On 2/17/2012 6:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/17/2012 4:29 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:49:59 -0800, 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. So why can't "those people" claim a
right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, etc.?
You're claiming rights so why can't they? You certainly aren't any
better than anyone else. Except in your own mind.

Hawke

Certainly they can go out and get a haircut. What most logical people
object to is having the Government pay for the haircut.

Hawke-Ptooey doesn't understand anything about rights. In particular, he
doesn't understand the crucial distinction between positive and negative
rights.

The meaning of negative and positive in rights theory has to do with the
obligations one's rights impose on others. My right to my own life is a
negative right because obligations that right poses on others are all
negative, i.e., statements of what they must *NOT* do. If I have a right
to my own life, then others are forbidden to kill me, enslave me,
prevent me from going about my business (so long as my business doesn't
violate their own negative rights.)

If a person has positive rights, those impose "must-perform" obligations
on others. If someone has a right to a haircut, that means someone is
obliged to cut his hair, or is obliged to pay for the haircut, even
involuntarily. That clearly is intolerable and is in complete
contradiction with the obliged person's own negative right to his own life.

There are no positive rights; there cannot be any, without violating
someone's negative rights, which are the most fundamental of all. If a
person does not have a negative right to his own life, he cannot
possibly have any other rights. Hawke-Ptooey can't see that - he doesn't
understand that trying to recognize positive rights to haircuts and
other goodies necessarily makes slaves out of others.


What Mr. Pimpton doesn't understand is that rights are not absolute and
that all of them have limits and qualifications. It's also rather
presumptuous for him to lecture someone with legal training when he's
supposedly only an economist. He is particularly confused about rights
when it comes to being a member of a society. Part of being an American
citizen means one is obligated as in a contract to do certain things and
to not do other things. By becoming a part of this large organization we
call society one must give up some things. People do this because it's a
trade off between what one must give up and what one gets for what he
gave up. Most of us think it's a very good deal. Not people like Pimpton
though.

People like Pimpton are really just selfish pigs who don't like the
terms of the contract. They want to stand outside of the social contract
and take everything they can that society gives them but they don't want
to put in what society asks from them in return.

Guys like Pimpton are people who would go to a restaurant, see the
price, order a meal, and when done tell the proprietor that the price
was too high and he's going to give him much less for the meal than what
was charged.

As someone who is inherently unfair in his dealings with society and
others he's always looking for a way to take advantage so he can receive
a greater benefit for himself. A crooked businessman would be a prime
example of this. He tries to hide his greed and selfishness with
arguments about rights, and big government, freedom, and the like but
it's all just to cover up what he is really up to, which is basically
operating in bad faith. He can try to dress it up or cover it over but
in the end it's the same thing. He wants all that society has to offer
but he's too cheap to pay the stated price for all that he's getting.
We all know the type, don't we? The word for them is cheapskate.

Hawke