Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote: Fairness is when those people who create value understand that they came into a society that aided them, provided a place for them to be free to do as they pleased, and protected them and their money. And that the price for those things is for those who created value in such a place are obligated to pay a proportional share for those things that allowed them to create value in the first place. Unfairness is when someone comes to such a place, creates value, and then tries to stiff everyone when it comes time to pay the piper. That would be you. You would take advantage of all the benefits society gave you and then you would not want to give anything back in return. We call that stealing. You're the thief. 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 |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
Hawke 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. jk |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
"jk" wrote in message ... If that isn't simple enough for you. Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing, are thieves. jk You misspelled "democrat". Art |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/16/2012 3:51 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote: wrote: Fairness is when those people who create value understand that they came into a society that aided them, provided a place for them to be free to do as they pleased, and protected them and their money. And that the price for those things is for those who created value in such a place are obligated to pay a proportional share for those things that allowed them to create value in the first place. Unfairness is when someone comes to such a place, creates value, and then tries to stiff everyone when it comes time to pay the piper. That would be you. You would take advantage of all the benefits society gave you and then you would not want to give anything back in return. We call that stealing. You're the thief. 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. Despite some missing punctuation and being a bit of a run-on sentence, what he wrote is perfectly intelligible to normal people. What he clearly is saying - and he is right, of course - is that unfairness is when leeches are enabled to suck value out of those who produce the value, giving nothing in return. You blabber all the time about successful people being dependent on "society" for their success. What does some criminal black crack whore welfare chiseler with five children from five different men contribute to "society", such that I owe her anything? What does she give to "society" in return for the largesse that you send federal agents to take out of my pocket to give to her? Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to "society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes. |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
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. |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2012-02-17, George Plimpton wrote:
Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to "society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes. Which one of your individual fellow citizens will provide you with health insurance when you reach old age? Please clarify, Mr. Plimpton. i |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/16/2012 8:04 PM, Ignoramus23626 wrote:
On 2012-02-17, George wrote: Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to "society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes. Which one of your individual fellow citizens will provide you with health insurance when you reach old age? Why do you think I expect anyone to provide me with that? Why do any of them expect me to provide them with food and rent money and medical care *today*, when they should be getting up off their lazy drugged-out asses and providing those things for themselves? Please clarify that, Mr. Touchhole. |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:04:10 -0600, Ignoramus23626
wrote: On 2012-02-17, George Plimpton wrote: Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to "society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes. Which one of your individual fellow citizens will provide you with health insurance when you reach old age? Please clarify, Mr. Plimpton. i I suspect that a better question would be, "why is medical care so high priced these days", or perhaps "why do my pills cost me more here then in Canada". -- Cheers, John B. |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
"Artemus" wrote:
"jk" wrote in message .. . If that isn't simple enough for you. Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing, are thieves. jk You misspelled "democrat". Art No, I don't think so. There are as Many Rwing leeches as Lwing leeches out there, and while there may be more D leeches than R leeches, there are still plenty. jk |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/16/2012 4:47 PM, jk wrote:
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. That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made as to how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of really knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken advantage of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. -or- If that isn't simple enough for you. Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing, are thieves. jk Those who want to take your valuables and in return give you nothing are thieves. Okay, we've both made pretty much true statements about those who take without giving back. So what does that have to do with anything? If you are implying that the lower classes in America are guilty of what you said then you see the poor as thieves. The problem with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to support your assumption. If you knew more about the reality of our economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed. I say that because it could well be you are listening to liars. Hawke |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
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 |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/16/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
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. Despite some missing punctuation and being a bit of a run-on sentence, what he wrote is perfectly intelligible to normal people. What he clearly is saying - and he is right, of course - is that unfairness is when leeches are enabled to suck value out of those who produce the value, giving nothing in return. Your problem is that you see things so simply when they are not. To begin, with what makes you think that I think it is fair for what you call leeches to take things from people who work for them and do nothing in return? I've never though that, ever. I don't think it's fair to just take things from people who have earned them fair and square. There really is such a thing as stealing. But you take it to extremes in what you call stealing. I keep it in perspective. You blabber all the time about successful people being dependent on "society" for their success. What does some criminal black crack whore welfare chiseler with five children from five different men contribute to "society", such that I owe her anything? What does she give to "society" in return for the largesse that you send federal agents to take out of my pocket to give to her? Same here, you mistakenly believe that I think some criminal taking advantage of everything and everybody just for her own selfish needs is acceptable. It's not. You don't think I know what a scum bag is, whether it's a man or woman? I'm here to tell you I sure do. Probably know better than you. I have a lot of experience in dealing with people on the bottom end of society. Many of them are worthless. But they are American citizens, which is something you have totally forgotten, so they do have some rights, which you would likely take away from them. Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. My notions are in the mainstream of thinking as far as what American society is. Yours are way out on the fringe. That being the case, of course you would see the middle of the road as being wrong. After all, you think the fringe view is right. You and a handful of others. I owe no money or anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to "society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. See, that's the oddball thinking that nobody else believes except for a handful of strange thinking people. Almost nobody thinks that way. Most normal people accept they are members of a society that is beneficial to them and they accept that they are obliged to contribute to because they see that they actually get quite a lot by being a part of society. Libertarians don't see things that way but they are a very small segment of society, which they belong to even though they would rather not, or so they say. The thing is the minute you lost all the things you get from society you would want them back. First off, with out society somebody would kill you and take everything you have. What I owe my fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes. Except that if you are an American you don't get to make the rules like that. If you are going to be an American you have to take it or leave it. You don't get to just pick and choose. You want to live here? Then you go along with what society says. If not you will be assessed a penalty, and you won't like the price either. So join us and play by our rules or get out. You don't make the rules here. That's society that says that's how it's going to be. Hawke |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
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. 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'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. |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/17/2012 2:08 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote: 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. Despite some missing punctuation and being a bit of a run-on sentence, what he wrote is perfectly intelligible to normal people. What he clearly is saying - and he is right, of course - is that unfairness is when leeches are enabled to suck value out of those who produce the value, giving nothing in return. Your problem is that you see things so simply when they are not. Nope - that would be you. You have an infantile black-and-white view of the world. To begin, with what makes you think that I think it is fair for what you call leeches to take things from people who work for them and do nothing in return? Because you support and hold a view of government that does that very thing. You blabber all the time about successful people being dependent on "society" for their success. What does some criminal black crack whore welfare chiseler with five children from five different men contribute to "society", such that I owe her anything? What does she give to "society" in return for the largesse that you send federal agents to take out of my pocket to give to her? Same here, you mistakenly believe that I think some criminal taking advantage of everything and everybody just for her own selfish needs is acceptable. It's not. You say that successful people owe a debt - a monetary debt - to "society", when what you mean is the money is to be taken from them and used to provide goodies to deadbeats who contribute nothing to society. Your bull**** about "society" is nothing but a smokescreen for redistribution from some *individuals* to other *individuals*. There is no such thing as "society" as you corruptly use the term. It is nothing but a description; it is not an entity. Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. My notions are in the mainstream More /argumentum ad populum/ - a fallacy. I owe no money or anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to "society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. See, that's the oddball thinking that nobody else believes It is correct thinking. What I owe my fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes. Except that if you are an American you don't get to make the rules like that. I do get to state the correct ethical values. The mob of deadbeats may violate those values and implied ethical rules, but it doesn't change the ethics of it. |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
Hawke wrote:
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. That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made as to how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of really knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken advantage of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty line, and some live above it, is unfair. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. And you would also understand (as pointed out before) that 1/2 = 1/2 no matter how much you call it unfair. Those who want to take your valuables and in return give you nothing are thieves. Okay, we've both made pretty much true statements about those who take without giving back. So what does that have to do with anything? It has to do with everything., but you will never see it. If you are implying that the lower classes in America are guilty of what you said then you see the poor as thieves. I don't agree that we have a "lower" class, apparently you do. How superior of you. I do see that we have a ruling class however. The problem with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to support your assumption. The problem is not only that you assume, but you maintain the assumption even in the face of contrary evidence. If you knew more about the reality of our economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed. You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and understand more. You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap". Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides. jk |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/17/2012 2:08 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****:
[empty left-wing simpleton blabber about "society"] Society is not an organic entity. It has no will, it does not act. Individual people have will and undertake actions. When they act in concert, it does not mean some "collective" is acting; it means individual persons are acting collectively, in pursuit of their *shared* individual interests. An individual person can voluntarily leave a society and go inhabit another place with a different society, or live in isolation in no society at all. Your eyeball cannot choose on its own to go live in someone else's eye socket, or to live in isolation. You really should shut up about "society" - all your beliefs and statements about it are wrong. |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
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. -- Cheers, John B. |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
"John B." wrote: Certainly they can go out and get a haircut. What most logical people object to is having the Government pay for the haircut. I've only been to a barber once since I got out of the Army in the '70s. I cut my own hair. -- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense. |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/17/2012 6:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"John B." wrote: Certainly they can go out and get a haircut. What most logical people object to is having the Government pay for the haircut. I've only been to a barber once since I got out of the Army in the '70s. I cut my own hair. Did you do your own lobotomy? |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
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. |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 02/17/2012 06:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
... 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. I think that I'm obligated to make a reasonable effort to save your life. For example, we're on the sidewalk talking, I glance up, and I see a big concrete pot falling off a balcony over us. Should I just step back? Is that what you demand I do, so that I don't force positive rights on you? |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/17/2012 7:04 PM, Dogulene wrote:
On 02/17/2012 06:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote: ... 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. I think that I'm obligated to make a reasonable effort to save your life. You aren't. I would be very grateful if you did, but you're under no obligation to do so. For example, we're on the sidewalk talking, I glance up, and I see a big concrete pot falling off a balcony over us. Should I just step back? Is that what you demand I do, so that I don't force positive rights on you? You wouldn't be "forcing positive rights" on me in that circumstance; you simply would be doing me a good deed. |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 02/17/2012 07:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/17/2012 7:04 PM, Dogulene wrote: I think that I'm obligated to make a reasonable effort to save your life. You aren't. I would be very grateful if you did, but you're under no obligation to do so. Hey, it appears you're right. At least here in the good ol' USofA. Much of the civilized world says I have a 'duty to rescue', but the US says eh, fuhgeddaboudit. U.S. example (includes possible metalworking content!) In an 1898 case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously held that after an eight year old boy negligently placed his hand in the defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for damages to the defendant's machine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue |
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:51:28 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:04:10 -0600, Ignoramus23626 wrote: On 2012-02-17, George Plimpton wrote: Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to "society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes. Which one of your individual fellow citizens will provide you with health insurance when you reach old age? Please clarify, Mr. Plimpton. i I suspect that a better question would be, "why is medical care so high priced these days" The biggest reason is that they can do so much more, so now they must, or patients will sue their socks off. , or perhaps "why do my pills cost me more here then in Canada". That one is easy. The United States is the only significant country in the world that does not have price controls on pharmaceuticals. We're free-marketers, you see.... -- Ed Huntress |
#25
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:11:37 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: "John B." wrote: Certainly they can go out and get a haircut. What most logical people object to is having the Government pay for the haircut. I've only been to a barber once since I got out of the Army in the '70s. I cut my own hair. Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society. -- Cheers, John B. |
#26
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 03:45:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:51:28 +0700, John B. wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:04:10 -0600, Ignoramus23626 wrote: On 2012-02-17, George Plimpton wrote: Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to "society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes. Which one of your individual fellow citizens will provide you with health insurance when you reach old age? Please clarify, Mr. Plimpton. i I suspect that a better question would be, "why is medical care so high priced these days" The biggest reason is that they can do so much more, so now they must, or patients will sue their socks off. I'm not sure that there isn't a bit of profit motivation involved there also. In Singapore and Thailand hospitals have become chains with branches all over the region. Apparently very profitable endeavors. , or perhaps "why do my pills cost me more here then in Canada". That one is easy. The United States is the only significant country in the world that does not have price controls on pharmaceuticals. We're free-marketers, you see.... Yes but. I'm fairly sure that Thailand does not have price control for drugs, of if they do then most shops are violating it :-) But I can still buy name brand medicines, with active patents, cheaper then in the U.S., or at least cheaper then I see posted at the on line pharmacy sites. If I go for genetics then of course it becomes a ridiculous comparison, but that is a whole different kettle of fish. -- Cheers, John B. |
#27
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
"John B." wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:11:37 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: "John B." wrote: Certainly they can go out and get a haircut. What most logical people object to is having the Government pay for the haircut. I've only been to a barber once since I got out of the Army in the '70s. I cut my own hair. Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society. I got a call the day after I got home offering me a job, but I had to put them off for a week to get settled back into the house. -- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense. |
#28
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:52:38 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 03:45:06 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:51:28 +0700, John B. wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:04:10 -0600, Ignoramus23626 wrote: On 2012-02-17, George Plimpton wrote: Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to "society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes. Which one of your individual fellow citizens will provide you with health insurance when you reach old age? Please clarify, Mr. Plimpton. i I suspect that a better question would be, "why is medical care so high priced these days" The biggest reason is that they can do so much more, so now they must, or patients will sue their socks off. I'm not sure that there isn't a bit of profit motivation involved there also. In Singapore and Thailand hospitals have become chains with branches all over the region. Apparently very profitable endeavors. , or perhaps "why do my pills cost me more here then in Canada". That one is easy. The United States is the only significant country in the world that does not have price controls on pharmaceuticals. We're free-marketers, you see.... Yes but. I'm fairly sure that Thailand does not have price control for drugs, of if they do then most shops are violating it :-) But I can still buy name brand medicines, with active patents, cheaper then in the U.S., or at least cheaper then I see posted at the on line pharmacy sites. In most countries, the prices being controlled are the manufacturers' wholesale prices. Some countries control retail prices, as well. If I go for genetics then of course it becomes a ridiculous comparison, but that is a whole different kettle of fish. The big pharma companies recover most of their development costs in the US, where there is no limit to what they can charge. Interestingly, the Europeans consume more pharmaceuticals per person than we do. -- Ed Huntress |
#29
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/17/2012 9:02 PM, Dogulene wrote:
On 02/17/2012 07:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 2/17/2012 7:04 PM, Dogulene wrote: I think that I'm obligated to make a reasonable effort to save your life. You aren't. I would be very grateful if you did, but you're under no obligation to do so. Hey, it appears you're right. At least here in the good ol' USofA. Much of the civilized world says I have a 'duty to rescue', but the US says eh, fuhgeddaboudit. And that is as it should be. The essence of liberty is that you are generally free to do as you wish. A society that establishes the precedent of telling you what you *must* do, as opposed to establishing a short list of things you *may not* do, is less free and is more likely to slide into totalitarianism. U.S. example (includes possible metalworking content!) In an 1898 case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously held that after an eight year old boy negligently placed his hand in the defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for damages to the defendant's machine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue |
#30
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
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. It implies nothing about any duties of others. You are the one claiming ownership of a right. You claim that somehow you obtained a right to live. Where you got this right is the question. It has nothing to do with the duty of others. They have no part in your claim to a right to life. So maybe you ought to learn what negative rights are before using the word. You sure misused it here. 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. Because that's all it is. Although you did succeed in making it sound authoritative. But it's still just your opinion and I must reiterate your opinions are nowhere near mainstream. 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. You're so full of your self you don't think anyone else has heard the term positive and negative rights but you. Well, bad news, I'm more than a little familiar with the terms. But you just want to play a game. You are just looking for excuses to justify your behavior while you deny it to others. The bottom line is always the same with you. Whatever it is that you do is okay and you have a right to do it, or so you claim. Whatever anyone else does, especially the people receiving any government benefits, you don't find they have any rights. 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. So just keep in mind you are calling about half of the American people thieves and leeches. Which is just another "out there" opinion of yours. Positive and negative rights, what a joke. Hawke |
#31
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/17/2012 6:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"John B." wrote: Certainly they can go out and get a haircut. What most logical people object to is having the Government pay for the haircut. I've only been to a barber once since I got out of the Army in the '70s. I cut my own hair. I bet it looks like it too. Hawke |
#32
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
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. |
#33
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
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 |
#34
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote:
That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made as to how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of really knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken advantage of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty line, and some live above it, is unfair. Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily defined. A specific process is used to determine exactly what constitutes "poverty" so it's not arbitrary. Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means equal. If you mean that half of the people have less than the other half then by definition that is not fair. If you are using fair in a moral or legal way then it can mean something completely different. So it all depends on how you are using the word fair. There is a lot of leeway in the word fair. So it all depends on which context you use it in. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. And you would also understand (as pointed out before) that 1/2 = 1/2 no matter how much you call it unfair. It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no. Those who want to take your valuables and in return give you nothing are thieves. Okay, we've both made pretty much true statements about those who take without giving back. So what does that have to do with anything? It has to do with everything., but you will never see it. Since you aren't able to even state why it has anything to do with anything else then I must conclude that it's something you can't see either. Or is it you just can speak it? If you are implying that the lower classes in America are guilty of what you said then you see the poor as thieves. I don't agree that we have a "lower" class, apparently you do. How superior of you. I do see that we have a ruling class however. So according to you we do have a ruling class but we don't have a lower class. How about a middle class? Do we have one of those? How about the working class? do we have one of those? I'm sorry to break you the news but America is a class society and always has been. Even you admit to some classes so there you go, the only difference is you see less classes than others do. Others who know more about it than you. The problem with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to support your assumption. The problem is not only that you assume, but you maintain the assumption even in the face of contrary evidence. Your problem is that you are not presenting any evidence that anything I've said is demonstrably wrong or is incorrect. Show me some proof I am wrong. Your opinions are proof of nothing. If you knew more about the reality of our economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed. You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and understand more. It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude where you got it from. I listen to what people on the right say all the time. I'm a political junky. So when you say the same things what am I supposed to think? You saying the same exact things are just coincidental? Come off it. You think what you are saying is original? I've heard it before. You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap". Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides. Your mind seems to be one that makes judgments without evidence. Show me some time where you showed some proof that supported your statements. I've seen nothing. Hawke |
#35
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/17/2012 2:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:08 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****: [empty left-wing simpleton blabber about "society"] Society is not an organic entity. It has no will, it does not act. Individual people have will and undertake actions. When they act in concert, it does not mean some "collective" is acting; it means individual persons are acting collectively, in pursuit of their *shared* individual interests. You have no clue what teamwork is. An individual person can voluntarily leave a society and go inhabit another place with a different society, or live in isolation in no society at all. Your eyeball cannot choose on its own to go live in someone else's eye socket, or to live in isolation. Society can banish an individual member or they can imprison them or they can kill them. The individual doesn't possess the power to do anything if society forbids it. You're fantasy about the individual is laughable. All individuals are under the power of the society. You can't do anything without the approval of society unless it's a triviality. You really should shut up about "society" - all your beliefs and statements about it are wrong. You mean in a layman's opinion, right? You know what they say don't you? You're entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. Apparently you believe that your opinions are facts. Especially when they concern society or individual and collective behavior. Clearly you have no education or training in sociology. You don't even know what the word means and you don't even believe it exists so that is surely a case where you have provided your own facts. I'm sure any Ph.D in sociology would tell you that your views are not right. But you would tell him he knows nothing about sociology. So there the rub. You know more than anyone, at least you think you do. As long as you do that you'll never learn anything. But hey, since you already know everything that shouldn't be a problem. Hawke |
#36
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
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. |
#37
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 12:09 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote: That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made as to how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of really knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken advantage of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty line, and some live above it, is unfair. Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily defined. Irrelevant. However and by whom the line is drawn, there is nothing "unfair" about some people living above it and some living below it. Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means equal. No, it doesn't. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. And you would also understand (as pointed out before) that 1/2 = 1/2 no matter how much you call it unfair. It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no. The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal. The problem with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to support your assumption. The problem is not only that you assume, but you maintain the assumption even in the face of contrary evidence. Your problem is that you are not presenting any evidence that anything I've said is demonstrably wrong or is incorrect. It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of "fairness" is worthless bull****. If you knew more about the reality of our economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed. You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and understand more. It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude where you got it from. No, that's a completely invalid assumption. Maybe Rush got it from him. I listen to what people on the right say all the time. I'm a political junky. You are a politically naïve fool. You have a little bit of exposure to undergraduate Marxist political theory; in no way do you understand real politics. You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap". Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides. Exactly. Hawke-Ptooey doesn't know even a minute fraction of what he pretends to know. |
#38
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 12:23 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****:
On 2/17/2012 2:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 2/17/2012 2:08 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****: [empty left-wing simpleton blabber about "society"] Society is not an organic entity. It has no will, it does not act. Individual people have will and undertake actions. When they act in concert, it does not mean some "collective" is acting; it means individual persons are acting collectively, in pursuit of their *shared* individual interests. You have no clue what teamwork is. I do know exactly what it is, having been part of many teams. It is the concerted effort of *individual* persons working toward a *shared*, not "collective", goal. They do it because they see it as in the *individual* interest of each of them, and that doing so together is more effective than doing so as individual persons. That's what teamwork is. An individual person can voluntarily leave a society and go inhabit another place with a different society, or live in isolation in no society at all. Your eyeball cannot choose on its own to go live in someone else's eye socket, or to live in isolation. Society can banish an individual member No, "society" cannot do that. Every time you say "society" does this or that, you are *wrong*. Society is not an organic entity - it does nothing. All individuals are under the power of the society. False. You can't do anything without the approval of society unless it's a triviality. False. You really should shut up about "society" - all your beliefs and statements about it are wrong. You mean in a layman's opinion, right? I mean in absolute terms. The reason is because your statement of what society is is 100% wrong. |
#39
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 11:43 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
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. Oh, you were "endowed" with it, huh? Just by being born you got it? Was that like magic? It sounds kind of supernatural to me. 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. So you're claiming god or creator or whatever name you want to use for some non human being gave you this right. Is that it? An invisible being "gave" you the right to life? You don't admit to getting any rights from society or government but you do get them from the "spiritual being". Man, is that convenient or what? Excuse me if I can't help laughing at you. You Mr. rational and logical and all telling me where your right to live came from. Ha, Ha, why don't you just say you made it up and be done with it because that's just as believable. It has nothing to do with the duty of others. It *defines* duties of others, Hawke-Ptooey. Your right defines their duties? Doesn't that kind of make you boss of them? 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. You're to thick to see that others not interfering with you is one thing, and you having a right to live at all is another? They're different. How did you miss something so obvious? 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. Yes, so you say. Other people say the opposite. Those people say that duty came from the same place where you say you got the right to live. That is funny isn't it? 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. But the creator says you do and didn't he give you the right to live? 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. So you set yourself up as the highest and best judge of whatever is to be done. Only you making a choice is what makes anything right or wrong. And you wonder why you find your thinking not acceptable to most people. Don't bother with the logical fallacy argument either because in this case it can be one or the many who say you're wrong because we're talking democracy here and you are the minority. That makes you wrong. 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. What kind of a person rejects information and calls it bull**** when they clearly have no idea if it's right or wrong? A dumb ****, doofus, fool, idiot, or many others would do. Take your pick. Hawke |
#40
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 2:33 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:11:37 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: "John B." wrote: Certainly they can go out and get a haircut. What most logical people object to is having the Government pay for the haircut. I've only been to a barber once since I got out of the Army in the '70s. I cut my own hair. Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society. So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh? Hawke |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|