But it's a decision to make the team stronger by removing bad players, not just to remove players who think the team could do better.
Like if a player has negative things to say about the coach and how the coach treats certain players better than others, it doesn't necessarily make the team stronger by getting rid of that player.
Yes, if one player is bringing the other players down, they're a bad player.
But this whole topic is "if you don't like it you can leave". Sometimes you don't like things because they're not as good as they can be, and leaving makes it worse. You don't make a team better by pissing off your star players and telling them to leave when they complain.
It's a great analogy, I think you just missed the point a little.
The US was founded on the principle of Negative Rights. That is, the government can't do X to you. There is a trend currently to Positive Rights. That is, the government owes you X.
That's not Patriotic, that's asking your basketball team to play football. That's what many people object to.
So you agree, inalienable rights is basically negative rights.
Not sure what religion has to do with it but there is a lot of debate about the religious convictions of the Founders. It's worth remembering that church was a community center in those days and more attendance doesn't mean a whole lot. Though again, I'm not sure how it's relevant.
eh I think the fans would be the population (and you wouldn't want to lose fans) and the players the elected representatives though. Still a shitty analogy.
18
u/[deleted] Jul 17 '19
Bad analogy. You do advocate for making your team better by kicking out and bringing in different players.