They're pretty different concepts.

in both cases the "right" is predicated on certain actions taken with object legitimating some claim over it, to say that, if somebody makes used of x type of resources they must provide y type of service isn't really very different

the claim to the object is predicated on service

@Uksio wheres your hair?

Except you don't have a "right" to property.

i can see so much skin

i thought russians had dark hair

what do you mean kizza

You aren't entitled to property.

Just as you aren't entitled to healthcare or college.

These must be exchanged for capital.

Exactly.

Thus, they're not rights.

Because if they were rights, then homelessness would be considered illegal.

yeah but surely you think being able to own property provided you perform the correct kind of service is a right, right

No.

Something which you earn is not a right.

It's a privilege.

In simple terms, No Niggerism.

<:slurpgon:583424900732157956>

what's this? entitled kids arguing about 'rights'?

so do you think it would be okay for the government to say nobody is allowed to own any private property

Debating the difference between rights and services.

That would be stupid because then nothing is owned.

hmm. rights and privileges. products and services

you pay for services

@ManAnimal You are entitled to your smol pp privilege.

well the government could own everything

<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

No private property = nothing has anything.

You have the right to purchase property. Its a singular transaction. An exchange.

Services are ongoing.

i have a fuckin kick stand, you jealous weeb

Then you own nothing and are merely a slave to the government.

yeah and do you think that's wrong kizza

@ManAnimal in ur butt <:ahegon:566797166258028548>

do you have a right to purchase?

Let me put it this way.

you don't have the right to own property

Do you like monopolies??

in this scenario