Originally Posted by
Zargabaath
My free healthcare and university education are oppressive, I agree. The discounted student travel fares too. Plus all the help my family and I received when my mother was ill. The flats they gave us, the carpets and cookers and food, I mean God damn. Where were my rights?
In those instances your 'rights' were not violated but your 'collective rights' were used. Healthcare, education, food are man made goods or services - produced by men; they are not grown in nature. So by saying they are free you say that the people who produce them should not be rewarded for their services/goods; people who provide these services should not be rewarded for their time and effort but to be used by those who need but cannot offer value in return. You believe that some people are entitled by right to the product of the work of others. No person can have the right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another person. There can be no such thing as the 'right to enslave'. Yet you believe that people have the right to these services/goods from the expense of others. Working for the whims of others without receiving value in return is slavery, plain and simple.
This entire paragraph is just you twisting my words. We pay our doctors, firemen and teachers well. I don't get what you're talking about.
Communism does work, in oppressing people. I am in just as much wonder as Ayn Rand was about how people view communism. The goals were noble but the methods were horrible; the goals are tied in the methods both are horrible. Rand lived through the Bolshevik Revolution and the early era of the Soviet Union and she knew, at the age of twelve, that communism was evil in principle, methods, details, decrees, policies, and promises. If something violates the rights of man than it is oppressive. Communism believes people should work for the state, that individual people are insignificant - their rights are nothing compared to the rights of the state. Communism is the enslavement of others to society. Communism does not believe in people living for their own self but living for the state; to be at the disposal of the whims and desires of those who 'need'.
I agree. I don't like the idea of Communism either. But capitalism has to end somewhere, in something. What's the next step?
"Free" is not left up to interpretation by each individual, there is only one type of "free": when a person's rights are not violated by any state, soceity, group, or person. Those rights are set, they are not left up to the individual as to what they are, only left to recoginze whether to respect them or not.
Bingo. The UN Charter of Human Rights says all that. Last time I checked they didn't have a huge problem with the EU.
People have the right to their own life - life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right of life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the futherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of their own life. The concept of of a "right" pertains only to action - specifically, to freedom of action: the freedom from physicla compulsion, coercion or interference by other people. The right to life is the source of all rights - and the right to property is their own implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since people have to sustain their life by their own effort, the person who has no right to the product of their own effort has no means to sustain their life. The person who produces while others dispose of their product , is a slave.
I work in a currency exchange which is driven by targets. On our till screens, we are told how much revenue we have made the company throughout the day. On average, in a shift, I make about £600ish revenue. I am never given more than £65. Am I a slave? Also, you're babbling here.
Yes people can leave, something that Soviet Union would shoot people down, however, just because people have the right to leave does not give the state the right to violate the rights of humans. The rights of humans are inalienable they can never be violated by anything for any reason at any time- otherwise they are not inalienable. And if they are not inalienable then it must be discussed who or what can violate the rights of people, who or what is more important that they or it can violate the rights of others. By believing that human's rights can be violated a person believes that not all humans are equal, deserving, and their rights respected. This thinking dimishes the value of an individual yet it will be individuals who would decide this yet this leads to a contradiction. How can those who believe the individual is insignificant decide when the rights of people, of individuals, be violated; they are not qualified for the believe the individual means nothing. Remember a group is just a number of individuals, they do not get a special bonus to intelligence, special rights (as you believe), they do not become omniscient.
Sure?
I do not have a problem with paying taxes, my problem is what I should be taxed for. Police, Fire department, roads, military- yes. Healthcare, education, social security, food - no.
The U.S postal system is 3 billion in debt. As Sasquatch said UPS, Fedex etc. are doing fine. Just because the U.K postal system sucks does not mean a) nationalized would be better. b)give the right to establish a nationalized postaly systyem. If you want a better postal system give business to those who are the best, utilize your free speech to say you require better service. If they don't then do not use them it may be a bother but that is how it works in a truly free society.
We are doing that just now. There is a tour on the road to save the postal service.
It is not the government's job to feed people. That is not the function of government in a free society. The functions government has are: protect the rights of its citizens from domestic threats, foreign threats, and roads. Roads harm people? Groups do not have special priviliges/rights if they are x,y,or z. There is no right to food only the right to take action to acquire food and if a person is able to earn a product through their own effort that can be traded in value to a person who provides food as a good then they would have the right to use the food they purchased in any way they want for it is rightfully theirs.
What about if a normally productive person loses their job and can't feed themselves? What you're missing here is that UK social law was VOTED into existence. The government didn't just decide it. We the people decided that it should be everyone's responsiblity to care for, and to feed, those in need. Without those social care facilities, I would not be where I am now - in university, working for a degree, and heading for a productive life. I am an investment.
Scandinavian may have a better standard of living yet Sweden has the highest suicide rate. And again there is no right to a certain standard of living only the right to take action to earn a certain standard of living. When a child is born they do not have the right to a house, car, job and such things only the right to take action to acquire them through voluntary trade with others. Now it would be nice if everyone had a certain standard of living but wishing people have something does not make it a right.
So babies have to work to get cars? What are you talking about?
Wanting to keep you own money doesn't make you a greedy bastard (first of all, it would depend on how much you earn) You just contradict your statement with that clause. But you fail to consider by what standard is too much and who decides how much is too much. And by trying to answer that you say that those who decide are more important than others, their view is worth more and that people can dictate how much someone makes; you are forcing your views on others (ie. you are violating the rights of people by imposing a salary cap). It also show that you are envious that people can make so much and in a free society they would not be forced to share, so you complain and protest to make it seem that keeping what a person has rightfully earned as evil.
Why did both you and Sasquatch assume that the pay cap went UPWARDS? When I said it depended on how much you earn, I meant if he earned BELOW a certain amount. How am I envious of richer people? I'm perfectly happy with what I have, and am perfectly happy to share bits of it (don't tell me I don't work for my money). People who are richer than me have obviously worked harder, or if they're older, have advanced through careers and landed in a comfy spot. I don't think they're evil, and I don't seek to demonise them. In every social democracy there are those who earn more...why would they annoy me?
Bookmarks