Originally posted by stockenWe create society to protect our Natural Rights which we possess but which are insecure in the "natural state".
This actually humours me. How we're born into nature and everything is
fine (as far as freedom goes). We have everything we need and no one
can tell us where we can and cannot be other than for small areas, our
territories. Now, someone comes up with the idea that one person can
actually "own" more than he can ever use, meaning others will have to
...[text shortened]... ant to go back to, however I would prefer a more
civilised way of dealing with things.
Originally posted by stockenOnly if the village chief is on your side will you get the kidney from me. Now the secret for you is to either BE the chief or to give really good chief-suckup-like ... complimentary ... umm, "endearments" to the chief.
You know, I was thinking. I created yet another nonsense thread in the
nonsense forum and realised it's actually a good debate issue. Donating
organs. What gives you the right to say I can't have one of your kidneys,
say? Because you were born with it? I think not. If I'm about to die, then
I have as much right to that kidney of yours as you do since it can keep
us both alive and life comes before anything else.
Debate!
Then the village has to be brought to the winning point of view. Let's say that I give the old chief a good... um. Well let's say that the village chief manages to come into a new fancy house in the best part of the village. Say this house has indoor plumbing instead of ... errr.
What are you going to do to get my kidney then?
Originally posted by stockenStarvation is much rarer under capitalism than communism.
By ability I meant asset. And you're equation is so wrong. You can spend
a lifetime working hard and accomplish a lot of things only to realise that
you never really had a chance to do what you really wanted to. In fact,
that's life for most people. And then you can be born into a wealthy
family in the right country, never accomplish anything in your ...[text shortened]... a slow, humiliating and
shameful death. It's called hope for better days.
Abilites and accomplishments definitely go together. To a large degree, so do abilities and assets. The correlation would be much closer without inheritance. Is that what you want to do away with -- inheritance?
"Freedom is meaningless without assets." Tell that to countless slaves over the millenia. Freedom is a basic human right, and one of the most important things you can ever possess. Lose it for one day, and you will see how precious it is.
Don't be irked that you have to work to get ahead. You may call it 'greed' and say it is the main driver of capitalism. I might call it 'industry' and praise it as a virtue. But what about coveting other's property? What about theft by the state in the name of redistribution? We might conclude, then, that the main driver of communism is jealousy.
Originally posted by stockenWhen im dead you can help yourself to my bits and pieces!!!
You know, I was thinking. I created yet another nonsense thread in the
nonsense forum and realised it's actually a good debate issue. Donating
organs. What gives you the right to say I can't have one of your kidneys,
say? Because you were born with it? I think not. If I'm about to die, then
I have as much right to that kidney of yours as you do since it can keep
us both alive and life comes before anything else.
Debate!
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is no confusion this side of my keyboard no1. Individual rights and capitalism are inextricably tied together, can't have one without the other:
You continue to be hopelessly confused. Exchanges of property occur in ALL economic systems, not just capitalism. And you are confusing Natural Rights philosophy with capitalism.
EDIT: This what YOU said: Whether it is a straight trade or money is used as a tool, in both cases the right to property (aka capitalism) is recognized. It is precisely the r ...[text shortened]... According to you, there is capitalism or there is forcible transfer. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
"In order to have an economic system in which "production and distribution are privately or corporately owned", you must have individual rights and specifically property rights. The only way to have an economic system fitting the first definition is to have a political system fitting the second definition. The first is an implication of the second. Because the second, political, definition is fundamental and the cause of the first, it is the more useful definition and is preferable."
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Capitalism.html
...and just saying wrong, wrong, wrong means nothing, nothing, nothing without something, something, something to back it up.
Originally posted by stockenThat avatar looks like Norman Cook.
You know, I was thinking. I created yet another nonsense thread in the
nonsense forum and realised it's actually a good debate issue. Donating
organs. What gives you the right to say I can't have one of your kidneys,
say? Because you were born with it? I think not. If I'm about to die, then
I have as much right to that kidney of yours as you do since it can keep
us both alive and life comes before anything else.
Debate!