Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:
This is untrue as well: socialism just takes different rights into account. It says that his right to basic housing and basic health care supercedes her right to own a third Mercedes Benz: the money that would have gone to the Benz goes to care for the other person.
It is merely the triumph of economic rights over property rights. At least in its more democratic form.
|
Those aren't natural rights. They might possibly be contractual obligations, but it would have to be a real contract and not the inconsistent concept of the "social contract." This is of course if we are assuming a deontological ethics position. Most socialists assume consequentialist ethics, and don't need to justify their actions with the concepts of rights or obligations. Which makes them illiberal.
|
Right: freedom, like all things, is only good insofar as it is useful.
|
Yes, but it must have an ethitical basis so as to have a meaning to use. If anything can be declared a right, then the concept of a "right" has no basis nor meaning. I can declare the right to kill somebody, if it means 1,000 people will have their "right" of housing and health-care fullfilled. Maybe, if I kill this person the government gets to tax the inheritance 100% and provide these people with housing and healthcare. Would I not be right to kill him? Does the rights of these 1000 people supercede his right to life? See how ridiculous it is to label anything to be a right?
