So for example, someone who's commited a serious enough crime can no longer legally purcahase a firearm. Similarly, it might be reasonable to limit that person's ability to contribute to decisions on when firearms should be used, or perhaps what restrictions there should be on the purchase of firearms.

did I do a smart, Dan? I hope so because I don't think the proper conclusions on this subject are quite so obvious, and I'm still trying to figure out what I think

i think its fair

i think the only other point that could be made is if a felon gets his rights taken away you dont get to pick and choose which ones you get back

so if you want to give a felon the right to vote back

you better give them the right to firearm ownership as well

i think a better question comes into the idea of positive and negative rights

and why being forced to pay into a positive rights system is immoral

Haven't heard this distinction before.

just the idea being Taxation is theft

if you choose to pay into a system like Social Security or you have a choice to opt out it removes the monopoly of force from the equation

and the system could only get better

but if it is forced the system only devolves because non net contributers to the system will be the majority and they will vote for more

but it removes force only for that particular right, no?

yes

but this is more abstract than anything else

if being a citizen of a country wasnt inherent it was something that had to be earned

the system could only benefit

non net contributers could not subvert the system to their will

Well here we go Dan, these are the words to the argument I had drifting around in my head unable to articulate.

the problem of democracy was disscussed by our founding fathers at length

it needs checks and balances

but they could have never predicted the idea of positive rights

Yeah man that's a really helpful concept. So libertarians basically don't like positive rights for the most part, sort of as an inherent general rule?

I like my positive rights

only if they are held as a monopoly by the government

Positive right are more of a pragmatic argument

if you had a choice between social secutiy or keeping your money an investing it yourself

social security could only benifit because now it has to compete

You can invest your money here

it would have to provide more positives than negatives to survive

but here you dont have a choice if you can keep the money to pay into SS

You can split the tax money you have to pay between the goverment and private investment here

So a positive right is the notion that something is required to be provided to you. So if someone *other* then govt is required to provide it, then it's okay?

if someone was providing a service to you

it would no longer be a right

it would just be something you choose to pay into

It is more of a positive privelege

I go away for an hour and now I have to catch up on a debate about voting

have fun dude

k bai franti

I am staying

oh I see

I already went away

Regarding voting, You are part of the citizenry, as whole the goverment serves the whole citizenry

Sure, so one example of a pretty solid positive right would be police protection. But then again... that's tricky. As far as I'm aware, police aren't actually required to protect you, correct?

Police are for law enforcment

police protect property rights

They are not a protection sevice

They solve crime

Police presence serves as a deterrent

they are a physical manifistation of the idea of protecting private property

so i would put a police force as more of an example of the nessesary evil of government

So if we're to say that your body is your property and you have a right to your property, are police required to protect you?

i wouldnt say so

i would say that it comes down to the individual to protect him/herself

Goverment will always be very powerfull because people like beeing told what to do

They just dont admit it

Protecting private and public property.
Or people as a whole.
If everyone just "Protected themselves" what's to stop a bunch of gangs roaming the streets?
Sure people could form a mob and stop it. But isn't it better it gets stopped before that happens ?

You pay protection money

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4246055-Fix-NICS-Act-Bill-Text.html

gotta read through to make sure there is no radical gun control measures

https://twitter.com/BasedStickNight/status/931287132513083392

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM_ierxfkV4

check out how EA's stock dropped overnight on Fri

I will be happy if either their developers (or execs or whoever keeps adding these things) or consumers learn from this. But neither will

Most stocks dropped

I think it's unrelated

Politics

More like

Lame

gotem

Anyone here?

Nah

sometimes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40-rFt4ZLnQ

Friendly reminder, BlackRock is currently managing more than $6T

That is way too much money to leave in the hands of the Orcs. Doomhammer can't be trusted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNNHhzjWP-g&t=23s

this one made me cringe a bit

i'm about to listen to it

or i wil leave ir for tomorrow

Which is cringier? Vee or Yee?

I don't think either is worth the time.

At least Yee has the excuse of being an uneducated brat that found fame through making offensive jokes and criticism on the internet.

Yee's position was pretty bad

He could have delivered the same criticism with less obscenity and not gotten into so much trouble.

His idol is TJ, so it's not like he could have been any wiser.

TJ?

TJ Kirk

oh the amazing atheist?

i never really liked his stuff

I like Vee

Vee's a good goy

Vee is my favorite Gypsy

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23722684_540616229614248_9010336531459019627_n.jpg?oh=021a75750f69b24fa364200df1cc27d0&oe=5AAD7E38

The Amazing Bananatheist

Avoided... So it was legal

The man Jon Haidt! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEnpsxu-3gQ

haha I didn't know it was vee until he paused and started talking, I think he's hilarious in his delivery of points