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.
>>> You are correct: those farm price supports are TERRIBLE!
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.
>>> Wouldn't know: since I never said anything like that!
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.
>>> You are 'reading chicken entrails' again. Since I never took that position.
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.
>>> If you think only money will improve your position in our society: have at it!
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.
>>> <G> Well, at least I can come up with a list of PLENTY of names of EXISTING societies that function economically while permitting abortion rights... while I'm sure you can't come up with ANY examples for societies where 100% of the wealth is in 1% of the citizen's hands....
[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.
>>> Yep: "the worst of all forms of government... except for ALL the OTHERS!"
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.
>>> That's a definitional argument: what is a child? When is a fetus a 'child' with legal rights.
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.
>>> Actually, no! I explained your choices (change the government's policy, leave the country, or civil disobediance by not paying your taxes). The choice is YOURS, as you admitted. Under our Democratic form of governemnt... your rights are fully equal to other citizen's rights. Sounds like what you want is to be MORE 'equal' than other citizens... or to have a pne person veto over government actions. (I'd like that, too, for myself... but, what are the odds? <G>)
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.
>>> As you prove... morality is relative. |
