it was wrong. You would believe your obligation as a parent is indeed more important than someone’s right to their property.
We have had drafts. We have conservatives who believe young people should have to serve in the military. If we needed recruits in order to protect this country we would reinstate a draft. No one would cry about rights even though this would be forced labor. I mean, draft dodgers are seen as dirtbags but maybe they should be considered freedom fighters. And all the people who cry about rights, many of whom wouldn’t be called to fight, would benefit from that forced labor.
What’s best for society should be the guiding principle. A pet dog is property but you can go to jail for abusing your dog, your property. Is our society better because we have animal cruelty laws? Look at the countries that don’t have these laws.
Yes. And I wouldn’t want someone else’s child to die because of a childish view on what rights are. Adults recognize the universe is under no obligation to conform to our rules and beliefs. The universe doesn’t tell us human life is precious. A grizzly bear doesn’t care about how much we value human life over all other living creatures. How many rights are based on our feelings towards ourselves and our sense of self importance?
I’ve covered this multiple times in this thread alone.
The truth is, I would.
No, I wouldn’t. Let me say this loudly and proudly, for all to hear: If I rob someone to provide food to my children and am killed, my victim(and/or his defender) should not be punished.
Which were bullshit.
Which is ridiculous.
I would disagree.
Yes.
No.
Why? What would that possibly show?
Edit: Let me go back to this before I forget:
I could be on-board with requiring service to be able to vote, IF our military were a defensive force, remained in this country, and was controlled by the individual States except when called into service.
1 Like
Oh I wasn’t aware votes trumped property rights in selling what you own as a basic tenant of property law.
I’ll just stop here because you are clueless.
1 Like
I didn’t realize self autonomy to make decisions that isn’t directly harming or taking action to harm someone else was a childish view on rights.
I am sure all the philosophical who espoused this were childish too right?
To be clear I think it is morally right to save children whenever and however anyone can, but inaction there should not come with penalties from government trying to legislate morality.
4 Likes
Whole books have been written on this and the issues it brings. The Stranger comes to mind first.
1 Like
Such as?
Then they are progressives in name only.
Then they aren’t progressives.
How is Profressivism here? How are things going to get more progressive? Voting for more war? Breaking more strikes?
Of course you weren’t. As your education is based primarily on profit. There couldn’t be another way. And the people who participate in worker co-ops are made aware of the by-laws. So they know the deal.
The votes depending on the shares owned may be how ESOP’s are run but typically NOT how worker co-ops are run. Did your degree NOT give you that info.?
I’m not talking about me - keep up dummy.
Contracts don’t trump state/federal level property laws…
1 Like