Occupy Wall Street Protests not working? What do you think?

[Mr Khan]

SamuelRSmith said:

Mr Khan said:

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.

No i'm not advocating full-scale Communism, because its implementation is unrealistic (though i would argue that if properly responsible stewards for the proletarian dictatorship period could be found and the threat of interference from anti-communist forces could be eliminated, a properly anarcho-communistic system could function), but in returning to the point, freedom of choice and speech are also part of that dignity that we possess as rational individuals, but we cannot realistically exercise our abilities unless we are provided for.

Freedom needs first individuals who can function as free individuals, and i would maintain that history has reflected that. If you grant the liberties of natural rights to an undeveloped society, one where needs are not met, they will end up voiding those rights, whereas if effort is made to provide these standards for all, institutions preserving freedom and dignity will be bred in a positively self-reinforcing system, so long as society does not begin to re-emphasize material greed as a desirable end in and of itself (as we did back in the Reagan years)