- Thread starter
- #41
Do you know what socialism is?the socialist dream
Not something a free people would want
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you know what socialism is?the socialist dream
Not something a free people would want
Do you know what socialism is?the socialist dream
Not something a free people would want
Can you explain with specifics why he is wrong? You know, facts?Nobody said Bernie Sanders was smart.
I'd say you're 100% wrong -Which Scandinavian country?
Norway and Denmark are controlled by right wing governments that restrict immigration, cut spending, and cut taxes. Sweden is a cultural marxist shithole being flooded by over a hundred thousand third world refugees a year, that is going into massive debt. In Sweden, income inequality that is rising even faster than that in the US at the moment due to the influx of cheap foreign labor in part. I thought Sanders opposes income inequality?
I'd say you're 100% wrong -Which Scandinavian country?
Norway and Denmark are controlled by right wing governments that restrict immigration, cut spending, and cut taxes. Sweden is a cultural marxist shithole being flooded by over a hundred thousand third world refugees a year, that is going into massive debt. In Sweden, income inequality that is rising even faster than that in the US at the moment due to the influx of cheap foreign labor in part. I thought Sanders opposes income inequality?
He's right. Sander's entire political position is dictated by FACTS. You know those pesky things republicans try to avoid to win over a stupid American populace.
Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News
He has a long shot. I know that. He probably ultimately won't become president, but you know his message will at least be heard. Hopefully something comes out of that.
The Koch brothers donated close to a billion to the republican campaign. Thats twice as much of the funding for the entire 2012 republican campaign. Two guys essentially comprise an entire third party.
Why are average joe republicans okay with that?
do you want the book definition or what actually occurs in real life?Do you know what socialism is?the socialist dream
Not something a free people would want
HUGGY thinks our government should be more like one that resembles functional.
He's right. Sander's entire political position is dictated by FACTS. You know those pesky things republicans try to avoid to win over a stupid American populace.
Bernie Sanders I can beat Hillary Clinton - CBS News
He has a long shot. I know that. He probably ultimately won't become president, but you know his message will at least be heard. Hopefully something comes out of that.
The Koch brothers donated close to a billion to the republican campaign. Thats twice as much of the funding for the entire 2012 republican campaign. Two guys essentially comprise an entire third party.
Why are average joe republicans okay with that?
HUGGY thinks our government should be more like one that resembles functional.
So you agree that Obama has been horrible.
So why vote to make it worse?
Scandinavian countries are sparsely populated, white, Christian and rich in natural resources...what was Bernie saying?
Why would Sanders, a Socialist, want to move to Scandinavia, which Steinlight describes as Right Wing? See post #12If Scandinavia is so great nothing is stopping him from going there. If you want the freedom and protections of the constitution then stay here.
- A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action.
Political philosopher Isaiah Berlin clarified the distinction in a famous lecture titled “Two Concepts of Liberty.” If negative liberty is concerned with the freedom to pursue one’s interests according to one’s own free will and without “interference from external bodies,” then positive liberty takes up the “degree to which individuals or groups” are able to “act autonomously” in the first place (Berlin, 1958).1 In other words, what are the conditions under which individuals shape their understandings of their own free will? What gives individuals a positive idea about how they should act, rather than negative limitations on how they may not act?
There was some disagreement about the relative importance of these two conceptions during the debates over the Universal Declaration and its Conventions.While the U.S. had adopted a welfare state model under the New Deal reforms of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, economic and social rights were not part of the American political tradition in the same way they had been for many continental European governments or the increasingly powerful Soviet Union.
American disinclination to positive liberty can be attributed in part to the ideological campaign against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviets gave a high place to the collective over the individual. This meant priority for positive liberty, which they believed empowered the state to take sweeping action to provide for the well-being and “self-realization” of its citizens, sometimes at the expense of individual civil and political rights, such as the right to political participation.
Many in the West, however, viewed the Soviet position skeptically as a veiled attempt to return to the excesses of authoritarianism that the United Nations system of governance was designed to had been set up to prevent. Great injustices have often been committed for the benefit of the collective good. Berlin and others were wary of “the way in which the apparently noble ideal of freedom as self-mastery or self-realization had been twisted and distorted by the totalitarian dictators of the twentieth century” (Berlin, 1958)Insisting upon the primacy of negative rights, however, impedes the advancement of social justice by making it more difficult to justify allocating resources to help the underprivileged yet easy to justify inaction.
Ultimately, it remains an open question whether the positive and negative forms of liberty are two aspects of a common conception of rights or two distinct types of rights that are closely related without being identical.