If everything is identified in a state's constitution as a right, does that mean that the state would control every aspect of a person's life? If so, I could see where that would be attractive to those on the far left and the far right, where, of course, authoritarians tend to be found.
Utopianism always seems to have a dangerous corollary: that if the world isn't as perfect as it could/ would/should be, it must be the fault of [insert your preferred villain].
The proposed new Chilean constitution wasn't 'libertarian'. It was 'woke'. The provisions weren't libertarian at all. However, they were woke. 'Libertarian fever dream'? More like 'Woke fever dream'.
Governments have a good function, but they cannot create resources or decree them in to existence. The only rights to resources that we can have are rights of property. And Jesus never said otherwise.
So what's next? Throw the baby out with the bathwater? Tear the whole thing up and start from scratch? It sounds to me like the proposed constitution could be treated as an ideal wishlist from which core principles (or rights) could be gleaned, trimmed, clarified, and refined into something practical. It does sound as though Chileans were wise to reject this over-the-top, utopian (or dystopian?) mess, but I do hope they will be wise enough to treat it as a very rough draft that they can learn from.
If everything is identified in a state's constitution as a right, does that mean that the state would control every aspect of a person's life? If so, I could see where that would be attractive to those on the far left and the far right, where, of course, authoritarians tend to be found.
Utopianism always seems to have a dangerous corollary: that if the world isn't as perfect as it could/ would/should be, it must be the fault of [insert your preferred villain].
Wtf. No mention of Trump in this Persuasion article?
Leftists never learn anything from history. They are unconcerned with reality. Just another sad example.
The proposed new Chilean constitution wasn't 'libertarian'. It was 'woke'. The provisions weren't libertarian at all. However, they were woke. 'Libertarian fever dream'? More like 'Woke fever dream'.
Thanks for teaching me an important new word. I guess using this description the Pinochet constitution would be described as Euqsereugirruhc.
Governments have a good function, but they cannot create resources or decree them in to existence. The only rights to resources that we can have are rights of property. And Jesus never said otherwise.
So what's next? Throw the baby out with the bathwater? Tear the whole thing up and start from scratch? It sounds to me like the proposed constitution could be treated as an ideal wishlist from which core principles (or rights) could be gleaned, trimmed, clarified, and refined into something practical. It does sound as though Chileans were wise to reject this over-the-top, utopian (or dystopian?) mess, but I do hope they will be wise enough to treat it as a very rough draft that they can learn from.