1251
submitted 11 months ago by Grayox@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 93 points 11 months ago

The idea that you should put complete freedom above all else has been a disaster for the human race. No, you cannot do whatever you want. No, it does not mean you are a prisoner.

[-] Sheeple@lemmy.world 50 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Capitalism is not freedom anyway. There is a reason we anarchists reject capitalism. We know better

[-] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

Anarchists are their own brand of stupid.

[-] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 13 points 11 months ago

Yes, but they’re also mostly nuts.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

The Human OS is not ready to be without borders unfortunately. One day, after the last smog-filled breath of air is forcefully exhumed, and all the world's treasures fail the last baron of wealth, we will be ready. As long as our hearts are wholly material, the world will stay the same.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

We literally didn't have borders as they exist today until a century ago lmao, they literally solidified around the formation of what we consider modern nation-states.

The human os isn't ready for a borderless world my entire ass, the issue is the systems currently in place.

[-] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 5 points 11 months ago

Humans have built societies with rules for forever.

And banish people outside their society.

I’m not an expert on the theory of all of this, but it seems entirely dubious that anarchy could function in any environment for long.

[-] NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

A light form was tribalism. If you didn't go with the flow, you were expelled. With enough expelled ones, new tribes were formed. It kinda created human diversity for a while. There was only so much room on the river, so at some point more elaborate systems emerged. And the people with the biggest huts made those rules. Rules were made so that they could keep those huts. Extremely simplified.

We now don't have places to banish people to. That's why the cry for housing is emerging. Someone took the wild away. They should provide an alternative. I believe that's the whole idea behind wanting the rich to pay. For some reason they were allowed to own everything. Often for centuries.

It makes little sense to people today. How was anyone allowed to walk somewhere, stake a claim, and own it forever? Even defending it with lethal force? Why aren't we anymore?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[-] fin@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

It’s free to be poor is what it is

[-] Sheeple@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Free to be poor (Includes: Threat of starvation, social shunning, homelessness, your entire life collapsing and you can be sure the state is still gonna put you into even more debt. Then put you into prison because you couldn't pay up where you are coerced into slave labor)

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

"But me not being able to say the N word is literally infringing on my rights!" - people who scream free speech

[-] EvolvedTurtle@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Not even We have just enough freedom to feel free But not enough to where we have to pay to litterly live

I can't even afford van life tbh

[-] CollisionResistance@lemmy.world 53 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They Have Money For War But Can't Feed The Poor

-2pac

[-] Limit@lemm.ee 17 points 11 months ago

When the rich wage war its the poor who die.

-Mike Shinoda

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

The poor go to war, to fight and die for the delights, riches, and superfluities of others.

-- Plutarch

CE 45 - ~CE 119

This has literally been said by people for at least two millennia.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Preach 🙏

[-] shasta@lemm.ee 45 points 11 months ago

I can't believe so many of you are upvoting a post about murdering homeless people. You monsters!

[-] Allero@lemmy.today 53 points 11 months ago
[-] wewbull@iusearchlinux.fyi 3 points 11 months ago

Would have been a better joke without the "all". Then the meaning is ambiguous.

[-] Blackmist@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago

Oh don't worry.

The billionaires will make sure the homeless don't exist soon enough.

[-] BachenBenno@feddit.de 20 points 11 months ago

Power to the people ☭

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Not in the USA it isn't.

Neither party has done a damn thing to address housing scarcity, and in a few months, you're all going to vote for the same assholes who ignore it.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I think homeless people are a little less psyched about it.

[-] Mellanderthist@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Housing is not a human right as humans can exist in the wild without a house.

[-] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Appeal to nature fallacy. Just because something is a certain way in nature doesn't automatically mean it's good because nature has no concept of good or bad. Living in "the wild" has a far higher mortality rate than any of us should accept today. By your logic nothing should be a human right because we can always just die if we don't have it, just as nature intended.

Also, humans originated in the African savannah, which is much warmer than the places most humans now live. And even in the savannah at the dawn of our species we were nest building animals that instinctively would make shelters for ourselves. Housing is as natural to humanity as hives are to bees.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 11 months ago

Article 25 of the declararion of himan rights: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family

Seriously, do you think human rights are somehow just a feeling what should be? They are written down and you can look them up.

[-] doingless@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

It has also never happened, there has never been a time in all of history. And the declaration of human rights isn't broadly accepted either.

[-] arbitrary_sarcasm@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

By that logic, nothing is a human right since you can find food, water and shelter in the wild.

The problem with that logic is that you assume everyone to be physically able and knowledgeable to live off the land.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] iquanyin@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

it’s illegal. the blm will come with guns and force you out. i know this for a fact. not can i just find some land and grow my food and raise animals. it’s either owned by someone or it’s govt land.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Gerula@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Rights are something that the society you live in and contribute to, grants you!

There are no inherent human rights to be had! Even being alive is a happening not a right! You're born because your parents fucked, there was nothing special about it!

L.E. I see a lot of snowflakes are bothered by what I said, good. Maybe you start thinking once about what you have, instead of whining about what you would like!

[-] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

I'm starting to think most of lemmy is populated by a bunch of kids who just read Marx and have no actual world experiences cause they're 14.

[-] JayDee@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

Let's not forget that the only reason states exist is to serve those within them. If that state should fail to serve its people sufficiently, it's been common throughout history that they've been dismantled by the people.

You are correct about natural rights. They are fought for. Many rights, such as workers' rights, were strongly fought for and founded on blood (pretty much all of them in fact). However, when talking about rights, one remember the original meaning of the word: that which is morally good or honorable. The legal entitlement is preceded by the philosophical definition. In a just society legal rights should reflect moral rights as closely as possible.

Housing is necessary for life, and so depriving an individual of housing when housing is unutilized is equatable to murder, an injustice. This is why the post communicates that housing is a human right.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CallumWells@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago
[-] NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago

I haven't read up on official human rights. Who made them? Did someone bother to ask most humans?

This is a Sunday-morning coffee post, not a detailed world-view. Feel free to ask, but refrain from shooting things down. It's not like I've spent hours on this.

How are they defined, human rights? I'd say anyone in my way to spread my genes keeps me from being a human.

As a pragmatist, I'd say breathing and eating, and perhaps warmth and caring are human rights. We can't do any of them on our own after being born, and without them some really crappy humans emerge. Breathing should be top tier. Anyone disturbing that should be under heavy focus. Can't do anything without air.

After that, once we are fairly independent, doing things to keep people keeping me from growing up and procreating should be my right.

Killing someone else would keep them from doing that, so not being killed by other humans seems like one. Killing others would disqualify me from being human, and I would give up my rights by that act. Straightforward stuff.

Mix in social structures, and it becomes complicated.

Being homeless? Build a commune somewhere. Why insist on being near that techno-tribe with internet. It's nothing but a tribe, has nothing to do with survival or being human. Having modern amenities can't be a right. Other humans invented them at some point.

Which leads to something no human should have a right to: owning land. Because owning land keeps humans from realizing their purpose and keeps them from being free to be human.

Housing is a right? That's ridiculous. That's a technological achievement from other people. So is monetary wealth. How can those be a right. If nobody came along inventing them, nobody would have them. Can't be a right. At all. That is just the consequences of capitalism and ownership of natural resources.

[-] Grayox@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

Let me spell it out for you bub, i want to: Abolish Private Property

[-] NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

You do? I wonder how that would work. Can't see it, personally.

[-] rando895@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

Probably important to point this out: private property is not personal property.

E.g. An apartment building rented to tenants is the landlords private property. They have exclusive rights to the decisions, especially economic ones, regarding the building and the profits of the rent.

A car, book, house, pizza, are all your personal property so long as you don't owe a lender anything for them.

So no private property might look like:

The people who live in an apartment building own the building collectively and have the full right therein, but the individual units are each their own personal property.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
1251 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

45895 readers
1139 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS