badgenome said:
That may well be the debate you want to have, but I find it morally repugnant to take someone's $20,000 and transfer it to someone else because Top Men have decided that it's better for the economy. For all the flak free marketeers take about supposedly worshipping the market, at least we don't believe that theft is justified if it's economically beneficial. I think therein lies the real problem, not whether or not people (or just conservatives) are too stupid nowadays. There seems to be a genuinely irreconcilable difference in philosophy, and thanks to centralization of power, we can't have the states acting as laboratories of democracy to find out what works best and, more importantly, to let people live as they please. The leftist Borg won't allow it. |
The inalienability of the right to property (or the definition of what is property which you have rights over) does seem to be at the root of the debate. A side rant of mine has been for a significant revision of intellectual property definitions as well as what a corporate entity can and can't directly own.
If we truly desire a better world, however, somewhere, at some point, the government has to step in. If we value a free market system, such a system first needs to work in a way that is humane, and this can only occur if all of the actors have the right values instilled in them, which would require State action on education towards righteousness and humanity. If we were to make the rights for individuals to retain their property absolute, this would lead to infringements on other rights in the ensuing anarchy.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.