Does that make sense? Of course not. You can't DO it, so there can't be at liberty to do it.
Should individuals then have the liberty, the right, to something that doesn't NECESSARILY exist? Such as, any specific amount of wealth in any form - since that doesn't necessarily exist but must be created - if there's an absolute right to it, by someone else?
In that latter case, is it acceptable to have a construct of individual liberty that is not equal among individuals? I.e., if you have a right to something that someone else must create, then you and he are certainly not equal.
2007-08-30 09:17:14 · 13 answers · asked by truthisback 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
jehen it's a land of plenty only because, and only to the extent that, we've rejected your logic.
2007-08-31 06:26:02 · update #1
Willa the wealth comes from their efficient allocation of resources, for which they pay ahead of time, at their own risk.
The guy who invents the microprocessor doesn't "make his money off the backs" of the people who put boxes of them onto a truck. If the market doesn't like the microprocessor, the guy who invented it gets nothing and has to find a way to pay for the resources he used. The guys who loaded them onto the truck still get paid the going rate for their service.
2007-08-31 06:28:07 · update #2
You don't understand.
You must break your back to create it and then, out of the goodness of your heart turn it over to someone who can't make it.
Of course if you don't have that goodness, the government will motivate you with vilification and if that doesn't work they'll mandate it and if that doesn't work they will just take it from you, give it away and insist you make another one.
BTW, you also have to pay for the privilege of the freedom to make it in the first place.
Leaves me wondering, why would I even bother to get out of bed?
2007-08-30 09:29:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Do wealthy people spontaneously create wealth from nothing, kind of like magic? Or does the wealth come from the ownership of resources that produce wealth, such as companies that employ folks who are not wealthy but produce in order to add to the resource owner's wealth? Can everyone be resource owner's? Or is it necessary for a handful of privileged people to be the owners in order to keep the system running? And if that is the case, do those owners automatically deserve to amass shameful fortunes at the expense of the people working to produce this wealth?
My point is "if you have a right to something that someone else must create [workers, producer], then you and [they] are certainly not equal." The only way to rectify this unjust situation is to offer respectful compensation to both. Both are due equal liberty to the wealth (that unlike the ability to float) certainly exists.
2007-08-30 16:30:59 · answer #2 · answered by zero 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
In a land of plenty, everyone has a right to basic human needs - food, shelter, safety.
In a land of plenty, we have an obligation to help those that can not help themselves.
In a land of freedom and justice, poverty is unjust and shackles it's victims. We should always strive to lift people out of poverty, by what ever means necessary - direct aid for the acute situations, education, opportunity, inclusion, for the long haul.
2007-08-30 16:27:53 · answer #3 · answered by jehen 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
If people can float in mid air they should be allowed to, man. If one day you find that you can float in mid air after ingesting some mushrooms, or acid, or some other kind of inhalant, I think you should be allowed to float around the room as long as you want, man. Power to the floaters, man.
Have you seen my shoes, man? What were you talking about, man?
Is Dave here, man?
2007-08-30 16:29:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
By that logic you wouldn't have the liberty to pray.
Prayer requires a divine entity to be listening.
Due to a divine entity being a matter of fiction, you cannot DO it.
2007-08-30 16:32:12 · answer #5 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
That certainly was a convoluted way of saying you are a Capitalist, and do not want your money going to anyone but yourself. I think we already know this about Republicans.
2007-08-30 16:25:09 · answer #6 · answered by wisdomforfools 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Chris Angel does.
2007-08-30 16:27:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Um, go out and pick up a hooker!
You have way, way, way too much free time on your hands.
2007-08-31 08:43:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Silly communist, of course individuals have the liberty to float in mid-air. Just because they can't doesn't mean they wouldn't be allowed if they could!
2007-08-30 16:23:44 · answer #9 · answered by Beardog 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes, we can do it.
Haven't you ever been to a theme park?
Haven't you ever ridden on a hot air balloon?
But you don't have the right to do it over my airspace.
2007-08-30 16:23:35 · answer #10 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋