Subject:
|
Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:09:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1421 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> 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?
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 obligation on themselves), only objectivists and libertarians.
> 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)?
The right to live is an assertion of the right not to have force initiated
against you, not an assertion of the "right" to free goods to support life.
> I fear I cannot DEMONSTRATE that to you, if you
> don't feel it yourself.
Correct.
> After all, a humanistic attitude isn't something
> that can be scientifically proven.
Well, I *have* one, nonetheless.
I have argued in the past that acknowledging a right that others have to
take away what is yours makes you less human, not more. I have no problem
going through this yet again but I'd rather refer you to external material
instead. Read Rand, Friedman fils & pere, Hayek, Von Mises, etc. They
explain it far better than I can. They justify it from a number of angles. I
currently like Freidman fils best as he comes at it from a utilitarian
perspective that does not require proving the existence of a certain set of
natural rights, which has proven to be an intractable problem, and which has
boundary condition problems even if you do it.
> > > - 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.
Indeed.
> 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?
No, see above. Right to live is not a free goods right, but rather a right
not to have force initiated against oneself in an life extinguishment attempt.
> Asked in other words: Does the right to live not sometimes require material
> solidarity?
No.
> > (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.
And so you should, as it is part of why we are more successful than other
countries.
> > 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?
One dollar, taken forcefully, is more of an assault on my liberty than 1
million dollars donated voluntarily. Which has more positive effect on the
recepient? the 1 dollar? Hardly.
> I have actually seen tax dollars spent for less
> useful and less just purposes.
And that should be stopped too. But it doesn't help your argument. Who are
you to say, more than me, what the appropriate use of my funds is? Who are
you to say that you are a better judge of need and morality than I am? Who
are you to say that might makes right? Your might, to take away what is
mine, is right?
Hardly.
> 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?
Where that is true it should be fixed. But it is less true in countries that
are more free market, and more true in countries that are more welfare
state. Welfare is denigrating and self perpetuating and generates
underclasses, and makes an unlevel playing field. But that's a utilitarian
argument against it.
> And if so, are
> you advocating the survival of only those people who happen to be more
> intelligent and more lucky than others?
Intelligent, Yes. Luck, no. But luck cancels itself out quickly. consider
the generally foolish and dissipative behaviour of lottery winners. No
longterm benefit from their luck to their heirs, typically, so not an issue.
> In the light of these arguments, do
> you really believe that a 100% free market society will be just to everyone?
Yes. What is more just than that the competent succeed and the incompetent fail?
> I hope you don't find those questions annoying.
Nope. Repetitive yes but not annoying. But you may want to consider doing
some background reading if you're that interested.
> I am learning a lot about
> you as my friend, and the US in general by reading the answers.
Don't draw conclusions about the US in general, except perhaps historical,
from my answers, I'm atypical, although less so than in recent past, but
more atypical than at the time of the Founding Fathers.
> 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 ...
Rather not. Email is useless for these sorts of discussions and useless as
something that you can refer to in the future. Speaking of which perhaps
someone can give a few URLs of previous thread starts?
++lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
| (...) And you would hold that even if what they take away from you is pure luxury, whereas they need it to survive? Well, a humanistic attitude IMO goes a bit more towards enabling a decent life for everybody. It also does not contain a right to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
| Hello Larry, hello everybody, (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
