My advice is to use words that can't be interpreted as expressing a lack of empathy. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Or you could look within yourself for why you read a lack of empathy into the things people say.

Only insofar as I think the state should defend human rights, which you just claimed yourself right before you implied it should offer people food and a living. — NOS4A2

The US state does give food to kids. So do state governments and city and county governments.

Exactly. It treats adults as unweened.

Ill-fed people probably have access to food but just don't procure it.

C'mon, frank. Be honest. There's a paucity of empathy in that sentiment. If it was just carelessly posted, no prob, my apologies for siding with Isaac (who, it should be noted, interpreted it in a similar way).

Exactly. It treats adults as unweened. — NOS4A2

It's just nutrition assistance. Nothing drastic.

Ill-fed people probably have access to food but just don't procure it. — ZzzoneiroCosm

This would take us back into discussing what's really going on with nutrition assistance in the US.

Why don't you research that topic?

If you know something about it, apart from the guesswork you posted above, I'm all ears. My own research is underway.

I'm in grad school for an MSW (to be a psychotherapist) so I should know more about this anyway. Also locked in with COVID - hence my increased engagement here for a few days.

It's just nutrition assistance. Nothing drastic.

All of it at the cost of justice. It cannot differentiate between just and unjust distribution of wealth.

The reason The Wealthy purchase or influence power is because the people with power are selling it. — NOS4A2

Imagine actually believing this.

Put yourself in these shoes and consider it.

Frightening, isn’t it?

All of it at the cost of justice. It cannot differentiate between just and unjust distribution of wealth. — NOS4A2

It's food stamps NOS. Cheese. Milk. Hamburger.
Buns to put the hamburger in. It's not going to turn the world upside down.

It's food stamps NOS. Cheese. Milk. Hamburger.
Buns to put the hamburger in. It's not going to turn the world upside down.

It’s unjust, Frank. It’s an unjust system. It seeks to arise at a just state through unjust means. Not only that but it does so inefficiently, wastefully and poorly.

Let’s abolish the oppressive state so that we can work jobs for monopolies that definitely don’t oppress anyone — because it’s all voluntary.

Laissez faire, baby.

Imagine actually believing this.

Put yourself in these shoes and consider it.

Frightening, isn’t it? — Xtrix

What happens when you assume your conclusion. You draw funny rigid senseless lines.

It’s unjust, Frank. It’s an unjust system. It seeks to arise at a just state through unjust means. Not only that but it does so inefficiently, wastefully and poorly. — NOS4A2

I think most people are OK with having their taxes go to WIC or their state and local food aid organizations. They don't think of it as unjust.

You’d voluntarily fall into such relationships because you’re stupid, a coward, or both. — NOS4A2

That's why we have human rights. To protect everyone. Even stupid cowards. (Not saying you're a stupid coward xtrix :smile: )

Human rights are for the weakest, stupidest, most cowardly among us. Yes, and even the "moochers and looters." Everyone, no matter how unworthy.

It’s nice to have such an amorphous, abstract term like the “state” to blame as the root of all evil. Never mind the fact that the state consists of real people who have real beliefs and real values — and who make real decisions.

The “wealthy” is also general, but much easier to define. The wealthy are those individuals with wealth.

It’s a nice story to believe the State is the devil. If only the State were less of a weak-willed asshole susceptible to bribes by the wealthy. How can we blame the wealthy for lobbying the State the way everyone does?

:lol:

That's why we have human rights. To protect everyone. Even stupid cowards. (Not saying you're a stupid coward xtrix :smile: )

Human rights are for the weakest, stupidest, most cowardly among us. Yes, and even the "moochers and looters." Everyone, no matter how unworthy.

That’s right. And freedom of association implies anyone can quit a relationship with the state should they choose.

It's a bit boggling. Rand and ilk. Just ew.

And freedom of association implies anyone can quit a relationship with the state should they choose. — NOS4A2

Are you arguing for human rights now? Freedom of association as a human right?

Is that more or less fundamental than the right to life, the right to a living wage, the right to humane working conditions - all of which have, historically speaking, required state intervention?

I'm talking about actual history, not your abstract fantasy.

What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous glitz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government.

This thread in a nutshell.

Are you arguing for human rights now? Freedom of association as a human right?

Is that more or less fundamental than the right to life, the right to a living wage, the right to humane working conditions - all of which have, historically speaking, require state intervention?

I'm talking about actual history, not your abstract fantasy.

Always have been. But no, you have no right to demand I provide for you.

As always, you didn't answer my question. You just repeated a slogan.

Yes it is more fundamental and just than demanding others provide for you.

Provide your argument for why the right to freedom of association is more fundamental than the right to life, to a living wage, to humane treatment.

I can't wait to hear it.

The difference between negative and positive rights is pretty well established that anyone can spend a moment to learn the difference and come to his own conclusions.

The difference between negative and positive rights is pretty well established that anyone can spend a moment to learn the difference and come to his own conclusions. — NOS4A2

Just as I suspected. No argument. Crickets.

Laissez faire: cover for corporatism.

It’s essentially the difference between expecting others to respect your ability to make your own way in life and demanding others to provide for your way of life. One involves voluntary association the other demands compulsory association.

Got it:

"The belief in a distinction between positive and negative rights is generally maintained, or emphasized, by libertarians, who believe that positive rights do not exist until they are created by a contract."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Again:

Provide your argument for why the right to freedom of association is more fundamental than the right to life, to a living wage, to humane treatment.

I can't wait to hear it. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Again, what?

What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous glitz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government.

This thread in a nutshell. — Xtrix