thraway23

This is pure rethoric on your side and not addressing actual stated question: how thigs would go better without subsidies. This is such a leaping sledge of hand at first, then a misleading argument (not that part of EU policy) and then difussing the argument into such generalities. You see a bad outcome and can't really tell if it would be better or worse without subsidies. You don't even bother arguing the point.

By the same token I could argue that all people die so medicines are suspicious or overusing vitamin C is the culprit. There is no concieveable argument except one demanding politicians be omniscient and rational policies blamed because every policy ultimately leads to death, as people die, thus markets should sort things out.

That doesn't have anything to do with subsidies, and at most indirectly depends on unrelated parts of protectionist agricultural policy i.e. tariffs. Then how the EU is anyhow responsible for predatory industries in Argentina? And how the global markets would fix any of that if only relieved from the cancer of EU subsidies?

How are EU subsidies funding destruction of rainforests? And why in your, as you say, opinion the EU is on a good path? Does it have something to do with #Covfefe?

Unrecognized right is still a right, just a breached one. That's why the whole concept of breach exists that is separate from enforcement.

Distinction you posit is in fact between a priviledge and a right. Priviledges are bestowed by a form of governance, rights exist regardless.

Your argument is I think from their playbook. They claim the same with their constitution. We hear it is being violated. Government asserts there is in fact a debate amongst experts on whehter this really happens. Then we look into that and there indeed is a handful of professors arguing for the government versus whole faculties of law issuing condemnations together with every bar association and the judges.

In this case I've heard that major opinion for the government was prepared by an forestry expert whose lifelong expertise is in chainsaw mechanics with no standing in biology community, whereas Nature regularly publishes alarmed letters from experts in actual ecology of outbreaks.

Where do you (and who are you to tell) put the treshold of number of people who have to agree with someone's right? If some mob me on the street, and I'm outnumbered, do I loose my rights in this kind of "vote"? What about when police does it? What about police state? Or maybe "when the president does it it's not illegal"?

I have to say I'm astonished by HN lately. I havae not seen so many badly rationalized apoloegtic arguments on slavery in my long life nor in 10 years at HN as these past three months.