America guarantees the right to pursue happiness-

>>138963201

RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

FREEDOM. LIBERTY.

Charity from family and then the community if that fails. There's no need to include a state here.

>>138963201

They have the right doesn't mean they're obligated.

>>138963201
Go to china then

>>138963201
it guarantees the right to pursue happiness, not the right to happiness. similarly, it guarantees the essentially subsumed right to pursue food and shelter, not the right to succeed in said pursuit.

>>138963201
have you ever been homeless? ive heard its not so bad, very freeing

>>138963201
by pursuing food and shelter. Who are we to say these things are essential to happiness. I find myself more happy the less of either I have. You want to stuff food down my throat and stuff me in a box?

Do it yourself, but don't oblige me or my wife's son to satisfy your "needs".

>>138963201
>Implying hunger and homelessness is not a root of motivation.

>>138963201
If you're starving and homeless, pursuing food and shelter is the same as pursuing of happiness.

>>1389655941
>is the same as pursuing of happiness.
Great, now I sound like Polandball.

>>138965664
And I can't reference the right post.

>>138963201
Because scarcity exists

>>138965427
This

Also you don't have to pursue it, its just your right that you can

What are negative rights versus positive rights?

Also, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is not enshrined in law. That's from the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal authority in our court system.

File: Be America.jpg (2MB, 894x4379px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 894x4379px

>>138963201

The right "to" things is just the right of someone to use force to take things from one person and give it to another. Nothing comes for free.

By having a system that gives people the right "from" force classical liberalism allows people the maximum freedom to join together in voluntary association for the benefit of all involved. Such a system has proven itself extremely productive, and when paired with a high IQ population the level of prosperity of a country is directly correlated with its level of economic and political freedom.

The Scandinavian model seems to be the go-to example for successful socialism but they are even less socialist, all things considered, than America. Just the military budget of America alone, which is government spending, is enormous.

Plus the Scandinavian countries have (until recently) smaller and more homogeneous populations than America. Ethnic groups in America distort our statistics on everything from employment to crime to single motherhood, etc.

Also, in a system with a high IQ population and homogeneity, coupled with economic and political freedom, the abundance is such that very few people end up requiring welfare at all. Welfare becomes easily accommodated by private charities, which are far more responsible in how they tend for the poor than huge, bureaucratic governments.

>>138965410
this, there are a lot of benefits in homelessness. lived that way for a couple of years when I was younger.

>>138965956
Ty for image.

File: 1503645861975.png (913KB, 788x1000px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 788x1000px

Would highly recommend the book 'WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A LIBERTARIAN' by Charles Murray. Also Tom Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo and the Mises Institute.

At least question your stupid socialist beliefs. It can only make your worldview stronger.