|
Can you prove that people don't have an inherent right to live? Before people argue with you it would help to say what you do believe in.
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Welfare is not inconsistent with someone not having a positive right to the thing they're getting from the government. The government can provide benefits out of a sense of charity, or because it seems pragmatic, without the recipient being entitled to the benefit as a matter of principal. That's actually one of the cases where rights can become problematic and conflicting. I think we'd all agree that we all have a right to attempt to survive. As in, work, gather food and resources, secure a place to live, etc. One of the biggest issues with the world as is is that the main way to survive is by selling your time to somebody wealthier. Currently the most wealthy are hoarding a gently caress load of the world's resources and money while saying "nope, you can't have any" to a gently caress load of people. Do the people that control everything that matters have a right to hold the lives of those poorer than they hostage? That's what effectively happens if welfare and social safety nets go away. A person who owns no land and doesn't have enough resources to produce anything themselves then suddenly has no choice but to work for somebody else.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Dude what are you even on about? I was referring to the top 20% of Americans that hold drat near all of the wealth. It's like 85% in their hands alone. 1% own 40% and these people aren't keen on sharing. If you are desperate and say go cut down a tree to make some wood stuff to sell it's highly likely you just broke several laws. You can't just plant some cash crops on your land if you need money or plant more food crops if you need more food if you don't own land. 97% of privately owned land is owned by a single-digit percentage of Americans. I was not referring to the comfortable who can afford to hire some help. That's dramatically different from the multi-billionaire that actively destroys the social safety net, unions, and minimum wage laws because it means cheaper labor. Me hiring a cleaning lady is dramatically different from the Koch brothers intentionally changing our social system in a way that makes it harder for the poor to get by. This is why I was talking about rights conflicting. Yes, people have a right to their property, but where do you put the limits on what they can do with it and how do you decide if the property was acquired morally? This is where the whole "it is not OK to exploit workers" side of it comes in. Do the Koch brothers have a right to game the system with their obscene amounts of wealth? It's complex stuff but the end result is a system where a worker must make somebody else richer to just survive. Which is why I am asking the question I am; which person's rights are more important?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Why is anyone's rights more important than anyone else's? We can argue all day about who is more deserving than anyone else, but it doesn't matter. What matters is the power to create reality as we see fit. Then what is the justification for having a tiny elite who can lord their wealth over everybody else and use it to control them?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 01:46
|
|