Agreed 100% with her removal of society. For a right to be inalienable then the logic has to hold up in all iterations. Let's say one makes the claim that All Swans are white. If one finds a swan that is black then the claim that All Swans are white has been falsified.If one can find a counter example that disproves a claim or maxim then the maxim or claim can't hold up. The idea of liberty cannot be inalienable because it fails to be upheld as inalienable in at least one iteration which is the typhoid Mary situation. To claim liberty as an inalienable which has been demonstrated to be true in all iterations due to other people's rights as well is falsified. One does have liberty within certain constraints but to claim it to be inalienable can't be accepted as truth. It makes no sense to stand by the claim that liberty is an inalienable right. What I am saying is that there is a black Swan. They made the correct decision to quarantine her and by not treating her liberty as inalienable. Therefore, the lesson is that black swans exist so therefore one can't accept as true that All Swans are White.
Liberty is not inalienablele. Inalienable Rights is spelled out in the Bill of Rights, leaving States to decide, but prohibits the Federal govt form usurping said Rights.
Speaking of Bill of Rights, looking at the first amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Here is something I don't get. Why do people claim that others are banning their free speech when it only applies to congress? Why can't state legislatures ban certain speech? Why can't forum mods censure as well? Let's say I own an apartment complex could I ban profanity as a stipulation for living there? No one, not even I, is congress but only congress is congress. It makes no sense but people apply the first amendment to other groups besides congress. Why?
The reason I asked this question is so that I can achieve completion in thought and in deed. To do these things one must free one self from error. Contradictions are ideas that are and aren't in the same instance. Contradictions are a form of error. To achieve completion one must free oneself from this form error. If socialism and capitalism are free from contradiction then they're complete. If not, expunge the contradictions. If expunging is not possible then discard the ideas and thoughts. To remove logical contradictions is the path to completion. If a set of inalienable rights are inconsistent to each other then they are not inalienable since to be something one can't not be something either. For example, Typhoid Mary. She claimed to have liberty to do what she did. Yet what she did was killing people. Her liberty had to be taken away to save lives.
There are some Christians who claim that our inalienable rights come from God and come from the bible. Our constitution and declaration of independence is biblically and God derived. If one looks at the bible, it is a collection of stories that teach a point as to what happens if one disobeys God and what happens if one obeys. In the bible God has given series of commands over the centuries to various people. Where does it say in the bible that one has a right to anything whatsoever? What our founding fathers and other philosophers and intellectuals did was took these commands and made them into rights. A command and edict by God becomes a right.For example, thou shalt not kill somehow transforms into a right to life. Thou shalt not do x or Thou shalt do x is equal to having x or non-x. This is what our founding fathers and other intellectuals do with all of their ruminations on rights and liberties at least those who claim it is biblical. Does this hold up? If it does shouldn’t it be consistent? God also wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. My question for conservative Christians, the colonial traditionalists and strict constitutionalists is as follows. If one has the right to life which is based upon a command and an edict by God.If clothing and feeding the hungry is also a command by God then by logical consistency doesn’t one have the RIGHT to be clothed, fed and sheltered if one cannot clothe, feed or shelter himself? Why do colonial traditionalists, strict constitutionalists, Christian conservatives, and personal responsibility advocates have such inconsistent standards? If one must derive a right from a command or edict in one sense then shouldn’t one derive rights from commands from God across the whole board? Why or Why not?
If you are familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand, she posits that there is only one "right" in all of existence - that is the right to one's own life. All other so-called rights are derived from that one basic right. Ironically, even though Rand was an atheist, her concept fits nicely with our founders belief in God given unalienable rights. If there really is only one true "right" - the right to ones own life - and that life is, as Christian believe, a gift from God, then that right is truly God given and unalienable - as are the rights that are derived from it. Yes, you do have a "right" to be clothed and fed etc, but you don't have a right to anyone else's food or shelter or clothing just as they don't have a "right" to yours. That is where voluntary cooperation comes in.
Since then I have wondered if Ayn was anti-semitic. I don't recall anything about it in her books. Maybe it went over my head.
Forgetting welfare programs and the morality of them for a second and let's touch upon an idea you brought up which is voluntary cooperation. Problem is, is that we already tried this with the Articles of Confederation. What you want is unanimous or 100% consent by the governed. This has been proven to not work especially since the federal government could not collect taxes to pay off the war debts and put down rebellions without an ok from all of the states. An all voluntary cooperative society cannot work especially if it going to be a coherent society in which things can get done that need to get done. None of us agree upon everything and do all members on this board agree with all of the policies on this board? I am sure there have been squabbles and hurt feelings. If you all don't agree with what the rules are here and how things are done then any member doesn't have to come back and can go to another board of their liking.I wrote this here a while back about Ayn Rand and social security and she still collected social security even though she believed it was immoral. This is my rebuttal. https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/my-response-to-mr-ghate/By the nature of staying in our society we implicitly agree that we may not get what we want and we may have to compromise since 100% agreement and consent is impossible. The problem with the old Soviet Union and East Germany is that they built a wall to prevent people from leaving. Back to the idea of welfare and you said "Yes, you do have a "right" to be clothed and fed etc, but you don't have a right to anyone else's food or shelter or clothing just as they don't have a "right" to yours. " This has been agreed to without unanimous consent, which is impossible to obtain in almost any avenue outside of this, and if one does not agree with how things are now one can add one's voice to the mix like you all are doing or one can vote with his feet and attempt to create a new society with 100% cooperation. I may complain a lot about how people are and about society in general and how things can be better for people and how things are unfair but there is one thing I love about American society and other societies like ours. We have a checks and balance type system, not only within our government but from people to the government, government to the people, people to people. We all check each other and no one has absolute power. No one is going to agree upon everything but those who are here in the USA and other socities which don't block their citizens from leaving and have not left has implicitly consented to be govern by the laws done through process of checks and balances through our various branches of governments and by the people themselves in which we can all put our two cents in, write about, vote, write our representatives, etc, etc.
Slow day at the office?The only point I was trying to make was in line with the question posed by this thread - do our rights come from "God" or the State?As far as State run welfare being "moral", what is "moral" about a government agent sticking a gun in your face and saying "GIVE"? While it is true, you will never get 100% of humans to agree to anything, what is the problem with letting the ones who want to give money to the poor do as they wish and leaving the ones who don't want to give to the poor alone? Private organizations are far better, and far more efficient at this than the Government.They are also far better at discerning who actually needs help and who doesn't and are better at helping lift people out of poverty. The Government, on the other hand is often rife with corruption and has a vested interest in maintaining an underclass which is perpetually dependent upon Government handouts! Not to mention, it really isn't the Government's job.
Prove it! Hehe, just channeling Cube. No offense Cube, just teasing. You do understand teasing, right?
Slow day at the office?
The only point I was trying to make was in line with the question posed by this thread - do our rights come from "God" or the State?
As far as State run welfare being "moral", what is "moral" about a government agent sticking a gun in your face and saying "GIVE"?
While it is true, you will never get 100% of humans to agree to anything, what is the problem with letting the ones who want to give money to the poor do as they wish and leaving the ones who don't want to give to the poor alone?
Private organizations are far better, and far more efficient at this than the Government.
They are also far better at discerning who actually needs help and who doesn't and are better at helping lift people out of poverty.
The Government, on the other hand is often rife with corruption ...
...and has a vested interest in maintaining an underclass which is perpetually dependent upon Government handouts!
Not to mention, it really isn't the Government's job.
Then, by this logic having a military, hospitals, fire departments, police departments, etc is immoral since the government has to stick a gun in your face and say "GIVE" to fund these things. If a is a member of z and b and c are members of z and if the superset of these subsets is true then all of these members must be true as well. If something is true in one iteration then why isn't it true in all iterations?
A lot of liberals did not support the war in Iraq and disagreed with it. By your logic, why put a gun to their head to force them to pay for it through their tax dollars? For a given maxim, in order for it to hold up then it must be true in all iterations.
How do you know?How do you know?
So are private institutions or at least some of them.
What is the vested interest?
Who is the definer of what these things are, what the Government's job is, and how do you know they had every relevant piece of data to come up with these things? What was the criteria that made the data relevant?