The word socialism is misleading. Bastiat explains in the Law that what he means by socialism is all manner of plunder in the forms of (and he lists them) tariffs, protection (protectionism), prerequisites, gratuities, encouragements, progressive taxation, free public education, right to work, right to profit (he doesnt mean profit you earn but those guaranteed by government. Think too big to fail), right to wages, right to assistance, right to instruments of labor, gratuity of credit, etc. etc.
Bastiat believed in the freedom and liberty of the individual above all else. And he also talked extensively about forces that would turn the law into State sanctioned plunder of those God given rights.
Every American President in history was a plunderer to Bastiat. He said of America's founding that it was the nation that managed to limit plunder the least except in the forms of slavery and tariffs and that the former would likely tear the country in two. He was a pretty brilliant man with one blind spot in his logic which unfortunately was the foundation of his philosophy.
You disagree and think God can be explained rationally and thus be the basis for the existence of inalienable rights? How so?
Whether or not the Founders wrote them down doesn't mean that they rationally exist. You said you disagreed with my assertion that there was no rational basis for the belief in God or inalienable rights, if you believe otherwise, that you have a rational argument for the existence of God and inalienable rights then I'd love to hear it. It would be the first time I've ever heard one.
Using the law as an instrument of plunder.
I was merely asking you about what disagreement you and I had about the nature of inalienable rights. The suggestion of a disagreement, implies one that you could explain. If you can't then that's OK.
That begs the question, what rights?
