The government gives us national defense. They give us the laws and enforcement of same that produce a civil society...
Right. We pay taxes, goverment gives services - trade. And that is legitimate. What is not legitimate is giving income to people who never earned it.
No, it is merely talking about morality in society --- which can be quite separate from 'religion'.
If this "morality" includes a requirement to give people what they did not earn, it is nonsense - religion.
Eh???????? Just how, exactly, was I supposed to be 'getting wealth from you?' I don't even know you
I responded to a post wherein it was claimed some 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth. The implication was that that was somehow wrong. You then responded to my response as if in disagreement, the overall implication being that you would favor some sort of redistribution of wealth to make things "right." If that redistribution requires the infringement of the rights of that 1%, it is wrong.
And "I" am "funding" neither Art, nor Abortions. If our 'government' (national, state, or local) is, with your tax money, and you disagree... than you can always express your political opinion and attempt to get the government's policies changed...
There is another way. I may use my influence to change and severely exploit current policy, all to accumulate greater wealth and to keep it - even if it means you starve. There is nothing wrong with this at all.
I can think of no human society in all of human history that has ever been able to exist or survive where 1% of the population owned 100% of all national wealth. (I would regard that situation as inherently UNSTABLE!)
Perhaps I wouldn't think this unstable at all. But I might consider it tremendously unstable to murder 50-60 million children in America alone (and murdering countless other millions in other nations with American money). That is objectively in error. There is simply no wrong in my ethically acquiring everything, even if you should own nothing.
[Democracy is about] as likely - under those conditions - as ice is on Venus.
If to preserve Democracy we must infringe upon the rights of those who own everything, then Democracy is deplorable and needs to be destroyed.
What 'inalienable right' have I ever called for the 'removal of'? Answer: NONE!
When you support a government that literally sanctions and even pays for the slaughter of children, you call for the right to remove from those children their unalienable right to live. Should you support the government that takes my wealth to spend on such treachery, you remove my unalienable right not to support that which is directly counter to my existence. If my owning everything can help weaken you so that you cannot as effectively remove unalienable rights from other humans, I do nothing wrong and in fact am doing well.
You are preaching to yourself here... not to me, and not in response to any statement I've made.
Okay. |
