08 Feb 17
Originally posted by kmax87That's a big "if" and one totally unsupported by the logical implications of Natural Rights theory.
If natural rights leads to a system where no-one is compelled either by lack of civic duty and pride or by legislation to feel any responsibility toward their fellow man, then corporations imbued with that me first me only attitude will rule the roost to the detriment of society and the individual.
08 Feb 17
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSometimes you got to zoom out a bit and look at the container y'all live in. You know that container you call the USA. The ultra powerful and wealthy,by their economic activity also provide a homeland for y'all where comparatively you spend less than other western nations on all of life's essentials. Food,gas, transport vehicles,..... the list is endless. Given that, your zeal for individual rights has put a nasty slant on helping to look after your neighbor. It constantly amazes me that a Christian nation will go on ceaselessly about rules and laws and eyes for eyes found in the Old Testament, but ignore the directives of Christ himself in his teaching about the good Samaritan in the New Testament.
Talking about the hypocrisy of the ultra powerful and wealthy preaching moral and fiduciary obligations to those providing actual wage opportunities for others.
What has Congress wrought?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
08 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat if the business owner no longer profits? Close it down! That is basically what he answered.
The business owner quickly shot back:
“So my question is how do I do that without raising my prices to my customers or lowing the wages to my employees?”
UMM, make less profit?
Apparently that idea never occurred to the business owner. In fact, worker's share of corporate income has dropped significantly in the last 15 years.http://www.epi.o ...[text shortened]... n/the-decline-in-labors-share-of-corporate-income-since-2000-means-535-billion-less-for-workers/
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by sh76Providing healthcare and education for all may be a good idea, but no natural rights theory can posit that everyone had the right to force society to provide free healthcare and education for him.
You do realize, I assume, that the word "not" you inserted in parentheses and which was not there in my initial point, is precisely the word on which my entire point turned, correct?
I have a right to not be killed or hurt by you.
I have a right to not have my freedoms interfered with by others, including, and especially, government.
I have a right to ...[text shortened]... t that everyone had the right to force society to provide free healthcare and education for him.
Nor concoct and enforce a law saying you must purchase it or face a fine!
09 Feb 17
Originally posted by checkbaiterEvery time someone proposes that business owners give back some of the wealth they expropriate from their workers, they whine it will run them out of business. It's all BS.
What if the business owner no longer profits? Close it down! That is basically what he answered.
09 Feb 17
Originally posted by checkbaiterNatural Rights theory is silent on the issue as to whether the Congress of the United States can impose a tax on someone for not having health insurance.
[b]Providing healthcare and education for all may be a good idea, but no natural rights theory can posit that everyone had the right to force society to provide free healthcare and education for him.
Nor concoct and enforce a law saying you must purchase it or face a fine![/b]
09 Feb 17
Originally posted by kmax87I zoom it all the time.
Sometimes you got to zoom out a bit and look at the container y'all live in. You know that container you call the USA. The ultra powerful and wealthy,by their economic activity also provide a homeland for y'all where comparatively you spend less than other western nations on all of life's essentials. Food,gas, transport vehicles,..... the list is endless. Giv ...[text shortened]... the directives of Christ himself in his teaching about the good Samaritan in the New Testament.
In, out, backwards, forwards, sideways.
We aren't a Christian nation.
We are a nation founded on the rule of law, and that law had at its center the sanctity of the individual--- which meshes well with literally any belief system which recognizes man as the pinnacle of all creation, but helps explain why it resonates so profoundly with Christian thinkers.
A nation is only as good as its people.
There are many who claim Christ but have no idea how that fits with their citizenship, where the line is drawn and which hat to put on when.
In many cases of both realms, there is no counter, yet when it comes to principles, the parallels are clearly evident.
There are many who claim Christ but simply stopped thinking.
09 Feb 17
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMy argument has always been that at its core Americans emphasise individual rights at the expense of societal rights.
......We are a nation founded on the rule of law, and that law had at its center the sanctity of the individual.........A nation is only as good as its people.There are many who claim Christ but have no idea how that fits with their citizenship, where the line is drawn and which hat to put on when..
To have a healthy society wherein which the rights of every citizen can be honored requires a mutual obligation of the free to give up some aspect of freedom such that the overall society can support that freedom for all.
When and if you are poor you can no longer afford representation in the court of law, allowing anyone with money to deny you Justice, what could society have done to protect your rights and freedom?
When and if you are denied a medical procedure or medication such that your quality of life suffers to the extent that your pursuit of happiness is a bridge too far, what could the great society you believe you belong to have done to ensure that your reasonable hopes and dreams were not crushed by attitudes that purported to enshrine individual rights that when considered in aggregate made it impossible for many in that society to live out the goals and dreams of that society?
09 Feb 17
poor business owners with 49 employees. so sad to hear about their plights. if it weren't for ACA they would hire 20 more employees.
following this reasoning, if it weren't for child labour laws, they would hire 30 unemployed 10 year olds. clearly the child labour laws are harming working children everywhere.
if it weren't for safety regulations, anyone could open 20 more cheap death trap factories or make cheaper products. cars that explode, drugs that don't work. mystery meat sausages. that would really boost the economy.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by no1marauderThe way you put it "the wealth they expropriate".... makes it sound like forced labor. You could write a book, "The liberal mind and how it works " or "How to make a business man look evil "
Every time someone proposes that business owners give back some of the wealth they expropriate from their workers, they whine it will run them out of business. It's all BS.
09 Feb 17
Originally posted by checkbaiterBusiness men are no more intrinsically "evil" than anybody else. However, capitalism is still based on appropriating a portion of the worker's labor:]
The way you put it "the wealth they expropriate".... makes it sound like forced labor. You could write a book, "The liberal mind and how it works " or "How to make a business man look evil "
Some consider that profit is the capitalist's "contribution" to the value of a commodity. However, as David Schweickart points out, "'providing capital' means nothing more than 'allowing it to be used.' But an act of granting permission, in and of itself, is not a productive activity. If labourers cease to labour, production ceases in any society. But if owners cease to grant permission, production is affected only if their authority over the means of production is respected." [Against Capitalism, p. 11] This authority, as discussed earlier, derives from the coercive mechanisms of the state, whose primary purpose is to ensure that capitalists have this ability to grant or deny workers access to the means of production. Therefore, not only is "providing capital" not a productive activity, it depends on a system of organised coercion which requires the appropriation of a considerable portion of the value produced by labour, through taxes, and hence is actually parasitic.
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secC2.html#secc22
Even if one grants that capitalism is the most efficient type of economic system (for the sake of argument), there is still no real justification for one part of the population to have health care and the other not to.
09 Feb 17
Originally posted by no1marauder...there is still no real justification for one part of the population to have health care and the other not to.
Business men are no more intrinsically "evil" than anybody else. However, capitalism is still based on appropriating a portion of the worker's labor:]
Some consider that profit is the capitalist's "contribution" to the value of a commodity. However, as David Schweickart points out, "'providing capital' means nothing more than 'allowing it to be used.' ...[text shortened]... l no real justification for one part of the population to have health care and the other not to.
You could have saved everyone a lot of time and needless energy by simply stating your position at the onset.
Now, kindly, defend that position.
"To have" is necessarily going to be a major cog in the circular logic which follows, I'm anticipating.
09 Feb 17
Originally posted by Zahlanzi...make cheaper products. cars that explode, drugs that don't work. mystery meat sausages.
poor business owners with 49 employees. so sad to hear about their plights. if it weren't for ACA they would hire 20 more employees.
following this reasoning, if it weren't for child labour laws, they would hire 30 unemployed 10 year olds. clearly the child labour laws are harming working children everywhere.
if it weren't for safety regulations, anyon ...[text shortened]... hat explode, drugs that don't work. mystery meat sausages. that would really boost the economy.
That's not small businesses, numbnuts.
What you describe is the domain of Big Business.
09 Feb 17
Originally posted by kmax87My argument has always been that at its core Americans emphasise individual rights at the expense of societal rights.
My argument has always been that at its core Americans emphasise individual rights at the expense of societal rights.
To have a healthy society wherein which the rights of every citizen can be honored requires a mutual obligation of the free to give up some aspect of freedom such that the overall society can support that freedom for all.
When and if yo ...[text shortened]... te made it impossible for many in that society to live out the goals and dreams of that society?
Half right.
If you had worded it as "at the expense of handing over to the government both collection and application of social programs" you would have been spot on.
Never ask a fox how to build a hen house.