DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer 1. There seems to be little understanding of the subjectivity involved in distinguishing between needs and wants. I saw a cartoon once in which a man and his wife were walking out of the front door of their castle and towards their Rolls Royce. The man says to his wife, "Isn't it wonderful that we have so many more basic needs than everyone else?" No, there is no misunderstanding of the subjectivity. However, this thread was to be more of a "theory" thread, not necessarily exacting specifics. Shelter is a need to keep us safe from the elements. While some may turn their noses up at a tent as shelter, the specific shelter necessary depends greatly on the climate you live in. quote:
2. Rights and privileges: Why do some people state, as though they are unassailable truths, that X is not a right, though Y is? This is bollocks. God didn't invent what we now consider to be rights, nor did the writers of any given nation's constitution. What falls under the rubric of 'Rights' is not immutable. We are free to re-designate. No, we are not free to re-designate. Anything that can be re-designated, is not a right, but a privilege. If there is no one that can provide the service you think you have a right to, how can you have a right to it? While we're at this, what, exactly, is a "right?" To have a right, means what? quote:
3. There seems to be almost no sense of the difference between negative and positive freedoms here. That is, the difference between 'freedom from' and 'freedom to'. Modern liberals would point, for instance, to the American constitution's phrase ' . . . the pursuit of happiness' and argue that no-one is *free to* pursue happiness if, for instance, they are still grappling with the bottom level of Maslow's pyramid of values. Now, we can all rubbish the argument by giving extreme examples (e.g. I can't pursue happiness unless I have a Rolls Royce, etc, etc) but it's surely feeble to argue that someone is free to pursue happiness if he's in great physical pain. The pursuit of happiness starts with the pursuit of those things at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid. That's where your aforementioned modern liberals err. quote:
4. 'Individual responsibility' is one of those phrases so beloved of the Right. But the community *also* has a responsibility. Were that not to be the case, there'd be no governments, no armies and no police forces. You *do not* get out of your collective responsibility as a community by continually growling about individual responsibility. And you have to have the political and economic institutions in place to facilitate, rather than erode, both individual *and* community responsibilities. Political structures are brought about to protect our individual rights, not provide our individual rights. That is the essential difference between the United States of America and pretty much every other political structure in the world at the time when Monarchs ruled. A Monarch was the only truly free person. He was free to do as he chose, regardless of what anyone else wanted. He decided what those under him were allowed to have. If he wanted something, he took it. If he wanted you to have less, he decreed it. It was all on him. Not so, in these United States. The Federal Government was granted limited authorities under the US Constitution. These authorities were granted by the States and the People. We, collectively, gave of our natural rights and authorities to the Federal Government to act on our behalf for the good of the Nation as one unit. The US Constitution puts it this way: quote:
Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; The Preamble starts off as "We the People of the United States..." setting apart the two. We have the People and the States that are united. The Federal Government was being Constituted out of the inherent rights and authorities of the People (which is also where the State Governments derived their just powers). The focus of the Federal Government wasn't to be on We the People. It was to be on the "United States." It was to be on the Nation as one unit, not the Nation made up of however many different individuals and State/Regional/Local Governmental bodies. Community responsibilities are laid out within the Community's charter, and should have been granted solely out of the authorities of their charges with the consent of their charges. The Community can come together and help those who can not help themselves. But, that's not Government. That's charity.
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|