As a matter of fact, it is a subscription, and it’s exactly how the right to privacy, right to not self-incriminate, due process in general, and “beyond a reasonable doubt” work: on the principle that it’s better that some evil people will get off and reoffend than it is for innocent people to be incarcerated for failing to prove their innocence. Not how it always works when prosecutors and judges have a different personal philosophy, but that’s the idea and the trade-off taken.
No, it’s not. Suffering death is the cost of not having the rights to live. Death is the cost of winning those rights. You believe it’s a subscription service because you haven’t won those rights yet and you’re still paying the cost of not having the right to live.
I’m not sure you fully understand the words you’re saying, “right to live” would necessarily demand compelling people to act in the furtherance of everyone else’s lives. You could be held criminally liable for eating too much for example, because you’re taking away resources needed to keep others alive, and your unhealthy lifestyle taxing the health system actively hurts those who need it more.
You’re looking for a different kind of government altogether.
There is a surplus of resources, that’s a strawman argument.
Taxes on unhealthy items such as cigarettes and recreational drugs, and sugar exist, these are how you account for those issues of behavioural social damage and the imbalance in cost of social healthcare.
You could be held criminally liable for eating too much for example, because you’re taking away resources needed to keep others alive
Yes, we should do this. Let’s start with the billionaires and see if everyone has enough then.
Do you know how many dollars you’d have if you took every dollar away from every billionaire and divided it evenly? Enough for a nice dinner, maybe a very cheap getaway, not enough to stop working or get all your needs met by someone else who is in the same position as you.
Can you quantify this surplus? Because your unqualified statement requires there to be enough to meet ANY demand. You just sound like a genzedong tankie who does not understand the most basic market theory that for every demand there must be a counterpart, who themselves will have demands, and there’s no unlimited resource hack IRL (yet).
Your right to life ends where my right to not get unalived by your wishes ends.
Sorry meant to add here and this app needs polish… Deleted comment too slowly.
Also your tangent changed subjects. Right to life. Criminality vs liberties.
How do you get unalived by taxing the wealthy? How do the wealthy get unalived by not being allowed to hoard excess resources beyond their consumption? And how is their ownership not an infringement on the rights of the poor to not be unalived by exploitative systems?
Your grasp on the subject is beyond tenuous, it’s outright non-existent. I don’t know what conversation you think you have the capacity to be part of, but this is not the one you want.
Let’s start here: billionaires do not have billions of dollars like Scrooge McDucks swimming in gold. They hold securities for companies that are doing things on the idea that they can sell them and redeploy that capital later.
In other words: the money means nothing. All that wealth means is they’re the ones who control resources.
By similar reasoning, modern monetary theory is that government can print money and activate unused resources without driving inflation very much.
So what you want is a planned economy. Soviet style. In fact the language you use makes it clear you’re fully bought into tankie propaganda.
There are 3 ways to make people do things: money, love and power. So am I going to give you everything you need because of love? money is clearly not the means to ends in your system. That leaves the threat of unaliving.
And so we’re back at gun control, the only way your kind is able to make such a system work: by killing everyone who disagrees.
Death is the price you pay to buy freedoms, it’s not a fucking subscription service.
As a matter of fact, it is a subscription, and it’s exactly how the right to privacy, right to not self-incriminate, due process in general, and “beyond a reasonable doubt” work: on the principle that it’s better that some evil people will get off and reoffend than it is for innocent people to be incarcerated for failing to prove their innocence. Not how it always works when prosecutors and judges have a different personal philosophy, but that’s the idea and the trade-off taken.
No, it’s not. Suffering death is the cost of not having the rights to live. Death is the cost of winning those rights. You believe it’s a subscription service because you haven’t won those rights yet and you’re still paying the cost of not having the right to live.
I’m not sure you fully understand the words you’re saying, “right to live” would necessarily demand compelling people to act in the furtherance of everyone else’s lives. You could be held criminally liable for eating too much for example, because you’re taking away resources needed to keep others alive, and your unhealthy lifestyle taxing the health system actively hurts those who need it more.
You’re looking for a different kind of government altogether.
There is a surplus of resources, that’s a strawman argument.
Taxes on unhealthy items such as cigarettes and recreational drugs, and sugar exist, these are how you account for those issues of behavioural social damage and the imbalance in cost of social healthcare.
Yes, we should do this. Let’s start with the billionaires and see if everyone has enough then.
Do you know how many dollars you’d have if you took every dollar away from every billionaire and divided it evenly? Enough for a nice dinner, maybe a very cheap getaway, not enough to stop working or get all your needs met by someone else who is in the same position as you.
Wow, who doesn’t understand economic theory now. Of course that wouldn’t work, you’d have to be a moron to even suggest it.
You’re the one who replied to my deleted comment with " all those billionaires exist" (I can’t actually pull it up in this app now to quote).
That’s some maoist theory you’re leaning on.
Here you go:
Billionaires exist. Are billions of dollars worth of the very resources we need to survive quantifiable enough?
Who do you think is hoarding both your resources and the benefit of your labour? Who do you imagine is diminishing your capacity for survival?
Why are you deleting your comments? Don’t they have any merit?
deleted by creator
Billionaires exist. Are billions of dollars worth of the very resources we need to survive quantifiable enough?
Who do you think is hoarding both your resources and the benefit of your labour? Who do you imagine is diminishing your capacity for survival?
Can you quantify this surplus? Because your unqualified statement requires there to be enough to meet ANY demand. You just sound like a genzedong tankie who does not understand the most basic market theory that for every demand there must be a counterpart, who themselves will have demands, and there’s no unlimited resource hack IRL (yet).
Your right to life ends where my right to not get unalived by your wishes ends.
Sorry meant to add here and this app needs polish… Deleted comment too slowly.
Also your tangent changed subjects. Right to life. Criminality vs liberties.
How do you get unalived by taxing the wealthy? How do the wealthy get unalived by not being allowed to hoard excess resources beyond their consumption? And how is their ownership not an infringement on the rights of the poor to not be unalived by exploitative systems?
Your grasp on the subject is beyond tenuous, it’s outright non-existent. I don’t know what conversation you think you have the capacity to be part of, but this is not the one you want.
Your grasp of how money works is surface level.
Let’s start here: billionaires do not have billions of dollars like Scrooge McDucks swimming in gold. They hold securities for companies that are doing things on the idea that they can sell them and redeploy that capital later.
In other words: the money means nothing. All that wealth means is they’re the ones who control resources.
By similar reasoning, modern monetary theory is that government can print money and activate unused resources without driving inflation very much.
So what you want is a planned economy. Soviet style. In fact the language you use makes it clear you’re fully bought into tankie propaganda.
There are 3 ways to make people do things: money, love and power. So am I going to give you everything you need because of love? money is clearly not the means to ends in your system. That leaves the threat of unaliving.
And so we’re back at gun control, the only way your kind is able to make such a system work: by killing everyone who disagrees.
deleted by creator