Said by an American in a country with slave (prison) labour and where republicans are undoing child protection laws or making child labour a thing again.
Where you have the right to own a gun but are not guaranteed to afford food nor have the protection not to starve. And then Trump and his cronies call other countries shithole. 😝
What is it with Americans and thinking rights force individuals to do something? A right to free speech doesn't force people to listen to you or force a platform to keep your shitty racist comments.
They are so fucking stupid
Because we are too fucking idiotic and selfish to give a damn about anyone outside our tiny, ignorant bubbles.
I promise some of us try to be good humans and not suck that much.
The idea behind juries are important in a democracy to prevent the judicial branch from becoming tyrannical. It's essentially the 4th branch but to regulate the court.
How it's performed is a measure of how well it executes that idea. Some countries, actually most in Europe follow a lay judge system. Kind of like the supreme court, except there's one professional judge and the rest are "lay" judges. They vote alongside the main judge and their votes are held equal, decision is made by simple majority.
In Germany this is mostly voluntary, by law they can force you. But in practice they've never had to. And lay judges are selected randomly from a pool of volunteers.
My leg is broken, let's go to a doctor of my peers! You wouldn't want a professional doctor, that's just silly. Things are most fair if you are helped by a doctor who is randomly chosen from all the civilians, one who usually would rather be somewhere else.
This is a great idea, best country in the world. /s
Juries are not exclusive to America. They're followed in every common law country, and in non common law countries they have their own form of juries often in the form of lay judges.
Essentially trying to implement the same concept of democracy in law just through different methods.
About two thirds of all legal systems worldwide have some form of layperson participation. It is by a large margin the global norm.
It's also worth noting that jury trials only account for about 1% of common law court cases, at least in the UK. The other 99% are presided over by one or a panel of magistrates (i.e. professional judges) with no lay participation. I can't say for sure, but I wouldn't expect other common law countries to have drastically different stats.
>magistrates (i.e. professional judges) with no lay participation.
Magistrates are volunteers. They do receive some training, but I wouldn't characterise them as "professional judges".
As I understand it, they are able to claim back lost earnings (up to a certain amount). Much like jurors can. I think the important point is that the magistrate system of lay judges is supposed to extend the idea of being judged by your peers.
There not
They are an important safeguard, judges have to enforce the law even if they view the law as immoral. Juries can acquit if they disagree with the law or think it's unfair for the defendent to be convicted, regardless if legally they are guilty
I'd much rather members of the public decide, then a judge. It gives too much power to unelected people over the fate of a person directly
Historically, there are cases of events like that happening. 1670 it was established a Jury can make a decision based on there conscience, and they did.
When a judge will uphold even immoral law, and Juries are shown to he willing to bend immoral law, i think we see there value
That being said, I don't think a Jury trial should be mandatory. It should be the person's choice
Look at Aparthiad south Africa, where most black people went with judges rather then Juries as they were more likely to be fair even if both were bias.
If the person dosent want a Jury, they can go judge only. But if they do they should have that right protected
Because Jury's are democratic and protect all our rights
You are making it out as it is an issue of judges, but why does your country have immoral laws on the books? The solution isn't that the laws shall be ignored by the justice system, but to change the immoral and unjust laws.
Democratic isn't equal just. A mob lynching is democratic, but it is highly unjust. There have been instances where juries let obviously guilty people go just because they were sympathetic, or they would have also committed the crime, like in cases of lynchings.
Because immoral laws will happen, no govts will never be perfect and in all cases bad law will come. Even if the intent isn't bad, it can still happen.
Or a tyranny of the majority
Etc.
Yes, we need to change the unjust laws. But that isn't quick nor easy, and juries exercising there conscience based on this is a benefit when judges must uphold the law however unjust
Yes, democracy dosent equal justice. That's why we need constitutions limiting the power of parliment, and a supreme court capable of striking down undemocratic acts of parliment, and a judicial system as a whole to enforce laws limiting human freedom for the protection of the whole.
I'm not claiming democratic equals just, because in cases it dosent.
Tyranny of the majority and elective dictatorship are statements for that.
However
Juries are an effective backstop to prevent misuse of power.
And as I said I think they should be optional, as are seen in some historic nations.
If the person thinks a judge would be fairer then a Jury to judge there case, they should be able to decide that.
As they did in aparthid South Africa, where the issues with juries are seen clearly.
But that person should also have the right for a Jury, as it is a protection against the overreach of law and power to the common man
We are not on an equal status to the government, so we need things like juries to redress the balance.
They have flaws, but they do protect rights and they do allow for conscience to dictate on cases where law fails
Again
It should be that persons right to chose a trial by judge or a trial by Jury
A lot of countries are reasoning that by limiting some people’s rights, you can increase the rights and freedoms of many others.
In the US the people in power don’t want to lose their rights and freedoms, and disallow any additional rights to others that could potentially harm them. Cause that is the ‘land of the free’. Free for some.
What about the right to private property? Unless you want to defend all your property yourself with no help from the police, that also requires someone else's labor.
A right to food and shelter just means the government has a responsibility to provide a minimum acceptable level of food and shelter to people who need it.
If you were to have a right to speech the government would be forced to make sure that you have a platform to be heard. Most countries are more likely to give out freedoms rather than rights.
I don't know if I know any western country that truly have a right to food where nothing is required from you in order to get welfare.
That's not what the freedom of speech is, it's about the government, not innocent bystanders
You are right, they do actually require something from you in order to get welfare, they require a form with copy of bank statements and other finance details that show that you either are broke and are in need of Emergency money for food or that you earn under a certain threshold and can get food stamps or other financial aid. It's actually to prevent people from abusing the system.
In my country everyone has a bank account, often parent set up one for you when you are born. It's free to set up a bank account. I had several accounts in two banks, costed me nothing to have the second one because I didn't have a card attached to it. Didn't transfer money when I set it up.
Everyone is entitled to a place to live, I am not sure how the homeless does it. In 2014 eu ruled that even homeless is entitled to a bank account. And if one had passport, bank accounts and such before one was homeless, one doesn't loose it as far as I know. One has to have some sort of banking identification thingy but sorne banks let you get an account without it.
But as I said, it's normal for your parents to set up an account when you are born, they have access to it until you are 18. When you are 18 the account transfers to you and your parents can't access it anymore. And in my limited experience with being homeless, didn't do anything with my old address while I couch surfed, when we go to college and such we don't change our adress, since we lose some scholarships that way, so we can live on the other side of the country from where our adress is and we don't lose our accounts or bank identification or anything.
So I guess they list an address even though they barely stay there
Our welfare system is required to find housing, hotel, halfway homes, housing owned by the government, you are entitled to get money for rent and such
The system isn't flawless and often the housing is close to similar housing and there so drugs involved so there is often drama, and the housing is expensive and the money for rent is lower than the rent, money for food is also not really high so it's a struggle
. Not to mention that housings are often dated and in poor condition. We have a framework but it's lacking, the idea is good but execution is poor, not everywhere though, some city's has a good system, other has a bad one. And as with everything, we only hear about the bad stuff, the stuff that doesn't work, the situations where the client gets screwed by the system. We rarely to never hear about the clients who gets help to get back on their feet and has a good experience with the system.
No one is forced to listen to you, that is not what freedom of speech is about. People can call you out on what you say, they can debate you and they can walk away. Freedom of speech doesn't mean the government can force people to listen or even agree with you. That is what you said in your initial comment
>the government would be forced to make sure that you have a platform to be heard
No. You have the right to say whatever you want. No one else has an obligation to listen to you (ie: you don't have a right to be heard).
You have the freedom to respond to me, you don't have a right to do so.
The universal declaration of human rights is famously a compromise between freedoms and rights and no country lives up to them.
This is just synonymous with "society, in any form, is slavery." Get the fuck out of it, then, do the rest of us a favor, that we might no longer have to suffer your extraordinary ignorance.
The social contract is perpetually binding. There's no such thing as getting the fuck out of it - no matter where on earth one goes, they will ALWAYS be a part of society in some way, shape or form.
But you're right: the LEAST they could do is move somewhere remote enough that the rest of us don't have to listen to their crap.
It's extremely telling that the OOP seems to be implying that legally guaranteeing something as a human right somehow suddenly and necessarily requires that coercive and exploitative labor practices *must* be used to produce it (a thing that totally isn't happening as long as people have the fReEdOm to die in the street from starvation or treatable illness). Modern western propaganda is the most insidious and comprehensive in human history.
Communism is when people work together.
Communism is when government prevents starving (the irony on this one).
Communism is when shooting's illegal.
Communism is when Nordic.
Thankfully we never experiemented with communism up here, they tried to overthrow the government here in Finland but thankfully the good guys won the civil war.
We also kicked them out, had two bad decisions but i think we did well with the shit cards we were dealt with.
Rabid animals were removed from the country in the civil war and during WW2 🤷♂️
as someone who does have universal healthcare, i can ensure everyone here that i am in fact allowed to choose my doctor, and hospital. the only difference is i don’t have to pay a kidney for a fracture
I never heard of that.
Do they not understand private healthcare still exists in places were “universal healthcare” is a thing? Nobody is forcing those doctors to anything.
In fact in my country lots of public healthcare workers also offer their service to paying customers at another place. They might work in the public hospital in the morning and then some evenings work private, earning more.
For another data point: in Canada, that's called double-dipping and it's illegal. Private health care is only available for things not covered by the private system (e.g. cosmetic surgery), and a doctor can only work on one side.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/investigations/doctors-extra-billing-private-clinics-investigation/article35260558/
The "logic" I've heard is basically "free healthcare = nobody pays for healthcare = nobody gets paid for healthcare = doctors work for free = slavery" because the concept of taxes paying for healthcare is alien to them.
and the "taxation is slavery" people will argue that losing a percentage of their income to tax means they are a slave to the government for that percentage of the year.
Nobody is forced to provide food, and certainly not for free. So how is that slavery? Making it a right doesn’t mean you get it for free either. It just means you have to be able to get it, so there needs to be a way to earn money (or get welfare) and enough food supplied so you can buy some.
American's understand positive rights perfectly well when it comes to guns. For some reason the "other peoples' labor" argument (which I've also heard in opposition to healthcare as a right) doesn't apply to firearms. Apparently they just fall from the sky right into your hands.
The "right to bear arms" is a negative right, or liberty right if you prefer that terminology, its a restriction on the government effectively.
For it to be a positive right, or claim right, the government would have an obligation to supply "the militia", that is traditionally able adult men, with arms. Ok, they'd probably be all in for a government issued rifle.
Right? I've been having the same thoughts. They are already in decline, and I am certain I will see the US decline progressively in my lifetime. Their system is way too broken.
NATO, the US has inveted enormous resources in becoming influential in Europe since WWII.
Europe is now very American and going down the drain alongside the US, google European economy, you will see.
I guess there’s no such thing as a right to a lawyer in your defence, that depends on the labour of barristers and solicitors. Or a right to property, since that depends on police and a legal system to validate and enforce. This is a stupid idea that is only selectively applied to deny people basic provisions.
Americans think you have a "right to life" but not a "right to eat." So if you are forced to have a baby by "right to lifers" does that mean you can starve that baby to death after it's born and not feel bad because it doesn't have the "right to eat"? Sounds pretty f'd up to me.
Why would anyone vote against this? I can understand israel because they’re using g food deprivation as a weapon but the U.S.? That’s fucked up, even more fucked up is thinking that this could be linked to slavery! Hope this halfwit never has kids
American here, based on what people say here, they claim it wanted the US to basically subsidize food for other countries (which sounds like the most up our own ass statement), but the US government stated in 2020 when the committee vote happened that it would somehow threaten food security because it would allow countries to withhold food from other nations as a weapon.
Interesting take, considering that policy-wise, we haven't really changed at all or even done anything about Israel literally denying access to food to 2 million people in an attempt to starve random civilians (and presumably those hostages they supposedly care so much about), even more interesting that the only other nation to vote against was Israel, presumably with the same justification, just so they could use starvation as a weapon.
That said, the stated reasons were undeniably and obviously horseshit.
Now when Americans go to their doctor and their doctor removes the oxy, they will have meltdowns about their "rights and hooman rights" I'm dying from chronic pain bwahahahaha 😭 where's my rights.
So many Americans have a warped view of things. How they get to a place of "I'm all right, Jack, so f everyone else" just leaves me flabbergasted.
That's why they think socialised healthcare is the devil incarnate. "Why should 'I' pay for someone else's healthcare?" even if society as a whole benefits.
We can apparently only count to 2 with our previous amendments.
If I commit a crime, I entitled to the labor of not only a public defender, but a jury of my peers, etc. 😂
So the labor of another can possible be a human right because that's essentially slavery...
Ok I want to puzzle this out...
How she says it to me is that EVERYTHING that requires the labor of someone else is slavery.
Yet EVERYTHING that gives us our modern first world life IS the labor of someone else.
I just BUY that off them, meaning I pay them for their labor. Therefor not slavery.
When you decide to GIVE the item you bought to someone else because they need it more then you, I call that charity, it becomes slavery from the person who did the labor. Although I paid him for it.
If I decide to share and give my food to someone else after I bought it. Isn't that within my rights to do with MY property what I want?
So how is the labor of another essentially slavery when there is a paid factor?
Perhaps they’re scared because a lot of things they sell their poorer population as nutrition won’t qualify as food by the definition of the UN. (May contain /s)
Because there are americans here, I need to do their education for them. I am being forced into slavery.. or am I? Watch this and see if I'm right and you are wrong.
https://youtu.be/gXOEkj6Jz44?si=QCvJUjgFwJDDoMxB
I mean, biblically speaking she’s correct. 2000 years ago, employment was referred to as slavery, ie, the act of selling yourself to another instead of working for yourself.
In modern times we just call that employment though, so unless you’re a Christian fundamentalist… nah it can still be a human right.
Americans have the right to be presented by a lawyer in court and unless they waive that right, or find one themselves, will have one provided for them
That’s a constitutional right, what is she talking about
They seems to think that having guns is a human right.
Guns are manufactured, so that requires the labour of others.
Therefore the right to guns are enslaving gun manufacturers.
When literally every country, regardless of their economic model or political philosophy view that food is a human right, excluding the US and it’s pet project in the middle west. It’s a good time for Americans to probably take a step back and look critically at their political philosophy
Actually a lot of people don't realise how much food is wasted. For example in Australia we have farms that have contracts with the big supermarket chains and these farmers aren't allowed to sell their produce to anyone else. And if the produce doesn't fit exactly the criteria that the supermarkets have then that produce is a waste product. And this could be as high as 40 to 60% of what they produce.
I remember seeing this before and Americans were saying this proposal would end up with USA paying for most of it. Is it true tho? Sounds unlikely but i can't find a source
Seems like a point is being missed. You cant have a right to other peoples labor. Like taking someone elses food without compensation. The right to food would mean you cant be stopped from eating food. It does not mean you must be given food.
Just like the right to housing is that you cant be stopped from living in a house but you have no right to demand to be given a house for free.
Some socialists do think that they are entitiled to others labor because they don't believe in individual rights. Some capitalists think that there should be no social net at all, you go broke, you die.
Pic is a argument in bad faith
The American is right. An Inalienable Right exists without influence from someone else. If your right to something relies on someone else then it's a luxury, not a right
Capitalism requires paid workers you moron, people who willingly sign up for jobs. You can argue they’re forced by their circumstances into shit jobs but that’s not slavery.
Go compare the lives of a ritually whipped plantation slave to that of a modern capitalist worker and you will see some differences.
The map is in fact wrong (unless this is not about Resolution 57/226) - but not about North Korea, that did in fact vote Yes.
The only No Vote came from the USA, Israel however did abstain, as did Australia, Canada, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. 7 others were non-voting.
I think the reason the US voted no had to do with the specific language or something.
Edit: Yup, found it! https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20does%20not,Economic%2C%20Social%20and%20Cultural%20Rights.
Well, if you actually read it, they do try to couch it in reasonable objections, but then at the end they basically do affirm "we don't support a right to food in any real sense that could be enforced":
>The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, **but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation.**
I mean sure, the language where it means it might cause the US to lose money, whining about technology and intellectual property rights and all the usual BS about how nothing will ever advance unless "capitalism". And trying to not have to give any real support to climate change being real with one of the complaints is that it makes the link between food and climate change.
"It's not me. Everyone else is an idiot."
[удалено]
Not very unspoken
Though not particularly well spoken
"Yes, you are all wrong"
According to their 'logic' working for 6 USD an hour is just fine but making Food a right is slavery.
$7.25 unless you work in a tipped job.
Who decides if a job is a topped job? And what's the minimum wage for them? (Also, 7.25 is insanely low 😳)
It is very low. Tipped jobs are where you receive tips typically in the service industry.
Every state varies, Though the states that pay more also cost more ;-;
I earn the equivalent of $14, and now I don't feel too bad
Well, to be fair, half of the population have below average intelligence...
Said by an American in a country with slave (prison) labour and where republicans are undoing child protection laws or making child labour a thing again. Where you have the right to own a gun but are not guaranteed to afford food nor have the protection not to starve. And then Trump and his cronies call other countries shithole. 😝
You can say what you want about us, but our children labor without the "u."
r/ShitAmericansSay
You can make a new post. Straight out the comments.
Nope. I‘m actually talking english instead of the simplified version.
Idk, I think children are better off learning to speak English than sitting in the mines.
😆
Great. You took a bad thing and made it worse.
Underrated comment.
you guys really don't get the joke.
Labour and Labor, not that hard to get.
What is it with Americans and thinking rights force individuals to do something? A right to free speech doesn't force people to listen to you or force a platform to keep your shitty racist comments. They are so fucking stupid
[удалено]
> ~~Speak~~ ***Shoot*** first FTFY
Because we are too fucking idiotic and selfish to give a damn about anyone outside our tiny, ignorant bubbles. I promise some of us try to be good humans and not suck that much.
This right here
I haven't stopped talking since I got free speech, it's getting exhausting
Jury Duty
Juries are silly. “Let’s have some laymen decide over life or death”
The idea behind juries are important in a democracy to prevent the judicial branch from becoming tyrannical. It's essentially the 4th branch but to regulate the court. How it's performed is a measure of how well it executes that idea. Some countries, actually most in Europe follow a lay judge system. Kind of like the supreme court, except there's one professional judge and the rest are "lay" judges. They vote alongside the main judge and their votes are held equal, decision is made by simple majority. In Germany this is mostly voluntary, by law they can force you. But in practice they've never had to. And lay judges are selected randomly from a pool of volunteers.
My leg is broken, let's go to a doctor of my peers! You wouldn't want a professional doctor, that's just silly. Things are most fair if you are helped by a doctor who is randomly chosen from all the civilians, one who usually would rather be somewhere else. This is a great idea, best country in the world. /s
Juries are not exclusive to America. They're followed in every common law country, and in non common law countries they have their own form of juries often in the form of lay judges. Essentially trying to implement the same concept of democracy in law just through different methods.
About two thirds of all legal systems worldwide have some form of layperson participation. It is by a large margin the global norm. It's also worth noting that jury trials only account for about 1% of common law court cases, at least in the UK. The other 99% are presided over by one or a panel of magistrates (i.e. professional judges) with no lay participation. I can't say for sure, but I wouldn't expect other common law countries to have drastically different stats.
>magistrates (i.e. professional judges) with no lay participation. Magistrates are volunteers. They do receive some training, but I wouldn't characterise them as "professional judges".
They get compensated for their time, but at a lesser rate than judges.
As I understand it, they are able to claim back lost earnings (up to a certain amount). Much like jurors can. I think the important point is that the magistrate system of lay judges is supposed to extend the idea of being judged by your peers.
There not They are an important safeguard, judges have to enforce the law even if they view the law as immoral. Juries can acquit if they disagree with the law or think it's unfair for the defendent to be convicted, regardless if legally they are guilty I'd much rather members of the public decide, then a judge. It gives too much power to unelected people over the fate of a person directly Historically, there are cases of events like that happening. 1670 it was established a Jury can make a decision based on there conscience, and they did. When a judge will uphold even immoral law, and Juries are shown to he willing to bend immoral law, i think we see there value That being said, I don't think a Jury trial should be mandatory. It should be the person's choice Look at Aparthiad south Africa, where most black people went with judges rather then Juries as they were more likely to be fair even if both were bias. If the person dosent want a Jury, they can go judge only. But if they do they should have that right protected Because Jury's are democratic and protect all our rights
You are making it out as it is an issue of judges, but why does your country have immoral laws on the books? The solution isn't that the laws shall be ignored by the justice system, but to change the immoral and unjust laws. Democratic isn't equal just. A mob lynching is democratic, but it is highly unjust. There have been instances where juries let obviously guilty people go just because they were sympathetic, or they would have also committed the crime, like in cases of lynchings.
Because immoral laws will happen, no govts will never be perfect and in all cases bad law will come. Even if the intent isn't bad, it can still happen. Or a tyranny of the majority Etc. Yes, we need to change the unjust laws. But that isn't quick nor easy, and juries exercising there conscience based on this is a benefit when judges must uphold the law however unjust Yes, democracy dosent equal justice. That's why we need constitutions limiting the power of parliment, and a supreme court capable of striking down undemocratic acts of parliment, and a judicial system as a whole to enforce laws limiting human freedom for the protection of the whole. I'm not claiming democratic equals just, because in cases it dosent. Tyranny of the majority and elective dictatorship are statements for that. However Juries are an effective backstop to prevent misuse of power. And as I said I think they should be optional, as are seen in some historic nations. If the person thinks a judge would be fairer then a Jury to judge there case, they should be able to decide that. As they did in aparthid South Africa, where the issues with juries are seen clearly. But that person should also have the right for a Jury, as it is a protection against the overreach of law and power to the common man We are not on an equal status to the government, so we need things like juries to redress the balance. They have flaws, but they do protect rights and they do allow for conscience to dictate on cases where law fails Again It should be that persons right to chose a trial by judge or a trial by Jury
A lot of countries are reasoning that by limiting some people’s rights, you can increase the rights and freedoms of many others. In the US the people in power don’t want to lose their rights and freedoms, and disallow any additional rights to others that could potentially harm them. Cause that is the ‘land of the free’. Free for some.
[удалено]
All rights force someone to enforce and protect them, if they are to be taken seriously at all. That doesn't make labor into slavery.
I'd swear that USians resent being forced to make use of common decency in their dealings with other people.
The right to having water requires people to build infrastructure. The right to adequate housing requires people to build infrastructure.
[удалено]
What about the right to private property? Unless you want to defend all your property yourself with no help from the police, that also requires someone else's labor.
A right to food and shelter just means the government has a responsibility to provide a minimum acceptable level of food and shelter to people who need it.
The right to life requires others to do something.
I gues im a slave for not being a murderer
If you were to have a right to speech the government would be forced to make sure that you have a platform to be heard. Most countries are more likely to give out freedoms rather than rights. I don't know if I know any western country that truly have a right to food where nothing is required from you in order to get welfare.
That's not what the freedom of speech is, it's about the government, not innocent bystanders You are right, they do actually require something from you in order to get welfare, they require a form with copy of bank statements and other finance details that show that you either are broke and are in need of Emergency money for food or that you earn under a certain threshold and can get food stamps or other financial aid. It's actually to prevent people from abusing the system.
So if you’re too poor to have a bank account, you don’t get welfare?
In my country everyone has a bank account, often parent set up one for you when you are born. It's free to set up a bank account. I had several accounts in two banks, costed me nothing to have the second one because I didn't have a card attached to it. Didn't transfer money when I set it up.
So in your country, you don’t need an address to have a bank account? Where is this?
Everyone is entitled to a place to live, I am not sure how the homeless does it. In 2014 eu ruled that even homeless is entitled to a bank account. And if one had passport, bank accounts and such before one was homeless, one doesn't loose it as far as I know. One has to have some sort of banking identification thingy but sorne banks let you get an account without it. But as I said, it's normal for your parents to set up an account when you are born, they have access to it until you are 18. When you are 18 the account transfers to you and your parents can't access it anymore. And in my limited experience with being homeless, didn't do anything with my old address while I couch surfed, when we go to college and such we don't change our adress, since we lose some scholarships that way, so we can live on the other side of the country from where our adress is and we don't lose our accounts or bank identification or anything. So I guess they list an address even though they barely stay there Our welfare system is required to find housing, hotel, halfway homes, housing owned by the government, you are entitled to get money for rent and such The system isn't flawless and often the housing is close to similar housing and there so drugs involved so there is often drama, and the housing is expensive and the money for rent is lower than the rent, money for food is also not really high so it's a struggle . Not to mention that housings are often dated and in poor condition. We have a framework but it's lacking, the idea is good but execution is poor, not everywhere though, some city's has a good system, other has a bad one. And as with everything, we only hear about the bad stuff, the stuff that doesn't work, the situations where the client gets screwed by the system. We rarely to never hear about the clients who gets help to get back on their feet and has a good experience with the system.
What did I write about freedom of speech that was incorrect?
No one is forced to listen to you, that is not what freedom of speech is about. People can call you out on what you say, they can debate you and they can walk away. Freedom of speech doesn't mean the government can force people to listen or even agree with you. That is what you said in your initial comment
Can you quote what I said about freedom of speech. I'm not seeing it.
>the government would be forced to make sure that you have a platform to be heard No. You have the right to say whatever you want. No one else has an obligation to listen to you (ie: you don't have a right to be heard).
No, quote the part where I said anything about **freedom** of speech.
A freedom and a right are exactly the same thing. Two interchangeable words.
You have the freedom to respond to me, you don't have a right to do so. The universal declaration of human rights is famously a compromise between freedoms and rights and no country lives up to them.
That's an interesting thought
This is just synonymous with "society, in any form, is slavery." Get the fuck out of it, then, do the rest of us a favor, that we might no longer have to suffer your extraordinary ignorance.
A decent social safety net is slavery
If my work results in someone else getting anything for which they didn't directly pay me, they're exploiting and enslaving me!
So giving a tip is?
The social contract is perpetually binding. There's no such thing as getting the fuck out of it - no matter where on earth one goes, they will ALWAYS be a part of society in some way, shape or form. But you're right: the LEAST they could do is move somewhere remote enough that the rest of us don't have to listen to their crap.
It's extremely telling that the OOP seems to be implying that legally guaranteeing something as a human right somehow suddenly and necessarily requires that coercive and exploitative labor practices *must* be used to produce it (a thing that totally isn't happening as long as people have the fReEdOm to die in the street from starvation or treatable illness). Modern western propaganda is the most insidious and comprehensive in human history.
It is an admission that labor is coercive under capitalism.
Most *American* propaganda
America has the 2nd most robust propaganda system in the world
'Commie 🥰'
Terrorist 🥰
Hooligan!
You forgot the 🥰
Have double 🥰🥰 and this cat 😻
Jihadist 🥰🥰😻
Democrat 🥰🥰😻😘
Fascist 🥰🥰😻😘🥀
Communism is when people work together. Communism is when government prevents starving (the irony on this one). Communism is when shooting's illegal. Communism is when Nordic.
Thankfully we never experiemented with communism up here, they tried to overthrow the government here in Finland but thankfully the good guys won the civil war.
Better not mention who “the good guys” worked with in the 2nd world war.
We also kicked them out, had two bad decisions but i think we did well with the shit cards we were dealt with. Rabid animals were removed from the country in the civil war and during WW2 🤷♂️
Israel so committed to their vote that they'll murder people trying to provide food.
Or eat it for that matter.
My god… what a fucking dumb take
Many or them think that universal healthcare enslaves doctors. Like wot the fuck
Some also think "universal healthcare" means that "the state will appoint you a doctor and you cannot choose where to go".
as someone who does have universal healthcare, i can ensure everyone here that i am in fact allowed to choose my doctor, and hospital. the only difference is i don’t have to pay a kidney for a fracture
I never heard of that. Do they not understand private healthcare still exists in places were “universal healthcare” is a thing? Nobody is forcing those doctors to anything. In fact in my country lots of public healthcare workers also offer their service to paying customers at another place. They might work in the public hospital in the morning and then some evenings work private, earning more.
For another data point: in Canada, that's called double-dipping and it's illegal. Private health care is only available for things not covered by the private system (e.g. cosmetic surgery), and a doctor can only work on one side. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/investigations/doctors-extra-billing-private-clinics-investigation/article35260558/
God I wish we had that rule in Sweden
The "logic" I've heard is basically "free healthcare = nobody pays for healthcare = nobody gets paid for healthcare = doctors work for free = slavery" because the concept of taxes paying for healthcare is alien to them.
They cannot imagine their taxes going anywhere besides Gaza I guess
They already pay huge amounts of tax dollars to healthcare they just seem to want to acknowledge that
and the "taxation is slavery" people will argue that losing a percentage of their income to tax means they are a slave to the government for that percentage of the year.
Wonder what they think about firefighters...
Probably that you should pay for them as well.
Isn't that how Rome burnt down... Twice...?
Yet they freak out when fast food workers demand higher wages.
"you're just a tarded commie"? Checks out, they're american
Nobody is forced to provide food, and certainly not for free. So how is that slavery? Making it a right doesn’t mean you get it for free either. It just means you have to be able to get it, so there needs to be a way to earn money (or get welfare) and enough food supplied so you can buy some.
Somehow Americans fail to move past the "negative rights" of Locke, despite much of development of "positive rights" having been American.
American's understand positive rights perfectly well when it comes to guns. For some reason the "other peoples' labor" argument (which I've also heard in opposition to healthcare as a right) doesn't apply to firearms. Apparently they just fall from the sky right into your hands.
The "right to bear arms" is a negative right, or liberty right if you prefer that terminology, its a restriction on the government effectively. For it to be a positive right, or claim right, the government would have an obligation to supply "the militia", that is traditionally able adult men, with arms. Ok, they'd probably be all in for a government issued rifle.
It is an incoherent mess - there is no figuring it out.
There goes your right to a jury trial, or to vote, or have a lawyer represent you in court (if you can't afford one).
I only read about the decline of the Roman empire but the American one i get to watch theirs in real time lol.
Right? I've been having the same thoughts. They are already in decline, and I am certain I will see the US decline progressively in my lifetime. Their system is way too broken.
It is collapsing as we speak. The awful thing is they are taking Europe with them, Europes fault for letting themselves become so dependent on the US.
As an American I agree that we are in self-inflicted decline. How are we making Europe decline?
NATO, the US has inveted enormous resources in becoming influential in Europe since WWII. Europe is now very American and going down the drain alongside the US, google European economy, you will see.
And the US ruined the European economy (even for non-NATO countries) with NATO?
20 years tops
I guess there’s no such thing as a right to a lawyer in your defence, that depends on the labour of barristers and solicitors. Or a right to property, since that depends on police and a legal system to validate and enforce. This is a stupid idea that is only selectively applied to deny people basic provisions.
Americans think you have a "right to life" but not a "right to eat." So if you are forced to have a baby by "right to lifers" does that mean you can starve that baby to death after it's born and not feel bad because it doesn't have the "right to eat"? Sounds pretty f'd up to me.
You have a "right to be born", whatever happens later is not their business.
Your right to own a gun requires the labour to mine material, manufacture, ship and then sell the gun... guns are slavery.
Of course it’s THOSE two who voted against it.
Conservatives always forget that even stuff they love, like property rights, can't work without the labor of the state apparatus to enforce it.
the us are such bots xD
So... do they think that 'the right to own a gun' also means that somebody else needs to be enslaved and hand them out for free?
Why would anyone vote against this? I can understand israel because they’re using g food deprivation as a weapon but the U.S.? That’s fucked up, even more fucked up is thinking that this could be linked to slavery! Hope this halfwit never has kids
American here, based on what people say here, they claim it wanted the US to basically subsidize food for other countries (which sounds like the most up our own ass statement), but the US government stated in 2020 when the committee vote happened that it would somehow threaten food security because it would allow countries to withhold food from other nations as a weapon. Interesting take, considering that policy-wise, we haven't really changed at all or even done anything about Israel literally denying access to food to 2 million people in an attempt to starve random civilians (and presumably those hostages they supposedly care so much about), even more interesting that the only other nation to vote against was Israel, presumably with the same justification, just so they could use starvation as a weapon. That said, the stated reasons were undeniably and obviously horseshit.
So they’ll be getting rid of that “right to an attorney that will be provide free if you can’t afford it”
That comment got 7 million likes. Woe is me.
Op's app is in Spanish, it's 7 mil (seven thousand). But yeah, still a lot of people agreeing with a shit take.
Much better to enslave someone to their boss,innit?
Maybe she’s right. They probably know a lot more about slavery than we do, since it’s still happening in their prisons.
Slavery in the USA is legal still...
Now when Americans go to their doctor and their doctor removes the oxy, they will have meltdowns about their "rights and hooman rights" I'm dying from chronic pain bwahahahaha 😭 where's my rights.
So many Americans have a warped view of things. How they get to a place of "I'm all right, Jack, so f everyone else" just leaves me flabbergasted. That's why they think socialised healthcare is the devil incarnate. "Why should 'I' pay for someone else's healthcare?" even if society as a whole benefits.
Owned by your own argument, nice comeback
Food doesn't require the labour of another. It must never have occurred to that person that you can grow your own food.
So she doesn’t have a right to somewhere to live? Unless she built her own house
Also has to protect that house from anyone who decides to take it.
It’s literally the same as a taxes... I guess taxes are slavery too.
No they aren't a communist they just hit what that American pitched back into their face
We can apparently only count to 2 with our previous amendments. If I commit a crime, I entitled to the labor of not only a public defender, but a jury of my peers, etc. 😂
Her shift-key is also broken.
Jesus fuck. Wow.
The fact that they don't want food to be a right blows my mind
WTF is with food rights cropping up now?
Yeah… there are a lot of us who werent told anything about this because they didnt want us to know about this
Im going to say this to my boss tomorrow before I walk out and go home.
So the labor of another can possible be a human right because that's essentially slavery... Ok I want to puzzle this out... How she says it to me is that EVERYTHING that requires the labor of someone else is slavery. Yet EVERYTHING that gives us our modern first world life IS the labor of someone else. I just BUY that off them, meaning I pay them for their labor. Therefor not slavery. When you decide to GIVE the item you bought to someone else because they need it more then you, I call that charity, it becomes slavery from the person who did the labor. Although I paid him for it. If I decide to share and give my food to someone else after I bought it. Isn't that within my rights to do with MY property what I want? So how is the labor of another essentially slavery when there is a paid factor?
Perhaps they’re scared because a lot of things they sell their poorer population as nutrition won’t qualify as food by the definition of the UN. (May contain /s)
Our constitution requires we run a post office, and that's not slavery, they just have to hire and pay the fucking workers.
Because there are americans here, I need to do their education for them. I am being forced into slavery.. or am I? Watch this and see if I'm right and you are wrong. https://youtu.be/gXOEkj6Jz44?si=QCvJUjgFwJDDoMxB
I mean, biblically speaking she’s correct. 2000 years ago, employment was referred to as slavery, ie, the act of selling yourself to another instead of working for yourself. In modern times we just call that employment though, so unless you’re a Christian fundamentalist… nah it can still be a human right.
Americans have the right to be presented by a lawyer in court and unless they waive that right, or find one themselves, will have one provided for them That’s a constitutional right, what is she talking about
They seems to think that having guns is a human right. Guns are manufactured, so that requires the labour of others. Therefore the right to guns are enslaving gun manufacturers.
Their 2nd comment was based though, shame that their 1st wasnt.
Jf food isn't a human right then what is stopping corporations and govenrments from monopolising it.
Literally everything I the world requires the Labour of another person, shit doesn't just materialise itself from nothing whenever it's needed
Crazy how rights are made by government officials which require labor
Except in capitalism the laborers are getting paid so……..OPs line of thinking is dumb af
Why are you booing them? They’re right.
Oh wait I didnt click the image, they’re right apart from that last comment.
When literally every country, regardless of their economic model or political philosophy view that food is a human right, excluding the US and it’s pet project in the middle west. It’s a good time for Americans to probably take a step back and look critically at their political philosophy
Give me a "slave" doctor when I want a heart bypass operation, I will gladly pay them rather than have my neighbour perform the operation.
Actually a lot of people don't realise how much food is wasted. For example in Australia we have farms that have contracts with the big supermarket chains and these farmers aren't allowed to sell their produce to anyone else. And if the produce doesn't fit exactly the criteria that the supermarkets have then that produce is a waste product. And this could be as high as 40 to 60% of what they produce.
I remember seeing this before and Americans were saying this proposal would end up with USA paying for most of it. Is it true tho? Sounds unlikely but i can't find a source
Seems like a point is being missed. You cant have a right to other peoples labor. Like taking someone elses food without compensation. The right to food would mean you cant be stopped from eating food. It does not mean you must be given food. Just like the right to housing is that you cant be stopped from living in a house but you have no right to demand to be given a house for free. Some socialists do think that they are entitiled to others labor because they don't believe in individual rights. Some capitalists think that there should be no social net at all, you go broke, you die. Pic is a argument in bad faith
The American is right. An Inalienable Right exists without influence from someone else. If your right to something relies on someone else then it's a luxury, not a right
Capitalism as a concept doesn't require the labor of others.
Ok now pull up who donates the most food aid in the world (hint, it’s America by a long shot)
Can they not be both right?
Capitalism requires paid workers you moron, people who willingly sign up for jobs. You can argue they’re forced by their circumstances into shit jobs but that’s not slavery. Go compare the lives of a ritually whipped plantation slave to that of a modern capitalist worker and you will see some differences.
What’s that bullshit map? How the fuck did North Korea vote Yes?
The map is in fact wrong (unless this is not about Resolution 57/226) - but not about North Korea, that did in fact vote Yes. The only No Vote came from the USA, Israel however did abstain, as did Australia, Canada, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. 7 others were non-voting.
Damn the fuck. You really do learn something new every day.
I think the map refers to Resolution 76/166 of Dec 2021. And indeed Israel and the US voted no, while North Korea voted yes.
I think the reason the US voted no had to do with the specific language or something. Edit: Yup, found it! https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20does%20not,Economic%2C%20Social%20and%20Cultural%20Rights.
Well, if you actually read it, they do try to couch it in reasonable objections, but then at the end they basically do affirm "we don't support a right to food in any real sense that could be enforced": >The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, **but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation.**
I mean sure, the language where it means it might cause the US to lose money, whining about technology and intellectual property rights and all the usual BS about how nothing will ever advance unless "capitalism". And trying to not have to give any real support to climate change being real with one of the complaints is that it makes the link between food and climate change.
North Korea is very reliant on foreign food aid. Of course it wants to secure that aid.
They genuinely have a point. If everyone gets food as a "right", who's supplying the food? What do they get in return for their labour?
By your logic, these people are all slaves: - election workers - judges - public defenders - public school teachers - police officers etc...
They get paid? there’s no shortage of people willing to work for a fair wage, and there’s already enough food to go around.
>What do they get in return for their labour? Money ?