On 2/18/2012 11:25 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/17/2012 1:49 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


No unfairness is also when some one who adds little or no value,
comes
along, and then sends someone in to take away value, and distribute
their "fair" share to those who did not add value, or added very
little, even when the value was added in spite of rather than
because
of the obstacles put in place by the "fair Share"ers
jk


You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.

Hawke

OK perhaps obtuse,

Here you go,

Those ("society") who send tax collectors around to collect "taxes"
(your "fair share")
and distribute the cash to those who just sit around rather than
working (adding no value), are unfair.

-or-

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.

They're parasitic leeches who are not entitled to any material good or
service. One does not have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter,
medical
care, haircuts, shoeshines, tickets to NBA basketball games, or
*ANYTHING* else, simply due to existing.


You claim you have a right to live.

That is a negative right that implies a duty on others not to interfere
with my life.

The hell it does.

That is *exactly* what it does. That is *all* it does.


It implies nothing about any duties of others.

Yes, that is exactly what it implies. It implies a duty of others not
to interfere with my life, provided I am not interfering with theirs.


You are the one claiming ownership of a right.

Correct.


You claim that somehow you obtained a right to live.

I was endowed with it at birth. It is the very essence of my
relationship with other humans.


Where you got this right is the question.

I am endowed with it (by the "Creator", if you wish) at birth. End Of
Story, Hawke-Ptooey - no one "gives" me the right, no "society" gives it
to me, I do not have to purchase it. I am endowed with it simply for
being born human.




It has nothing to do with the duty of others.

It *defines* duties of others, Hawke-Ptooey.


They have no part in your claim to a right to life.

They are obliged not to interfere in my life, subject to the proviso
that I am not interfering in theirs. That is what it means,
Hawke-Ptooey, you stupid cretin.


So why can't "those people" claim a
right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, etc.?

Those are positive rights that would imply a duty imposed on someone
else to give them those things, and there is no such duty.

You forgot to add, in my opinion to the end of your sentence.

Nope; I didn't forget anything. I have no innate moral duty to give any
good or service to anyone. I may choose to take on such a duty
voluntarily, but absent that, no one has any moral right to compel me to
furnish any good or service to him - none whatever. If you're naked and
starving in the street and I find you there, I am not under any innate
moral obligation to feed or clothe you.



You're claiming rights so why can't they?

You don't understand rights. That's proof of how worthless your degree
is. You should know the difference between positive and negative rights,
and clearly you don't.


Hah, that's a laugh.

Not for you, it isn't. We're the ones laughing at you.


I'm more than a little familiar with the terms.

No, you are not.


I saw from an article in the NY Times yesterday that at least 48% of
Americans are receiving some kind of government benefits although many
don't even know it.

The NY Times publishes a lot of bull**** opinion masquerading as fact.