On 2/18/2012 11:50 AM, Hawke wrote:
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 imposes 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.

First of all, that is false. Second, even if it were true, it does not
change the distinction - a distinction of which you are ignorant -
between positive and negative rights.


presumptuous for him to lecture someone with legal training

You have no legal training.


confused about rights when it comes to being a member of a society.

Not in the least. Rights only have meaning withing the context of a
society. If there were just one human in the world, he would have no
rights. Rights are only held with respect to other humans.


Part of being an American
citizen means one is obligated as in a contract to do certain things and
to not do other things.

No, that has nothing whatever to do with being an American.



By becoming a part of this large organization we
call society one must give up some things.

"Society" has nothing to do with it. It's the other individual persons
with whom you live.


People like Pimpton are really just selfish pigs who don't like the
terms of the contract.

There is no "contract" - that's a fiction that is used as an analogy,
not as a description of any actual legal relationship.


They want to stand outside of the social contract
and take everything they can that society gives them

"Society" gives nothing. As we have long ago established, everything
you say about "society" is wrong, starting with your false belief that
society is an organic entity. It is not.


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.

Nope - the exact opposite, actually.

Anyway, that restaurant is not an analogue of "society" - not in any
way. The restaurant owner is an individual moral actor, as am I.


As someone who is inherently unfair in his dealings with society

There are no dealings with "society" - not ever. My dealings are
entirely with other persons, as individuals.