Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[dcraelin]

You are free to believe whatever you want, just don't expect the world to change simply because you believe something that isn't true.

So You dont think Carlin agreed with Jefferson...perhaps not,.... I'm not sure I do entirely...but I do agree with him in the picture below....and I agree with Hobbes that life without government would be nasty brutish and short .

http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg

So did Locke, but Locke, unlike Hobbes, understood why life was like that in the state of nature.

oh,...and why is that.......

 

[dblack]

So You dont think Carlin agreed with Jefferson...perhaps not,.... I'm not sure I do entirely...but I do agree with him in the picture below....and I agree with Hobbes that life without government would be nasty brutish and short .

http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg

I don't pretend to know what Carlin believed, I just can see that his actions and his words lead to a different conclusion.

By the way, it always amuses me when I meet a person that thinks quoting other people is actually debating. Debating is defending a position through argument, not quoting. If you read back through the thread you will see that, with one notable exception, you are the only person that thinks quoting other people is debating. Come back when you have enough confidence in your beliefs to actually defend them yourself.

Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could. Carlin came right to the point, rights are an idea. I wouldnt have said CUTE idea....perhaps noble idea....but ideas differ among different people.....and are only instituted among men by government.

You don't think they could be 'instituted among men' by other means? Or would you simply call any such means a form of 'government'? In any case, I think you're simply noticing the difference between freedoms that are protected and those that aren't.

I keep coming back to this, but it seems most of the argument here is just semantics. One side is defining rights as freedoms protected by government, and then (reasonably) insisting that rights don't exist without some agency protecting them. But that simply ignores the other point of view, that freedoms can, and do, exists even if they aren't nominally protected.

All of this comes down to the motivation for this debate, namely an argument over the primacy of government. Both sides cling to 'rights' as their goal. But they're failing to recognize that they're not talking about the same thing. Freedom can exist without government. It can even be protected with alternate means. You don't necessarily need a coercive state government. Whether such freedom is called 'rights' or not is mere semantics.

 

[dcraelin]

I don't pretend to know what Carlin believed, I just can see that his actions and his words lead to a different conclusion.

By the way, it always amuses me when I meet a person that thinks quoting other people is actually debating. Debating is defending a position through argument, not quoting. If you read back through the thread you will see that, with one notable exception, you are the only person that thinks quoting other people is debating. Come back when you have enough confidence in your beliefs to actually defend them yourself.

Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could. Carlin came right to the point, rights are an idea. I wouldnt have said CUTE idea....perhaps noble idea....but ideas differ among different people.....and are only instituted among men by government.

You don't think they could be 'instituted among men' by other means? Or would you simply call any such means a form of 'government'? In any case, I think you're simply noticing the difference between freedoms that are protected and those that aren't.

I keep coming back to this, but it seems most of the argument here is just semantics. One side is defining rights as freedoms protected by government, and then (reasonably) insisting that rights don't exist without some agency protecting them. But that simply ignores the other point of view, that freedoms can, and do, exists even if they aren't nominally protected.

All of this comes down to the motivation for this debate, namely an argument over the primacy of government. Both sides cling to 'rights' as their goal. But they're failing to recognize that they're not talking about the same thing. Freedom can exist without government. It can even be protected with alternate means. You don't necessarily need a coercive state government. Whether such freedom is called 'rights' or not is mere semantics.

I guess Im saying any means is a form of government, unless I suppose a man lives completely alone and isolated from others. The argument IS largely semantics, as Edie Brickell, said in a song, Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks.

I dont think a "freedom" is worth much if it cant be used. There is perhaps a common group of ideas that most men hold, Murder is wrong etc. that are common in the laws of all societies.

 

[Foxfyre]

dblack, glad it tickled you. It tickled me hehe

Fox, I like your efforts but again I'm going to have to call you out. So free markets don't enable humans to garner wealth? Strange. Pretty sure you're not living in the same world I am.

Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth. That is the purpose of those who engage in commercial enterprise. And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives. And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.

Under liberty--i.e. a society in which natural rights are recognized and not infringed--the free market is the finest system for commerce that humankind ever devised because it works without conscious effort or management of any kind. Those who are inclined to do so are free to go into business. Those who are not cut out for management or ill suited to operate businesses are free to work for wages. And we all are free to buy what we want from whomever is willing to sell it to us. And the only restrictions are those that the society chooses for themselves for whatever they agree on as the common good.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to allow that kind of liberty--not rights dictated to the people by some monarch or pope or other totalitarian government, but rather the people dictating to the government what powers it will have, such powers to include securing the rights of the people. And then the people would be alone to govern themselves and exercise their natural rights however they choose to do so.

 

[dblack]

dblack, glad it tickled you. It tickled me hehe

Fox, I like your efforts but again I'm going to have to call you out. So free markets don't enable humans to garner wealth? Strange. Pretty sure you're not living in the same world I am.

Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth. That is the purpose of those who engage in commercial enterprise. And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives. And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.

Under liberty--i.e. a society in which natural rights are recognized and not infringed--the free market is the finest system for commerce that humankind ever devised because it works without conscious effort or management of any kind. Those who are inclined to do so are free to go into business. Those who are not cut out for management or ill suited to operate businesses are free to work for wages. And we all are free to buy what we want from whomever is willing to sell it to us. And the only restrictions are those that the society chooses for themselves for whatever they agree on as the common good.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to allow that kind of liberty--not rights dictated to the people by some monarch or pope or other totalitarian government, but rather the people dictating to the government what powers it will have, such powers to include securing the rights of the people. And then the people would be alone to govern themselves and exercise their natural rights however they choose to do so.

in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?

 

[RKMBrown]

I'll give you three.

Life, liberty and the pursiute of happiness.

I can take away all three----try again

You can try. But you better bring a big gun.

Why bring a gun when you can bring an army of Federal Agents to defend a State's right to take said liberties away on a whim? See Wacko mass murders. See Katrina disarming of the citizens to "protect" them from themselves for demonstrations. See Un-Patriot act drone killings of American citizens.

The 14th amendment due process clause allows the states, and by inclusion feds acting on behalf of the states, to take our life, liberty, and happiness away from us by merely making up whatever excuse they want and calling it due process.

 

[dblack]

Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could. Carlin came right to the point, rights are an idea. I wouldnt have said CUTE idea....perhaps noble idea....but ideas differ among different people.....and are only instituted among men by government.

You don't think they could be 'instituted among men' by other means? Or would you simply call any such means a form of 'government'? In any case, I think you're simply noticing the difference between freedoms that are protected and those that aren't.

I keep coming back to this, but it seems most of the argument here is just semantics. One side is defining rights as freedoms protected by government, and then (reasonably) insisting that rights don't exist without some agency protecting them. But that simply ignores the other point of view, that freedoms can, and do, exists even if they aren't nominally protected.

All of this comes down to the motivation for this debate, namely an argument over the primacy of government. Both sides cling to 'rights' as their goal. But they're failing to recognize that they're not talking about the same thing. Freedom can exist without government. It can even be protected with alternate means. You don't necessarily need a coercive state government. Whether such freedom is called 'rights' or not is mere semantics.

I guess Im saying any means is a form of government, unless I suppose a man lives completely alone and isolated from others. The argument IS largely semantics, as Edie Brickell, said in a song, Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks.

I dont think a "freedom" is worth much if it cant be used. There is perhaps a common group of ideas that most men hold, Murder is wrong etc. that are common in the laws of all societies.

Have you ever noticed how little government has to do with our general, day-to-day freedom? Let me ask you this - what keeps you from beating your next door neighbor senseless and stealing his stuff? Is it your fear of government, or something else?

 

[Foxfyre]

dblack, glad it tickled you. It tickled me hehe

Fox, I like your efforts but again I'm going to have to call you out. So free markets don't enable humans to garner wealth? Strange. Pretty sure you're not living in the same world I am.

Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth. That is the purpose of those who engage in commercial enterprise. And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives. And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.

Under liberty--i.e. a society in which natural rights are recognized and not infringed--the free market is the finest system for commerce that humankind ever devised because it works without conscious effort or management of any kind. Those who are inclined to do so are free to go into business. Those who are not cut out for management or ill suited to operate businesses are free to work for wages. And we all are free to buy what we want from whomever is willing to sell it to us. And the only restrictions are those that the society chooses for themselves for whatever they agree on as the common good.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to allow that kind of liberty--not rights dictated to the people by some monarch or pope or other totalitarian government, but rather the people dictating to the government what powers it will have, such powers to include securing the rights of the people. And then the people would be alone to govern themselves and exercise their natural rights however they choose to do so.

in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?

LOL. If our richer neighbors disappeared, we wouldn't have such neat things we can borrow when we need them.

But you're right. The accumulation of wealth in a free market in which natural rights are protected is not the reason some are less wealthy.

 

[dblack]

Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth. That is the purpose of those who engage in commercial enterprise. And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives. And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.

Under liberty--i.e. a society in which natural rights are recognized and not infringed--the free market is the finest system for commerce that humankind ever devised because it works without conscious effort or management of any kind. Those who are inclined to do so are free to go into business. Those who are not cut out for management or ill suited to operate businesses are free to work for wages. And we all are free to buy what we want from whomever is willing to sell it to us. And the only restrictions are those that the society chooses for themselves for whatever they agree on as the common good.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to allow that kind of liberty--not rights dictated to the people by some monarch or pope or other totalitarian government, but rather the people dictating to the government what powers it will have, such powers to include securing the rights of the people. And then the people would be alone to govern themselves and exercise their natural rights however they choose to do so.

in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?

LOL. If our richer neighbors disappeared, we wouldn't have such neat things we can borrow when we need them.

But you're right. The accumulation of wealth in a free market in which natural rights are protected is not the reason some are less wealthy.

Well, not to quibble, but some people getting 'more wealthy' does make others 'less wealthy' relatively. I'm just saying that being 'less wealthy' than someone else is not the same thing as being 'poorer' than you'd have been otherwise, which is how the socialists usually want to frame it.

 

[gnarlylove]

dblack, glad it tickled you. It tickled me hehe

Fox, I like your efforts but again I'm going to have to call you out. So free markets don't enable humans to garner wealth? Strange. Pretty sure you're not living in the same world I am.

Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth. That is the purpose of those who engage in commercial enterprise. And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives. And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.

Again, what planet are you talking about? You and dblack are just saying things that sound pleasant to you because you believe them. But in order for beliefs to be rational they must be defensible. Neither of you are participating in defensible argument. Let me explain why because you have no clue what I'm talking about, because neither of you have ever cared to investigate what the rules of logic are and what constitutes a cogent proposition--one that is supported by evidence.

Fox, if you admit human beings garner wealth in free markets, then you must also recognize the fact that humans also will use their wealth for leverage into gaining access to more wealth. It is as human as masturbaiton for a person who finds himself with more than others to use that accumulation to generate even greater accumulation.

Now please consider the real world (which you clearly don't do often in debate). What do persons who have a lot of money do? They use whatever means within law (and outside of technical legality) to gain ever greater sums. How do they do this? Please look at reality! They took Federal Election Commission to the Supreme Court to expand political donations per election cycle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I'm talking about !!!!!!!!! A wrench has been thrown into free markets by virtue of wealthy persons (i.e. corporations) have 100% say in politics and the people have none.

That is some kind of upside "liberty" that your espousing, which inevitably leads to this scenario. Defining liberty as natural rights not being infringed upon precisely undermines your whole argument because free markets always end up with the markets favoring the winners who naturally exploit losers in order to make even greater sums. Thus the losers are further cast into loser-hood. Sounds like a great reality to live in, which we do!

So you may start with a free market but you end up with people using their leverages to influence law so that they are increasingly favored, drowning out all other voices. I thought freedom was where people had a say in their own lives. We currently don't. Tell me how you vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs?

 

[Foxfyre]

in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?

LOL. If our richer neighbors disappeared, we wouldn't have such neat things we can borrow when we need them.

But you're right. The accumulation of wealth in a free market in which natural rights are protected is not the reason some are less wealthy.

Well, not to quibble, but some people getting 'more wealthy' does make others 'less wealthy' relatively. I'm just saying that being 'less wealthy' than someone else is not the same thing as being 'poorer' than you'd have been otherwise, which is how the socialists usually want to frame it.

But 'relatively', or more precisely 'comparatively', is not really a factor. America's poor are very rich indeed when compared to most of the world's poor. And wealth distribution is a problem only when that wealth is finite.

The only issue is whether the system/government/culture does not interfere in any way with each person having the unalienable right to try to achieve his/her full potential.

Bill Gates was in the right place in the right time and possessed the right instincts to achieve a level of wealth that most of us can only imagine. But his wealth took nothing away from anybody else and in fact his success has provided millions of good paying jobs and business opportunities for others. It did not prevent Steve Jobs from also becoming fantastically wealthy, nor can it be argued that Jobs did not also benefit from Gates' success and vice versa. And certainly neither of them cost me a dime or prevented me from achieving my own level of success that, though significantly less than theirs, was almost certainly enhanced because of the industries and opportunities that have spun off from Microsoft and Apple.

It is a near certainty that neither Gates or Jobs knows that AlbqOwl exists and neither has given me a single thought. But because they had the right and ability to achieve amazing success, they nevertheless played a part in my own in ways that almost certainly never occurred to either of them.

They took nothing away from anybody, but rather created industries that have in one way or another enriched us all.

That is how a free market works. And how recognition of and security of unalienable (natural) rights creates much more successful societies overall than any other system.

 

[gnarlylove]

in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?

You are accusing socialists of excessive pride in claiming some people are rich and others are not?

What's more is you claim that ownership does not imply reduced availability. So if Monsanto owns 10% of the world, does that mean there is still 100% available? No. It means the rest of the inhabitant must do with 90%. What if 1% of the world owns 40% of its wealth? What does that leave for 99% of people? You're right, 60%. And believe it or not, 40% of the world really is owned by 1%. World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers | Money | The Guardian

I know you don't take reality serious but this planet is finite. Corporations can only claim a finite amount. So if corporations own half the world, they are winners. We both agree. Does that mean they are benefiting the rest? Not necessarily. People do not always act in the interests of other people. And indeed those in power often act in their own interests to the dismay of other groups. Right? How do you think this dynamic of 1% owning 40% influences the rest of the inhabitants? Take a look around, figuratively. There is abjection among the world's poor. Why is that? That is precisely because corporations have claimed ownership of lands and drove subsistence farmers off in order to make cash crops. How does this benefit people who were living on the land and now are forced into cities or hillsides?

Did those drive from their land in Haiti or Cuba or Malaysia (I could go on and on) people loose? Now they are tied into depending on markets whereas they once were completely free human beings without any needs of the global market.

Winners on a finite world implies losers. Just like if there are 100 jelly beans and I take 90, does that leave you with 100 also?

On "planet-dblack" the world is infinite and infinite growth is possible. Thus we can have winners without losers. And in your narrow and obviously false premise, you know that our planet is finite. But you refuse to admit that if you take away from the totality, you no longer have access to the totality. The totality has shrunk. Shrinking is not different from loosing. The more elites have, the less that can be distributed among people. I'm not saying corporations and the rich don't give back or distribute, but the only way profit exists is they keep more than they distribute. Thus, the people loose.

 

[dblack]

Let me explain why because you have no clue what I'm talking about, because neither of you have ever cared to investigate what the rules of logic are and what constitutes a cogent proposition--one that is supported by evidence.

There's rules!?!?! Shit, no wonder I'm so confused. Please do 'splain it.

Fox, if you admit human beings garner wealth in free markets, then you must also recognize the fact that humans also will use their wealth for leverage into gaining access to more wealth. It is as human as masturbaiton for a person who finds himself with more than others to use that accumulation to generate even greater accumulation.

Now please consider the real world (which you clearly don't do often in debate). What do persons who have a lot of money do? They use whatever means within law (and outside of technical legality) to gain ever greater sums. How do they do this? Please look at reality! They took Federal Election Commission to the Supreme Court to expand political donations per election cycle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I'm talking about !!!!!!!!! A wrench has been thrown into free markets by virtue of wealthy persons (i.e. corporations) have 100% say in politics and the people have none.

That is some kind of upside "liberty" that your espousing, which inevitably leads to this scenario. Defining liberty as natural rights not being infringed upon precisely undermines your whole argument because free markets always end up with the markets favoring the winners who naturally exploit losers in order to make even greater sums. Thus the losers are further cast into loser-hood. Sounds like a great reality to live in, which we do!

So you may start with a free market but you end up with people using their leverages to influence law so that they are increasingly favored, drowning out all other voices. I thought freedom was where people had a say in their own lives. We currently don't. Tell me how you vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs?

Huh... Still wondering, how does one person being rich, necessitate another being poor? On what are you basis the 'zero-sum' assumption?

 

[dblack]

You are accusing socialists of excessive pride in claiming some people are rich and others are not?

Nope. I'm accusing them of excessive stupidity in claiming that a person getting richer makers other people poorer.

I know you don't take reality serious ...

Well, then why do you bother talking to me? Are you in the habit of wasting time with delusional people?

 

[gnarlylove]

Your replies consist of "poop" "dumb" excessive stupidity" "irrelevant" all the while offering no defense of your negations or propositions. It's fresh to hear you consider yourself delusional because on the majority of my sincere attempts to dialogue have been met with quite frankly delusional replies. Your realm of understanding does not consist of a well rounded outlook of reality, but of an objectified or personified understanding through the various authors and lecturers you've given attention (and clearly shut others out).

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I gather your experience does not seem diverse. A diversity of experience opens one up to strange ideas, really I'm just saying you appear less "open to experience" based on the model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience. I'm sorry you do not seem interested in participating in rational dialogue and my repeated failed attempts arise from the woeful desire and of hope something has to click with you and cause you to confront what I'm saying within defensible reasoning or concrete evidence. Instead, it never does and your replies offer is a game to name the opposition without proffering substance or evidence.

Either reply to the finite argument above or it seems you refuse to confront the arguments on a rational level yet you still claim to be rational, I presume.

And I don't take your question as serious about the rules of thought. If you really want to know I will walk you though them, exercise for us both.

 

[dblack]

your replies consist of "poop" "dumb" excessive stupidity" "irrelevant" all the while offering no defense of your negations or propositions. It's fresh to hear you consider yourself delusional because on the majority of my sincere attempts to dialogue have been met with quite frankly delusional replies. Your realm of understanding does not consist of reality, but of an objectified or personified understanding through the various authors and lecturers you've given attention. I'm sorry you cannot participate in rational dialogue and my repeated failed attempts arise from the woeful desire and of hope something has to click and you confront what i'm saying within defensible reasoning or concrete evidence. Instead, it never does and all your replies offer is a game to name the opposition without proffering substance.

Either reply to the finite argument above or it seems you refuse to confront the arguments on a rational level yet you still claim to be rational, i presume.

And i don't take your question as serious about the rules of thought. If you really want to know i will walk you though them, exercise for us both.

ok

 

[RKMBrown]

LOL. If our richer neighbors disappeared, we wouldn't have such neat things we can borrow when we need them.

But you're right. The accumulation of wealth in a free market in which natural rights are protected is not the reason some are less wealthy.

Well, not to quibble, but some people getting 'more wealthy' does make others 'less wealthy' relatively. I'm just saying that being 'less wealthy' than someone else is not the same thing as being 'poorer' than you'd have been otherwise, which is how the socialists usually want to frame it.

But 'relatively', or more precisely 'comparatively', is not really a factor. America's poor are very rich indeed when compared to most of the world's poor. And wealth distribution is a problem only when that wealth is finite.

The only issue is whether the system/government/culture does not interfere in any way with each person having the unalienable right to try to achieve his/her full potential.

Bill Gates was in the right place in the right time and possessed the right instincts to achieve a level of wealth that most of us can only imagine. But his wealth took nothing away from anybody else and in fact his success has provided millions of good paying jobs and business opportunities for others. It did not prevent Steve Jobs from also becoming fantastically wealthy, nor can it be argued that Jobs did not also benefit from Gates' success and vice versa. And certainly neither of them cost me a dime or prevented me from achieving my own level of success that, though significantly less than theirs, was almost certainly enhanced because of the industries and opportunities that have spun off from Microsoft and Apple.

It is a near certainty that neither Gates or Jobs knows that AlbqOwl exists and neither has given me a single thought. But because they had the right and ability to achieve amazing success, they nevertheless played a part in my own in ways that almost certainly never occurred to either of them.

They took nothing away from anybody, but rather created industries that have in one way or another enriched us all.

That is how a free market works. And how recognition of and security of unalienable (natural) rights creates much more successful societies overall than any other system.

Uhmmm.... Gates was given a monopoly of the PC market by IBM for IBM PCs to convince govco to not break IBM up like they had just broken up ma bell (IBM had 95% of the computing market at the time). Gates then leveraged that monopoly to force the IBM PC manufacturers to include the cost of a windows license with every PC whether their customers wanted windows or not. This monopoly of the operating system market for IBM PC compatibles went on for many years and Microsoft was never punished for it, effectively killing all the for fee OS competitors at the time (even IBM's OS/2) and making Microsoft the dominant player in OSes for decades to come.

Gates was also allowed to use their OS monopoly derived money to buy up all of the word processing, presentation, spreadsheet competition... and bundle it all together thus creating the monopoly on the most commonly used types of office applications as well.

So, no that's not how a free market works.

 

[gnarlylove]

You have plenty of opportunities to demonstrate your efforts to engage in rational debate and yet I don't seem to get to experience that side of you. Perhaps you think because I disagree I leave no room for coming to realize what I believe is false and thus see no point in debating me. On the contrary, I am readily convinced of my folly through cogent assessment and reasoning. It is, afterall, the only chance we have for common ground and on that ground I stand praying you join me by deconstructing my argument about a finite planet. Perhaps I am guilty of excessive stupidity but without offering any reason, why should I believe your assertion?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So You dont think Carlin agreed with Jefferson...perhaps not,.... I'm not sure I do entirely...but I do agree with him in the picture below....and I agree with Hobbes that life without government would be nasty brutish and short .

http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg

I don't pretend to know what Carlin believed, I just can see that his actions and his words lead to a different conclusion.

By the way, it always amuses me when I meet a person that thinks quoting other people is actually debating. Debating is defending a position through argument, not quoting. If you read back through the thread you will see that, with one notable exception, you are the only person that thinks quoting other people is debating. Come back when you have enough confidence in your beliefs to actually defend them yourself.

Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could. Carlin came right to the point, rights are an idea. I wouldnt have said CUTE idea....perhaps noble idea....but ideas differ among different people.....and are only instituted among men by government.

Governments are ideas, does that make them not real?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?

LOL. If our richer neighbors disappeared, we wouldn't have such neat things we can borrow when we need them.

But you're right. The accumulation of wealth in a free market in which natural rights are protected is not the reason some are less wealthy.

Well, not to quibble, but some people getting 'more wealthy' does make others 'less wealthy' relatively. I'm just saying that being 'less wealthy' than someone else is not the same thing as being 'poorer' than you'd have been otherwise, which is how the socialists usually want to frame it.

That relativity thing is what trips up people. The fact is that wealth is increasing generally. The middle class is not shrinking because the rich are making them poorer, it is shrinking because people are getting richer. Sure, some people are getting richer faster than others, but that doesn't change the fact that I am getting richer too.