I neither approve or object. It was simply a shared observation but…don’t let me stop a good laugh…
… 
They don’t have it; yet. The goobermint estimates how much in tax revenues they’ll receive. Or, the morons just go borrow it.
Good to see you, too, Smyrna.
I found out where your username comes from.
1 Like
Who’s not a member of this forum. ■■■■ that author.
1 Like
Oh my God. What is the problem? I was employing tge argument by citing it.
It’s not charity.
And Matt Bruenig agrees with you. He calls it justice.
Charity is voluntary on the part of the giver.
2 Likes
I went to the office every day, and to be honest it was almost like a vacation, only having about 5-10 people in my entire building. Also, I have to do a lot of driving for my job so the emptier roads were nice. Words can’t do that level of peace justice. 
4 Likes
Pretty obvious and easy to understand at that. 
Things never changed for me for the most part.
The only things that changed were stupid mandates.
If anything, I worked more hours than usual that entire time. I was the only one who avoided catching Covid (either that or I had it and was asymptomatic) in our crew.
1 Like
And he is full of crap for advancing Marxist comprehensions … which are all crap.
1 Like
Wonder who’s paying for this?
4 Likes
Did the government pay for Clinton’s, or Trump’s, attorneys when they were impeached? Not sure what spending authority would allow DHS to contract legal representation for what amounts to an administrative action.
3 Likes
Rand Paul’s brave defense of freedom may explain why he has faced three assassination attempts from deranged leftists.
“Tolerance” has come to mean compelling everyone to use the “right” pronouns. “Freedom” has come to mean forcing everyone to wear a mask and get a shot.
1 Like
Lulz.
He wasn’t exercising any authority or even expressing his normative views. His article is purely descriptive and exposes the “charity” objections for being completely irrelevant to the logically prior debate of who should own what.
Bruenig does not dispute that. He is only objecting to its use in debates (the following is his text, not mine):
The point here is that when we are debating about whether to adopt distributive institutions X or distributive institutions Y, charity is totally irrelevant.
Chesterton’s deconstruction is superior to both sides’ understandings:
We are fond of talking about “liberty”; but the way we end up actually talking of it is an attempt to avoid discussing what is “good”.
[…]
The modern man says, “Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace unadulterated liberty.” This is, logically rendered, “Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it.”
What a ■■■■■■■ genius he was.
Since the hell does the government outsource its lawyers???
He misused “liberty”
