unless youâre planning on starting and completing a socialist revolution by november 6th there is absolutely no reason to abstain from voting. it is not a blood pact. you are not beholden to democrats when you vote for them over abstaining. there IS a lesser of two evils and itâs not inaction. every republican voted in kavanaugh and only one democrat did. statistically we are literally safer with democrats in office.
and no, iâm not planning on relinquishing communist ideals in deference to dems. i just donât think as black and white as âanything short of a communist revolution is useless.â roe v wade is in jeopardy and women WILL die if it gets overturned. leftists sitting on their asses are about as useful as the thoughts and prayers of school shootings
anyway jeff bezos could eradicate homelessness. he could literally give each homeless person 100k and it would only take less than .5% of his entire wealth. what the actual god giving fuck
Well shelter is a basic need, and would at the very least allow them a place where they can get back on their feet. Food water and shelter are necessary for a healthy body and psychology. Thereâs also the fact that theyâre people too, and a little help goes a long way in making a decent community. Thereâs plenty of reasons
You have five hundred apples, and just one day to eat them all.Â
You pass by a small crowd of hungry children, and decide youâd rather 455 apples go rotten than give them to some snotty brat who isnât your problem.
It doesnât matter how hard youâve worked for your 500 apples, or that you arenât the parent of any of those kids. in the moment you decide to walk away, it doesnât matter why theyâre hungry, or who owes who what.
You had the opportunity to help people, you had the ability to help people, you had the resources to help people. You had everything you needed to make a small, tiny little difference in someoneâs life, and you decided not to.
What are you going to buy in your lifetime thatâs worth more to you than your own humanity?
like! people always reference pride & prejudice as the archetypal ânormal girl falls for mysterious brooding antiheroâ story but they overlook the part where lizzy drags darcy so fucking hard he leaves town and then apologizes for talking to her the next time they meet even though theyâre at his literal house
*centrist voice* So would you stop being friends with someone just because your favorite color is blue and their favorite color is waterboarding innocent people?
Shouldn't this be a right as fundamental as those Americans hold dear?
My latest column at The Week, prompted by the migrant caravan moving through Mexico. This is a fundamental question we donât usually ask in our immigration debates: Why would we ever accept the government telling people where they can live? An excerpt:
Americaâs Constitution enumerates many specific rights. Its First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot interfere with our right to worship, speak, and assemble as we want. We cannot be deprived of our lives, liberty, or property without due process. We have a right to privacy and to quick trials judged by our peers.
And those are simply the most overt protections the Bill of Rights includes. It is not a complete list. âThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,â the Ninth Amendment affirms. We have the right to marry whom we please, to have children and raise them as we please, to choose the line of work we please. Yes, these rights are imperfectly defended and subject to some regulation of disputable constitutionality. But often in practice and always in our collective national imagination, they are inviolate.
Why is there not among them a right to live where we please?
Surely choosing where to live is as integral to our lives as choosing where to work, for where we live enormously affects what we do and who we become. You might be a Republican if youâd grown up in South Carolina, or a Democrat were you a native Californian. If youâd moved somewhere else after college, maybe youâd have an entirely different spouse, different kids, a different dog.
It is difficult to overstate the chain of consequences that result from where we choose to locate ourselves. There is a reason, after all, we consider it so serious a punishment to confine someone to a place they do not wish to be or to ban them from the place they want: Prison and exile deprive us of the right to live where we please. For those of us who have not lost that right via due process, why is it not acknowledged and defended? Why would we ever accept the government â any government â telling us where we may or may not live?
If it would be unthinkable for the state to say you may not be a Baptist or a Muslim, or a plumber or a writer, or a husband or a mother, it should be equally unacceptable for the law to dictate whether you may live in Minnesota or Mississippi â or Mexico.
âCountry has a fundamental rightâ Nope. Countries do not have fundamental rights. Fundamental rights meaning the natural existence of a right based on moral assumptions, not necessarily fundamental to the existence of an organization (see taxes and the Aritcles of Confederation). Rights of the government are limited to those enumerated by law or a constitution. As it stands the federal government has given itself the right to determine the naturalization process, but not the process of immigration itself. That is left to the states. Let the states or subsequent powers determine how to control their borders if at all.
Ultimately though, I agree with Bonnie. If we wish to be truly free, all people must have to right to relocate where and when they wish.
gummygunk
stormborns
izzy806
romaincrisis
origamiaround
