Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[chewybrian]

It is objectively true that the sort of rights that establish positive obligations bring with them the same sort of labor-coercion that makes slavery undesirable. That is an objective statement. Whether or not we think slavery is undesirable is "subjective," if you like, but those who are arguing for positive, non-natural rights are arguing for a form of slavery.

I see what you are saying, but I think it is quite overstated. It's not as if I am advocating forced labor for everyone to build homes for the homeless. I am saying that we should use a small portion of our tax revenue to pay for the homes. We don't even have to take in extra tax dollars, but could instead reallocate some of the money we already have.

Do you think that all taxation and government spending amounts to slavery, then? I had no say in whether I got to keep a few bucks in my pocket or they were used to build a hospital. But someday I might need the hospital, even if I am too overconfident to think so now. Similarly, I might need government housing one day. What is the difference between the two projects, other than your perception of the one which might benefit you best? Or, do you declare them both to be "slavery"?

[Leontiskos]

It's important to understand that there are two separate questions in play: 1) Whether the state should fully fund healthcare, and 2) Whether there is a right to healthcare.

It is objectively true that the sort of rights that establish positive obligations bring with them the same sort of labor-coercion that makes slavery undesirable. That is an objective statement. Whether or not we think slavery is undesirable is "subjective," if you like, but those who are arguing for positive, non-natural rights are arguing for a form of slavery.

I see what you are saying, but I think it is quite overstated. It's not as if I am advocating forced labor for everyone to build homes for the homeless. I am saying that we should use a small portion of our tax revenue to pay for the homes. We don't even have to take in extra tax dollars, but could instead reallocate some of the money we already have.

First, note that we are still talking about labor, for money is exchangeable labor. There's not much difference between forcing someone to labor without remuneration and taking their money without recompense.

I am saying that we should use a small portion of our tax revenue to pay for the homes.

This word, "should," really highlights the key difference between question (1) and question (2) in my last post. If there is a right to housing then we must pay for other people's homes. If there is no such right then it is possible that we should pay for other people's homes, but it is debatable in a way that infringing upon rights is not debatable.

It seems like you are speaking to question (1), not question (2). You are trying to muster arguments to convince a democratic polity to establish a particular kind of welfare state. You are not claiming that failure to establish that welfare state would be an infringement on human rights.

Do you think that all taxation and government spending amounts to slavery, then? I had no say in whether I got to keep a few bucks in my pocket or they were used to build a hospital. But someday I might need the hospital, even if I am too overconfident to think so now. Similarly, I might need government housing one day. What is the difference between the two projects, other than your perception of the one which might benefit you best? Or, do you declare them both to be "slavery"?

Taxes are a roundabout way of paying for things that we benefit from. Your idea here turns on the idea that you receive your "right to housing" because you pay taxes. But this is confused, for rights are not purchased. This implicit idea of yours that rights are purchased usually ends up meaning that the wealthy have rights while the poor don't. Again, you are conflating questions (1) and (2).

The basic answer to your question is simple: not all taxation is labor-coercion. There are cases where it can be, such as during the American Revolution when taxes were imposed absent representation.

Now supposing a majoritarian democracy achieves a slim majority in order to implement an unpopular tax program, is this a form of labor-coercion on the 49% who disagree? Yes, in a way (and depending on the circumstances), but it is a less grievous form of labor coercion than one based in so-called "rights." This is because the putative basis for this labor coercion is some piece of democratically enacted legislation, whereas the putative basis for labor coercion based on "rights" is something intrinsic to human beings. For example, it is worse to say that blacks must serve whites because whites have a right to slaves, than to say that blacks must serve whites because there is a piece of (positive) legislation that says they must. These facts are instantiated in governmental systems, such as in the fact that the U.S. Constitution makes much harder to repeal the Bill of Rights than to abrogate some piece of legislation from Congress.

[Gertie]

GE

Gertie wrote: ↑Today, 12:49 pm
Nearly everybody now agrees human slavery is wrong. A couple of hundred years ago the numbers would've been different, and it probably wouldn't have been a morally obvious point to you and I if we'd lived then. In the dominant western societies most people (women and black people) then had a legal status akin to property. Now we've extended our notion of who has what rights, even to some other species, and in areas beyond property ownership.

Broadening the class of entities who have rights does not constitute a change in the meaning of "rights." That meaning hasn't changed in a very long time. The expansion of the rights-holding class to include Africans, women, and even some animals turns on our evolved understanding of what constitutes a moral agent. If we someday encounter Betelgeusians who we decide qualify as moral agents then they will have rights too, and the word will mean the same thing.

[/quote]

No it isn't. Your personal views of morality centre around whether someone is a moral agent (someone able to make moral choices), and so in this case whether someone is eligible for Rights. But that's not everyone's view of morality or everyone's moral foundation for Rights. It's not mine for example. Hence the concept of women, 'races', children, animals, or people with severe mental disabilities having rights isn't a problem for me. But it is for you, if you believe someone has to be a moral agent capable of making moral decisions, to be eligible for Rights.

The fact that a bunch of powerful white blokes were eventually convinced they aren't the only ones capable of making moral choices, hence slavery is wrong, is your interpretation of the basis for which rights were extended beyond their group and eg slavery abolished in the western countries practicing it, but that doesn't make it the only possible moral foundation for rights and the abolition of slavery.

We could do this because Rights aren't a fixed thing, they don't exist independantly of humans 'out there' somewhere for us to discover, and once we've found them that's settled. People invented the concept of Rights, and a very good concept it is too. Because it offers a notion of certain entitlements and protections no matter what the person/s in charge thinks (including in democracies where the 'tyranny of the majority' is an issue).

I agree. The notion of rights is certainly a human invention. So are the rules of baseball and relativity theory. But whether a right exists or not is an objective matter, just as is whether a fly ball in baseball is fair or foul, or whether mass increases with velocity.

The football ''off side'' rule has changed, so since then people haven't really being playing football, and shouldn't be allowed to call it football, because football objectively has the original off-side rule? This is how we should treat rights too?

I don't know about baseball, but I think football originated with villagers kicking a pig's bladder around or something, so only that is ''Natural Football'' and everything else is not allowed to be considered the One True Football according to this principle.

In reality, our concept of football is broad enough to encompass changes in rules, numbers of players, who is allowed to play, size of pitch, etc. It's up to us.

Likewise with the concept of Rights, there are key core features, but over time we've thought about the concept in different ways, not just in terms of Natural Rights.

Wiki -
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.

Rights are often considered fundamental to any civilization, for they are regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived".[1]
Contents

There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of this principle, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial.

One way to get an idea of the multiple understandings and senses of the term is to consider different ways it is used. Many diverse things are claimed as rights:

A right to life, a right to choose; a right to vote, to work, to strike; a right to one phone call, to dissolve parliament, to operate a forklift, to asylum, to equal treatment before the law, to feel proud of what one has done; a right to exist, to sentence an offender to death, to launch a nuclear first strike, to carry a concealed weapon, to a distinct genetic identity; a right to believe one's own eyes, to pronounce the couple husband and wife, to be left alone, to go to hell in one's own way.[1]

There are likewise diverse possible ways to categorize rights, such as:

Who is alleged to have the right: Children's rights, animal rights, workers' rights, states' rights, the rights of peoples. What actions or states or objects the asserted right pertains to: Rights of free expression, to pass judgment; rights of privacy, to remain silent; property rights, bodily rights. Why the rightholder (allegedly) has the right: Moral rights spring from moral reasons, legal rights derive from the laws of the society, customary rights are aspects of local customs. How the asserted right can be affected by the rightholder's actions: The inalienable right to life, the forfeitable right to liberty, and the waivable right that a promise be kept.[1]

There has been considerable debate about what this term means within the academic community, particularly within fields such as philosophy, law, deontology, logic, political science, and religion.

That some peeps at some point came up with the concept of 'Natural Rights' and defined it such n such a way, doesn't mean that's the only way which Rights can be conceptualised, and it isn't.

True. One can always "re-conceptualize" --- i.e., propose some idiosyncratic meaning for --- any word. That tends to make communication difficult. Those with new ideas should coin new words to denote them. And, of course, "rights" as classically understood have a clear and palpable moral basis. Most of the "re-conceptualizations" which have been proffered are attempts to rationalize violating that moral constraint.

see above.

Natural Rights have no special status above any other notion of rights.

That's true. A "natural right" is simply one's right to one's natural possessions --- one's life, one's body, one's native talents, etc. But they have the same basis and the same moral status as other ("common") rights.

If we want to philosophically ground Rights, or a particular Right, in Morality, then we have to make a moral case . . .

Indeed we do. The moral precept upon which the classical conception of rights rests is that one ought not inflict losses or injuries on other moral agents. But of course, many --- robbers, thieves, murderers, rapists, fraudsters, plunderers and pillagers, conquerors, and most governments --- reject that precept.

If we live in a real world of sometimes competing and mutually exclusive rights and goods, which we do, then morally responsible governments have to find ways of coming up with rules and systems which compromise in morally acceptable ways for the people they govern. In democracies this plays out via government by consent. It's messy, imperfect and not morally 'crisp'. Rights impose obligations not all of us agree with or personally benefit from. Democratic politics is an ongoing negotiation which individuals can see as doing better or worse, morally and otherwise. But as there is no objectively observable tablet of stone with the solution to a perfect moral system applicable to everybody in every circumstance for all time, for us to strive to achieve, this is inevitable.

For example, the concept of Natural Rights centres around the moral values of Individualism and Freedom, Me and Mine. This chimes with your Libertarian preferences. The concept of Equal Rights centres around the moral value of Fairness, which chimes with my Social(ist) preferences. These are rooted in two different approaches to the concept of morality and the role of Rights. We can debate individually, and they play out in politics which affects us both - and we both get a vote on which takes precedence in particular aspects of government. Neither have an 'objective' status which trumps the other.

[chewybrian]

Taxes are a roundabout way of paying for things that we benefit from. Your idea here turns on the idea that you receive your "right to housing" because you pay taxes. But this is confused, for rights are not purchased. This implicit idea of yours that rights are purchased usually ends up meaning that the wealthy have rights while the poor don't. Again, you are conflating questions (1) and (2).

But, on what basis, other than tradition, do you claim to be able to decide which ideas become "rights" and which are luxuries which we choose to purchase? Rights are what we decide they are, and this is always subject to change (gay rights, for example). So, there is no effective difference between your category 1 and 2, other than your opinion that some rights are more self-evident than others, or that we have recognized them in the past. You have seemingly enshrined certain rights as permanent and perfect when they are neither.

I understand, for example, how the founding fathers said that some rights were inalienable, that men were given them from God and no other man could take them away (and then they took them away from most people). It was a nice sentiment they had, and it would have been even better if it applied to everyone, not just their favored slice of the population. But either way, it is only an opinion they were stating about what "should" be the rights of every man. They were not objectively correct, no matter how broadly others agree with them, or how long such rights are maintained.

The (alleged, possible) rights to: shelter from the elements, or food, medical care or education are no more unreasonable than the right for you to own land or a car. We could just as easily decide that you had to use public transportation, that all housing was public, or whatever other permutation suits our whim. Whatever we declare to be a right will be an obligation on others. In effect, it will be slavery for others either way.

We have to pay for virtually all the rights we enjoy in one way or another, and of course the wealthy are more able to exercise their rights than the rest of us. I can reduce my tax burden through a mortgage interest deduction or 401k contributions, but the billionaire has hundreds of other ways to reduce his taxes to a level I could never reach, even though he has the means to pay a greater share and still come out ahead.

[mystery]

We have to pay for virtually all the rights we enjoy in one way or another, and of course the wealthy are more able to exercise their rights than the rest of us. I can reduce my tax burden through a mortgage interest deduction or 401k contributions, but the billionaire has hundreds of other ways to reduce his taxes to a level I could never reach, even though he has the means to pay a greater share and still come out ahead.

Is any billionaire pay less tax than an average income earner? who is that?

perhaps the percentage is different or less, but who actually pays less tax by counting the actual money.

usually the more wealthy pay more for more tax than any common earns.

[mystery]

No one usually argues that the things we want as rights are desirable. Also that it is "good" for all to have those.

The argument is when a person "A" tells another person "B" that they MUST give something so that a third person "C" can have it because the third person has the right. in this case person "A" is being a dictator and oppressive to person "B".

For example: all people have the right to a car. person "A" forces person "B" to give a car to "C". In this example person, "A" and "C" are being abusive to person "B" and literally stealing from them. As two outnumber one, A and C can democratically do this.

A car is just one example, health care, and homes are another.

No question or argument exists about the goodness of C to receive or have or get whatever is the items or service. The issue is that A does not provide it themselves, but instead force B to do it. I really like the example someone else used about sex. Use SEX as the item instead of car and walk it through the scenario of B being forced to provide, Terrible right??

[Leontiskos]

Taxes are a roundabout way of paying for things that we benefit from. Your idea here turns on the idea that you receive your "right to housing" because you pay taxes. But this is confused, for rights are not purchased. This implicit idea of yours that rights are purchased usually ends up meaning that the wealthy have rights while the poor don't. Again, you are conflating questions (1) and (2).

But, on what basis, other than tradition, do you claim to be able to decide which ideas become "rights" and which are luxuries which we choose to purchase?

If you follow my argument the point is that nothing you purchase can be a right, because rights are not purchased by definition.

Also, to say that things which entail positive obligations are not rights is not an appeal to tradition. The point is that positive rights-obligations are absurd because they entail things like labor coercion and the notion that we purchase rights. All (natural) rights are therefore negative rights. I haven't made a single claim about which particular rights are legitimate. I've only given an argument about what sorts of things can't be rights.

Rights are what we decide they are, and...

That's not true and this thread is chock-full of arguments showing why. You are obviously free to continue to ignore them. Note how much your claim here sounds like something a dictator would say right before they enact a genocide. Again, rights are not based on fiat, and if they were they would provide no actual protection. If rights are what you decide they are then today you can decide that there is a right to be a homosexual and tomorrow someone else can decide that there is a right to kill homosexuals. This fiat business is quite silly.

We have to pay for virtually all the rights we enjoy in one way or another...

No we don't. GE Morton is right: you are confusing natural rights with civil rights or entitlements.

If an illegal alien who does not pay taxes is assaulted the police will protect their right to life independent of the fact that they do not pay taxes. They may be deported, but their right to life is protected for free. They don't have to pay.

Nevertheless, the protection of a right is different from a right itself. The simple right to life means that people shouldn't murder you, even in a state of nature. But humans are terrible and they ignore rights all the time, so some people will attempt to murder you anyway. At that point we establish institutions to protect the pre-existing right. Note well: the right existed before the institution to safeguard it was created. This is crucial, and is the entire basis of the idea that we can have rights that restrict the government. If rights were just something created by governments then there is no fundamental reason why governments would need to respect rights.

[GE Morton]

GE Morton is a rights fundamentalist. Instead of arguing that his view of rights conduces human welfare and happiness, he simply explains what he means by "rights', just as a Christian Fundamentalist might quote the Bible to explain God's will.

Wow . . . you're really stretching there. Explaining what a term means is hardly parallel to invoking a supernatural entity to justify a belief. The meaning I gave, BTW, is not my meaning. It is the meaning that term has had since the advent of common law; the meaning assumed by Locke, Blackstone, Thomas Paine, and the other architects of classical liberalism; the meaning assumed in the US Declaration of Independence, and the meaning assumed in civil courts every day of the week. In any dispute about property ownership the court will try to trace title back to the producer or discoverer of the good in dispute. If you sell a house, the buyer (or his bank) will demand a title search, tracing back to the builder of the house --- the first possessor --- to assure that you have a right to sell it. Likewise with a car --- your right to it is gained through a chain of consent tracing from the manufacturer (the first possessor) to the dealer to you.

The first possession principle is assumed in the adages, "first-come, first served," and, "finders, keepers." It is a principle your parents no doubt tried to teach you at age 4 or 5, when you swiped your little sister's cookie.

The term itself gives it's meaning --- you have a right to something you acquired righteously, and now rightfully possess. You are rightfully in possession of it if you acquired it without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else.

And, of course, (real) rights, to the extent they are observed and enforced, do indeed foster human welfare and happiness, by prohibiting others from killing you, injuring you, or seizing or destroying the fruits of your labor --- constraints which, if not generally observed, would render civil society impossible.

Morton merely explains his (iffy) assumptions over and over and over again, instead of arguing in their support.

There are no "assumptions" in the analysis of rights I gave. And I've given their moral basis --- to preclude moral agents from inflicting harms or losses on one another and interfering with one another's innocent pursuits of happiness.

[GE Morton]

It's been clear all along what you believe, but it is not clear why you think it is fact rather than opinion. My opinion, which I don't claim to be fact, is that we should strike a balance between allowing people to advance themselves through hard work and protecting them from misfortune when we can. For example, providing health insurance for everyone is not a theft from people who don't want to pay. It is a respect for everyone's right to life and an admission that we are all vulnerable and therefore can benefit from mutual cooperation and protection.

Well, sorry, Chewey, but it is theft, it is stealing. To "steal" is to take another's property without right or permission.

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=steal

Any taking that satisfies that definition is theft, regardless of who is the thief and what he aims to do with the loot. You seem to think that if a thief donates his loot to some cause you consider worthy, the taking is no longer a theft. There is no such exception in that definition. It is another attempt to re-define a common word with a perfectly clear meaning.

Every person is perfectly free to contribute to any charitable cause he wishes, to any extent he wishes. We are not free, however, to force others to support our favorite charities.

[GE Morton]

The right to bear arms is controversial and limited in most countries. Why should I assume it to be somehow a God-given universal moral tenet?

No one here, and certainly not me, has argued that the right to keep and bear arms, or any other right, is a "God-given universal moral tenet."

You really need to address the arguments actually made, not silly straw men of your own invention. I've given, several times, the moral underpinning of the classical understanding of "rights." Perhaps you can scroll back to one of those and respond to it relevantly.

p.s. Morton seems to approve of reparations paid by the British Government to slave owners when the slaves were freed. Perhaps (revolutionary I know) the reparations should have been paid to the freed slaves, instead. Who cares about the losses suffered by the slave owners?

Reparations were paid because owning slaves was legal under British law at the time the slaves were purchased, and the purchasers relied on that legal regime when they made their investments. Had slavery in the US been abolished under similar peaceful circumstances, rather than in the course of a war, the US would likely also have paid compensation, per the 5th Amendment.

I agree, however, that the freed slaves had a prima facie case for lawsuits against their former masters, for unlawful imprisonment and other violations of their civil rights.

[GE Morton]

No one will die of thirst because of my discovery and possession of the lake. If they are dying it will be because they had no other source of water, even before I discovered the lake. Had I not discovered it they would continue to die. But now, due to my discovery, they have a means to avoid dying, i.e., by paying me for water.

Rights come from morality, and this ain't it. This is just the Ayn Rand garbage I mentioned before.

Well, you haven't refuted any of the statements you quoted above. Are any of them false? Are you now retreating to ad hominems?

I missed this part before. If you discovered a source of water that people need to live, then you have a moral obligation to share it with those in need. Saying that they can pay for your water to live assumes they can and amounts to saying "Let them eat cake".

You still haven't argued that any of my statements above are false.

But your claim above, "If you discovered a source of water that people need to live, then you have a moral obligation to share it with those in need," will require a powerful moral argument; it becomes very problematic when generalized. Do farmers have a moral obligation to share their crops (without payment, of course) with those in need? The researchers and manufacturers of useful drugs? Do the builders of aircraft, railroads, and automobiles have a moral obligation to provide free transportation to those in need? How many crops, drugs, airplanes, or cars do you think would be produced if that were the case?

No, no one has any moral obligation provide anyone with anything they may need, absent some specific effectuating circumstance (such as being responsible for the recipient's inability to meet his own needs).*

That presumed moral obligation is an atavism, a relic of the tribal era of human societies dragged into the modern world primarily by religions. It is unworkable and rationally indefensible.

* There is a conditional duty to aid, applicable in certain circumstances. More on that if you're interested.

[chewybrian]

We have to pay for virtually all the rights we enjoy in one way or another, and of course the wealthy are more able to exercise their rights than the rest of us. I can reduce my tax burden through a mortgage interest deduction or 401k contributions, but the billionaire has hundreds of other ways to reduce his taxes to a level I could never reach, even though he has the means to pay a greater share and still come out ahead.

Is any billionaire pay less tax than an average income earner? who is that?

perhaps the percentage is different or less, but who actually pays less tax by counting the actual money.

usually the more wealthy pay more for more tax than any common earns.

https://marketrealist.com/p/billionaire ... come%20tax.

Michael Bloomberg paid $292 million in taxes from 2014–2018, although his net worth grew by $24.3 billion.

For 2016 and 2017, Carl Icahn didn't pay any taxes on $544 million in reported income. He defended himself by saying that his investment expenses exceeded that income.

In his statement to ProPublica, George Soros said that he didn't owe taxes from 2016–2018 because his investments lost money.

From 2014–2018, Warren Buffett paid $23.7 million in taxes, although his wealth grew by $24.3 billion.

^These guys are paying about 1/10th of 1% in taxes. This is because their income is made through investment earnings. They don't pay tax unless they cash in. They can retain the earnings and defer paying taxes indefinitely. I could do the same in my 401k, but I am limited to 50% of my income in contributions. But, since I barely make enough to live, there is no chance I can even reach that threshold. But, the billionaire can live on 1% of his income or less, leaving the rest to grow without paying taxes on the growth.

In addition, much of their investment activity is being moved offshore to avoid taxes. Huge, well known American companies are often, in large chunks, actually registered in the Cayman islands or some other hot spot where those governments are happy to collect a small portion of what those companies would have paid in tax if they remained headquartered in the U.S. The resulting shortfall is left to be made up by Joe Lunchbox, who does not have the means, or perhaps even the right, to become a resident of Bermuda or Luxembourg.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r ... tax-haven/

Apple – The amount booked offshore is $214.9 billion. It uses Ireland as a tax haven. Apple would have owed the U.S. government $65.4 billion in taxes if tax haven benefits were not used.

Nike – It holds $10.7 billion offshore. It uses Bermuda as a tax haven. It would have paid $3.6 billion for taxes if tax haven benefits were not used. This implies Nike pays a mere 1.4% tax rate to foreign governments on those offshore profits, indicating that nearly all of the money is officially held by subsidiaries in tax havens.

I suppose in theory that Joe Lunchbox could do this in some small way, but as a practical matter, these havens are for the big guys.

[chewybrian]

Taxes are a roundabout way of paying for things that we benefit from. Your idea here turns on the idea that you receive your "right to housing" because you pay taxes. But this is confused, for rights are not purchased. This implicit idea of yours that rights are purchased usually ends up meaning that the wealthy have rights while the poor don't. Again, you are conflating questions (1) and (2).

But, on what basis, other than tradition, do you claim to be able to decide which ideas become "rights" and which are luxuries which we choose to purchase?

If you follow my argument the point is that nothing you purchase can be a right, because rights are not purchased by definition.

Also, to say that things which entail positive obligations are not rights is not an appeal to tradition. The point is that positive rights-obligations are absurd because they entail things like labor coercion and the notion that we purchase rights. All (natural) rights are therefore negative rights. I haven't made a single claim about which particular rights are legitimate. I've only given an argument about what sorts of things can't be rights.

Rights are what we decide they are, and...

That's not true and this thread is chock-full of arguments showing why. You are obviously free to continue to ignore them. Note how much your claim here sounds like something a dictator would say right before they enact a genocide. Again, rights are not based on fiat, and if they were they would provide no actual protection. If rights are what you decide they are then today you can decide that there is a right to be a homosexual and tomorrow someone else can decide that there is a right to kill homosexuals. This fiat business is quite silly.

This fiat business is reality! Women in Afghanistan had rights a month ago that they do not have today. Did the natural law change in the last few weeks? No. That is because there is no natural law! This is just an opinion about the way things should be. You can see that the Taliban has a different opinion.

This natural law which you take as fact says that we are never our brother's keeper. Yet, this can never be the case. It is just as extreme as saying that we all own the earth, and no property rights should be available to anyone. Either end of that spectrum is a big problem if you want a society that works. Your idea holds well enough if the issue at hand is deciding ownership of a piece of land or a car, once we have already decided that you have a right to own these things. But, have you tried telling the IRS that you have no obligation to do anything "positive" for your fellow man?

It's comical that you want to compare my notion that we should provide housing for the poor to the goals of a dictator. It might be coopted by someone like Castro, just as someone like Trump would play on fears that the poor would "steal" my wealth by demanding food, water and shelter. But, their use by evil men does not make the ideas themselves evil. Neither does your enshrinement or mine make them good. We have to work them out over time. We have to fight about them indefinitely and do the best we can. Your attempt to declare victory and to claim to have the perfect eternal idea of how we should take care of each other (or not!) is also comical. The fact that a stance has been upheld over time through our laws or court rulings does not give it the force of science or math. These ideas are still just opinions.

[chewybrian]

Is any billionaire pay less tax than an average income earner? who is that?

perhaps the percentage is different or less, but who actually pays less tax by counting the actual money.

usually the more wealthy pay more for more tax than any common earns.

I pointed to the answer to this in my earlier reply, but did not answer it specifically:

For 2016 and 2017, Carl Icahn didn't pay any taxes on $544 million in reported income. He defended himself by saying that his investment expenses exceeded that income.

In his statement to ProPublica, George Soros said that he didn't owe taxes from 2016–2018 because his investments lost money.

Let me give an example to show how this happens. I start the year with a billion to invest, and spread it around, with 100 million each in ten different investments. On average, they return 10% and I am wealthier by 100 million at the end of the year. Some of them throw off dividend income, which is subject too income taxes. I have 10 million in dividends. How do I avoid paying tax on these dividends? I sell off some of the losers until I recognize a loss equal to my dividend income. So, I can sell off 100 million in losers for 90 million.

What is the result of this perfectly legal shell game? I am 100 million dollars richer, and I have 10 million in cash to spend, and ZERO tax liability.

[Ecurb]

No one here, and certainly not me, has argued that the right to keep and bear arms, or any other right, is a "God-given universal moral tenet."

You really need to address the arguments actually made, not silly straw men of your own invention. I've given, several times, the moral underpinning of the classical understanding of "rights." Perhaps you can scroll back to one of those and respond to it relevantly.

You continue to prevaricate, dissemble, and beg the question, Morton. Wasn't it you who claimed that "rights' derive from the same root a "righteousness"? Whence derives "righteousness"? Is it culturally constituted? If so, aren't rights culturally constituted?

The "classical understanding" of rights (or, more accurately the normal understanding of English speakers) is, acc. my dictionary: "A moral or legal entitlement". In many countries, access to health care is a "legal entitlement" and hence (by definition) a "right". If you don't think it is "righteous", don't argue that it is not a right, but that it shouldn't be a right. By the way, isn't "righteous" a religious term?

Your arguments are a house made of straw -- that's why arguing with you is inevitably arguing against a straw man (you continue to "wile away the hours, conversin' with the flowers"). Only a Fundamentalist claims their definition of "rights" (a definition at odds with that of the dictionary and other English speakers) proves that their view of rights is morally justified. Make a moral argument, if you want to, or are able to, but quit prevaricating.