I'm really fed up with Positive liberty, and I think it needs be abolished, at least at the Federal level.
There is such thing as welfare capitalism (Henry Ford, Dr. Paul, Whole Foods, and Microsoft, to a lesser extent, provide/d welfare capitalism), and really, under a system where the government grants positive rights, there will always be positive rights granted to corporatists to offset the positive rights given to socialists.
I mean, really, the government is the reason health care continues to rise in cost (patent laws are one of many examples, as well as lobbying by corporatists such as the AMA which sets expensive unnecessary guidelines), and if the government granted tax breaks for having health care and tax breaks for donating health care funds to the poor, then you wouldn't need Medicare/caid and positive rights in terms of health care.
If it weren't for positive rights, then the bankers wouldn't be so rich and money wouldn't devalue--the banksters wouldn't have a lender of last resort chartered by the government.
People need to learn that positive rights work both ways, often in favor of corporatists and the banks, and then socialist shit like compulsory education sure doesn't help.
Some local building and electrical codes are okay, maybe local education (but not compulsory), but you don't need the damn federal goverment to step in every inch of the way.
Does anyone here understand my beef with positive rights and that they can work both ways?
Sadly, I don't think many people do--the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't include any negative rights. They're all positive rights. Is that the direction we should expect to go in?
A world without negative rights is only better than hell because it's not as hot.
There is such thing as welfare capitalism (Henry Ford, Dr. Paul, Whole Foods, and Microsoft, to a lesser extent, provide/d welfare capitalism), and really, under a system where the government grants positive rights, there will always be positive rights granted to corporatists to offset the positive rights given to socialists.
I mean, really, the government is the reason health care continues to rise in cost (patent laws are one of many examples, as well as lobbying by corporatists such as the AMA which sets expensive unnecessary guidelines), and if the government granted tax breaks for having health care and tax breaks for donating health care funds to the poor, then you wouldn't need Medicare/caid and positive rights in terms of health care.
If it weren't for positive rights, then the bankers wouldn't be so rich and money wouldn't devalue--the banksters wouldn't have a lender of last resort chartered by the government.
People need to learn that positive rights work both ways, often in favor of corporatists and the banks, and then socialist shit like compulsory education sure doesn't help.
Some local building and electrical codes are okay, maybe local education (but not compulsory), but you don't need the damn federal goverment to step in every inch of the way.
Does anyone here understand my beef with positive rights and that they can work both ways?
Sadly, I don't think many people do--the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't include any negative rights. They're all positive rights. Is that the direction we should expect to go in?
A world without negative rights is only better than hell because it's not as hot.
Last edited:
:hmm::sneaky:
Facebook
Twitter