Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by cagenut | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

cagenut

maybe read your own source? https://www.humanrights.com/course/lesson/articles-06-11/rea...

its got nothing to do with your employment. unless you're assuming a right to a job in your argument.

View on HN

As long as we don't have UBI there's a need for a job to feed yourself.

Every nice welfare state has a lot of unemployed people.

France has a permanent unemployed class, with perpetually high unemployment as a result of their labor laws and generous welfare state. Those people are not starving to death.

Clearly UBI is in fact not necessary at all, so say the best countries in the world, from Denmark to Canada.

Germany? Switzerland? Both are welfare states (even if not as extreme as some places), and have low unemployment.

German unemployment benefits are conditional on showing evidence that you're seeking jobs. So it's still founded on the assumption that everyone able should be working.

Are you saying that non-welfare states never have a permanent unemployed class? Or (non-exclusive or) that they have fewer unemployed, on average?

So you are going to justify it like that? These days liberals are falsely using the word liberal. A liberal is a person who supports the law no matter what. Not what your emotions say.

A liberal is a person who supports the law no matter what.

That's so wrong it's not even relevant. It's like if you looked up "dog" in the dictionary and the definition was "a leafy plant."

Are you sure you didn't mean a "literal"?

Where did you get that idea?

My interpretation is the opposite - a lot of events lately provoke critical arguments that use the objective verbiage of legality and human rights to frame emotional, subjective opinions. E.g. the line between a private platform reasonably removing a user or something a user posted for ToS violation, and an attack on free speech. Or the line between reasonably punishing an employee who has violated workplace behavior policies, and an attack on innocence until proven guilty. I would argue that, in this domain of examples, liberals explicitly favor reason and prudence, not extremity toward one side or the other (though there may certainly be cases where there is a general bias toward one side of the line or the other that arguably fails that ideology).

Good to know that these classical liberals would have supported slavery, denying voting rights to women, and jim crow.

That's not really a system that I'd like to follow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com