@AverageJoe1 saidYou were sneering about the rights of people to organize and go on strike, which is a protected under the Constitution - freedom of association. 😆
I still don’t get your point,
But the people you are sneering at are the ones that, in the end, also protect YOUR right to property. So is that a good idea, you think?
You said that the poor should 'take their shot.' Ironic phrase to use. Take a shot at whom? The rich? 😆
@AThousandYoung saidThis one says govt protects people in proportion to proper did they own. ?
Don't be silly. The government protects people in proportion to the amount of property that they own.
I don't remember ever calling the government to protect my investment properties...because I don't own any!
See how that works?
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 said
This one says govt protects people in proportion to proper did they own. ?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/1chnaww/why_do_some_think_that_the_police_are_there_only/
GfxJG:
The reason people say this, is because there has literally been a court case that determined that the American police have no obligation to protect an individual. They can stand and watch someone get beaten to death, and they aren't legally obliged to intervene. They are however much more obliged to protect property, and maintain order. And who owns the property? It ain't poor people, that's for sure.
digiorno:
Two relevant cases are Warren v. District of Columbia in 1981 and Castle Rock v. Gonzales in 2005. But between those two it was basically established that police don’t have an obligation to protect the public in general or even people who’ve been granted a restraining order against someone else by the courts.
At this point, I don’t think they actually have an obligation to protect anyone. So if it looks like they protect private property more than the public, then they are choosing to do so.
darwin2500:
Poor person with $100 in assets gets robbed: most they can lose is $100.
Rich person with a billion dollars in assets gets robbed: most they can lose is a billion dollars.
Even if the police protect both people equally, the rich person is benefiting from that protection 1,000,000 times more, because that's how much more they have to protect.
@AverageJoe1 saidNo, it's usually used in reference to a kind of human-shaped animal for whom the pursuit of money is doggedly carried on for its own sake while a largely unexamined life slips toward a grave that receives all souls as penniless paupers.
'Money grubbing' is a phrase used by people who feel like they are missing a 'piece of the pie' and have done nothing about their own pie,
@spruce112358 saidIf all workers are replaced by robots, who's gonna have money to buy Amazon's crap?
You were sneering about the rights of people to organize and go on strike, which is a protected under the Constitution - freedom of association. 😆
But the people you are sneering at are the ones that, in the end, also protect YOUR right to property. So is that a good idea, you think?
You said that the poor should 'take their shot.' Ironic phrase to use. Take a shot at whom? The rich? 😆
@AThousandYoung saidThanks,a good read, and good to see you toy with logic (the 100 vs thebillion)https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/1chnaww/why_do_some_think_that_the_police_are_there_only/
GfxJG:
The reason people say this, is because there has literally been a court case that determined that the American police have no obligation to protect an individual. They can stand and watch someone get beaten to death, and they aren't legally obl ...[text shortened]... m that protection 1,000,000 times more, because that's how much more they have to protect.
Your police thingy is not altogether true, they just can’t intervene unless a crime is committed. So if you and I are arguing, they have to leave us alone until I start pummeling (assault/battery) you. If I say I am going to kidnap Sonhouse, ain’t much they can do bout my saying it. What? Not protect him from my threat??
Nice post.
@Soothfast saidThis is a 22nd/23rd century question, but very interesting. 😆
If all workers are replaced by robots, who's gonna have money to buy Amazon's crap?