Subject:
|
Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 19:16:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1304 times
|
| |
|
|
Hello Larry, hello everybody,
> > - Should the fulfillment of basic rights really be left to
> > voluntariness?
>
> No they should not. But needs are not rights. You haven't yet demonstrated
> that there are rights to free goods of any sort.
So the goods you need to be kept alive (in a decent way, I would add) are
not rights? What value does the right to live have, then, if it is OK for
others to just let me starve, without any fault on my side (taking the
position of the kid, again)? I fear I cannot DEMONSTRATE that to you, if you
don't feel it yourself. After all, a humanistic attitude isn't something
that can be scientifically proven.
> > - We are not actually talking charity. The issue is civil rights.
>
> No, actually we *are* talking charity.
This seems to be the main point where we differ. See above.
> > - In my understanding, there is a right to live decently
>
> But not in mine. There is no right to unearned goods, the world does not owe
> anyone a living.
>
> > Can you enumerate the most important three to five civil rights you have, in
> > the order of importance?
>
> Life, liberty and the *pursuit* of happiness.
Don't you think there is a contradiction? If any human being has a right to
live, isn't it just logical then, in case it cannot earn his own living
(without any fault on his side, easiest to be shown with children, again),
that a responsible society would jump in and at least temporarily help out?
Asked in other words: Does the right to live not sometimes require material
solidarity?
> (note emphasis, it's a right to try to be happy, not a right to BE happy)
I understand that. This right in the US is actually very unique, which is
why we in Europe learn at school about it.
> These are all freedom of action rights and freedom from oppression rights.
> They are not rights to goods earned and paid for by others and forcibly
> transferred to me.
How can an abandoned kid live and pursue its happiness, when this is all
that is to freedom, liberty and civil rights? And how exactly does it hurt
your liberty, or pursuit of happiness, when some of your tax dollars are
used for that purpose? I have actually seen tax dollars spent for less
useful and less just purposes.
Also, since you value your freedom to earn money, and use it the way you
decide, so highly, isn't it also true that you earn it from an environment
that does not grant everybody the same chance to do the same? And if so, are
you advocating the survival of only those people who happen to be more
intelligent and more lucky than others? In the light of these arguments, do
you really believe that a 100% free market society will be just to everyone?
I hope you don't find those questions annoying. I am learning a lot about
you as my friend, and the US in general by reading the answers. Of course, I
also welcome comments from others on the issue. If this turns out to be
something exclusively between Larry and me, we should probably move it to
email ...
Greetings
Horst
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
| (...) Please don't move it to email, Horst. Your contributions have been extremely well thought out and useful and you are now getting to a point that I have been looking for a reasonable way to raise to hear Larry's 'total free market' view on. (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
| (...) I think the issue here is the fact that the state collects taxes, and uses them as *it* sees fit. In a free market, everyone would still have the right to help the abandoned child as they see fit, without the state "forcing" them to. Where (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
| (...) That is a correct restatement of what I said, yes. There are no rights to free goods. This is a fundamental tenet of my belief system. It is not held by all americans (witness those who feel a tithe to their church is a mandatory moral (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
| (...) I would *not* want to pay. He should pay for his own incarceration to the maximum extent possible, but when he cannot we must pay to keep him there in order to protect ourselves. (...) The child starves to death. (...) No they should not. But (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
