Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
First and foremost, the vast majority of jobs in America are within small businesses, so you're not "whoring yourself out to corporate America".
Second, you don't slave, nobody is forcing you to work anywhere. Taxing people, and giving that money away is slavery and theft.
Third, "expectations". You shouldn't expect anything from anyone. Expectations is oh-so-close to entitlements. Nobody is entitled to a roof over their head, or gas in their car - because those things cannot be provided without stealing from someone else.
Many people say I'm a radical right winger... I don't see how having to work for a living can be considered radical.
|
This is the root of the moral contamination that has warped our values since the days of John Locke: this notion that private property is the most unalienable right that we can have as humans. This notion is counterintuitive to psychology, and counterintuitive to all moral systems, even those invented in the days of the utilitarians and early capitalists.
It is the right of all humans to meet certain minimums of welfare. Food, shelter, employment, and health. These should be guaranteed to all people before we allow anyone to have anything more. That is solidarity, that is morality. This belief otherwise is perverse.
|
No, our inalienable rights are the rights given to us as part of our humanity, they're our natural rights, or "god-given rights". We have the right to form our own opinions, and our right to express them, because our minds are our own, as are our hands and mouths, which we use to communicate. The fundamental difference between these rights, and the ones you classify are rights, is that natural rights do not cost anything: the Government does not need to spend money to give me the freedom of speech.
Property rights are an extension of our natural rights. We obtain property by exchanging our services with others. Ultimately, all property is created by our minds, and by our hands. When I make something with my mind, and my hands, that thing is mine. I can voluntarily exchange the efforts of my mind and hands, if I so wish, but I cannot be forced to. That would be slavery.
Now, you may argue that the Government's role is to provide more than our rights. You may contend that, on top of our rights, the Government should also provide us with healthcare, and those less fortunate with food, or shelter. I would disagree with you there, but accept your opinion, as that is your view on what the Government should do. It is a false premise, though, to suggest that those things are rights.
|
Nature is cruel and arbitrary. We are thinking creatures, rational creatures. We have our minimal dignity and should respect the dignity of other rational creatures. Dignity includes the fulfillment of our natural needs, which includes the items i have mentioned. We have a right to work (and not in the twisted anti-union use of the prhase in America), a right to sufficient food and shelter, and a right to be healthy insofar as we are able to be.
Slavery is a depravation of these dignities, but the association of all people to provide the fruits of their labor to all other people in a bonded governmental system predicated upon mutual consent insures dignity and optimum happiness for all, and this system does not preclude the achievement of greater material goods (or even a prosperous material society), while neither depriving any human of their dignity.
|
Nobody is entitled to dignity. Namely because dignity is not objective. What you may qualify as living a life of dignity, I may not. Similarly, different cultures have vastly different ideas of what constitute dignity. Dignity is something that is self-achieved, I know lots of people who rely on handouts for certain things, and they certainly feel a loss of honour over the matter.
Slavery is not a depravation of dignity, but a depravation of rights. Taken to the extreme, an actual slave is a person who has been taken into ownership. He lacks the ability to refuse to work, and thus, has lost control over his body, his humanity. A slave may still be provided with all those things that you think are required for a dignified life - food, shelter, etc (maybe lacking healthcare, but it was known that some slave owners did treat their slaves well), but they are still slaves.
What is the difference between the slave owners of early America, and those who are slaves through the state in extreme socialism? In both cases, people lost their right to refuse work, their rights to form their own mind, ultimately, their liberty. But both were provided with the "necessities" of life. Now, I understand that you (hopefully) aren't advocating full-on communism, just a "safety net", so a degree of socialism. But, with that, means that you are arguing for a degree of enslavement.
