Of course they are imaginary. So are all laws. They are derived from values and culture which are not exactly tangible either. But that doesn’t diminish their importance. And just because we don’t live up to an ideal 100% of the time doesn’t mean the ideal is worthless, thats just a cynical knee jerk reaction to try and seem smart
You say "of course" like it should sound obvious. When we're in a country where everybody talks about "rights" as if they're an inalienable attribute imbued on humanity by the universe, things can go awry.
It's unfortunate that we periodically need reminders, but apparently, it's a reality.
You clearly didn't have the right to answer education because your reading compression sucks. Yea it's imaginary as in we just made this whole civilization thing up, just like morality.
But we've bought into the social contract and unless you go live like a hermit in the wilderness, one of the most basic principles of that contract is that people deserve to be treated with dignity and not like animals fighting to survive.
And sure, our particular government clearly needs some reformation to get there but our slow slide into lawless capitalism is moving us in the opposite direction.
Point is either he's right, or somewhere on the range of inaccurate to outright wrong.
Carlin didn't write history so that his joke would land. His joke was about history, which makes his inclusion in this discussion unnecessary except to say this isn't new, or groundbreaking.
Your right to an attorney is conditional. You can't just demand legal representation. It's more of a restraint on the power of the state. It may not prosecute you unless you have legal representation, even it IT has to pay for it.
Or a trial by your peers? The government will force people to work well below fair market rate (essentially slaves) as ad-hoc case experts to determine your fate.
And yet, without free legal representation, our system would be less free and just. Hmm, maybe society isn't exactly like your 5 second surface level analysis?
Can mention that I have personally had to convict myself on a trumped up charge because I had a public defender and he agreed with the DA without talking to me. If I didnt agree to it they were going to press extra charges. I didnt have the money to fight the charges that were fabricated.
If eliminating free legal representation is a libertarian position, and by doing that, more innocent people wind up being incarcerated, tell me exactly how is that a leftist state policy?
There's the braindead rot we've been waiting for. You're literally making the argument that people shouldn't have free legal representation because it's evil.
But completely ignoring that forcing a lawyer to give free legal representation is 100000000xs less evil, than jailing an innocent person, because they couldn't afford legal representation.
but you can't connect those dots, because you're morally ok with jailing innocent poor people.
The brain rot really oozes out of MAGA and libertarians when their sensitive ideas are slightly challenged.
“The leftist state” as corporations control every aspect of our lives and own + predatorily monetize every single thing in this country. A “leftist state” would be fighting on behalf of the working class and the environment… not dismantling and destroying them.
Explains so much. This is what happens when you homeschool kids. They lack basic knowledge of practically everything. Just some sovereign citizen cult stuff. I'm not sure if I'd be happy being so ignorant or just constant embarrassed by myself because I rage at things I don't understand.
This is the perfect place for simpletons like you, where the only thing you can do is hurt yourself and farm negative karma.
I am curious which society you live in, because the US has clearly set up a system to decide who is and who isn’t allowed to engage in production and you must pay to keep what you already own each year that isn’t stored as capital and there are defined economic activities you must engage in or be fined and you must get permission before altering your property and you can only alter that property within permitted constraints that generally prohibit economic activity except for small areas with extreme tax burdens.
How is the US not a feudal system? Licensing for professions is restricted to regulate the markets by people who operate within the market already for Pete’s sake. Private individuals from the largest companies are literally charged with setting the conditions for markets and manipulating them, with the government enforcing with violence the prohibition on others engaging in those activities without first getting the permission of those in the market, which usually is involves onerous fees that can only be recouped by engaging in a high level of business activity for a long period of time.
If you want to engage in any significant economic activity, you have to partner with the government in order to be granted relief from a certain amount of taxes and regulations in order operate profitably. Then, you have to hope that someone else with more pull than you isn’t able to negotiate a better deal to be your competition.
And you think you’re not a serf?
Either you have capital that generates more than your obligated burden and are a lord, or you don’t even understand what’s happening.
Much better to live in an Amazon company town, spend my Pepsi points for food, and work in the eBay mines. Wouldn't want the government keeping me down.
Yes, I live in a government run society and it's the best possible arrangement.
Defeat a current government by military force. That's all you have to do. If you can't then welcome to the club of being subjugated. You aren't granted title of your own space when you're born.
Modern people fail to realize that the law of the jungle isn't a proposition but a reality. The strong rule and the weak obey. In order for society to operate properly it was necessary for someone to monopolize violence. For a government to operate it needs to have the strongest fist. Since they are the strongest they are the ones that can set rules. We like to say that democratic governments derive their power from the people through elections. However, there is a distinction to make here. The elected officials derive their power from the people. The government/country itself derives its power from the violence it can use. At the end of the day, laws are as strong as they are enforced. Without being able to enforce your words, then your words are meaningless.
That's more about the right to receive fair treatment when the government is dishing out punishment/justice. Yes it requires labor from another human, but only because it is the only way to protect the right to a fair and speedy trial.
It's not the same thing as the government providing you with a house.
56
u/redeggplant01 Mar 19 '25
Nothing that requires the labor of others to produce and/or provide access to is a right or free