Of course we have the moral right to starve. You have the moral right to do anything you want with your own body, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another person.
Don't buy their products, if you don't want them in town. And you do not have the right to stop someone from opening a business, federally. If you wish to live in a little hippie commune and have your local or state laws reflect that, fine. Just don't force me to finance you. The world will continue to evolve and change. This will be unfortunate for some, but again, you do not have the moral right to my life and according to the constitution and the Bill of Rights, you do not have the legal right either. Our government was rightly designed to protect and enforce freedom, not guarantee happiness by creating jobs, providing healthcare and making sure Mom&Pop's Bookstore stays open, even though everybody else is buying their books elsewhere. Your position is morally bankrupt. No amount of evil justifies more evil. History has shown that we are only as happy as we are free to pursue our happiness. It has not shown one tiny little bit that government regulation causes happiness or mitigates suffering, in the long run. We are each responsible for our own and we are most successful when big brother is out of the way. Countries that are or have been somewhat successful are so despite their socialistic tendencies and because of their capitalistic ones. It is very complex and saying that Clinton had some effect on something and was therefore responsible for creating jobs and this is why capitalism doesn't work is all messed up of an argument. Free trade is moral and practical. And all we need for this to succeed is a single monopolizer of retaliatory force. One not attached to necessarily corrupt politicians, lobbyists, special interest groups (that included 'Wallstreet'), the Christian right, the military industrial complex, the Federal counterfeiting agency or anything not used for the protection of the individual against governments or other individuals.
You know, it is odd how people got caught in the credit traps. When I ran 2,000 miles with my three ten-year old children, $2,000 in my bank account and cat and her kittens, I found an old run-down house in a nice working class neighborhood and bought it for the price of the land, the house was condemned. I took out a mortgage and paid it off in two years. We killed the mice, cleaned out the trash and started sprucing it up. I put in a huge garden and we ate off that until the kids graduated high school. I saved, working at minimum wage jobs, went to school, finished my bachelor's and master's degrees and completed all but dissertation on my doctorate. I bought a small car and paid cash.
Since that day in 1977 when I paid off the mortgage, I have not paid one cent for money, ever.
So, you can talk to me about finances, but I wonder if you could have pulled off such a feat.
Yes, people fall for the credit card scam and pay for money, not realizing they are taking good money and throwing into a credit hole. The lesson for these people will be a hard one to learn ... there will be a lot of grumbling and blaming; when all is said and done, each individual has to be smarter than the banks and financial institutions.
I've watched my kids grow and develop some good financial smarts ... I take credit for that. They are on their feet now and I can relax. I wonder what families do who teach their kids to bring out the credit card?
Sorry, I don't agree with your unsubstantiated assertion that the only moral government is one that defends individual rights. Wasn't our more perfect union an attempt to balance individual and societal rights in a constructive way by creating opposing centers of power and influence and using them as checks so that no one segment of society would become too powerful. Too, given that the Constitution allows for treaties, that alone guarantees we have communal interests which necessarily ensures that every individual will not have unlimited freedom.
Freedom describes a relationship between entities. There is no unlimited freedom. Anywhere. Freedom is relative. And our constitution specifically states that the government shall have no right over that of the individual. And just to make sure, they created a bill of rights to further clarify the necessary limitations of the government. Since then, it has been desecrated and distorted. Rights can only pertain to the individual. No group can have rights others, not in that group, can't have. There is no too powerful. You cannot properly or morally tell someone they have too much. It is what people do with whatever they have that matters. You hate the successful for their success. Penalizing productivity and rewarding need is a sure way to dictatorship. I thank you for the situation we are in.
Please do not presume to think that you understand my views toward 'the successful' - I'm all for people reaping the rewards of their efforts. Also, please do not 'thank' me for the situation we are in as people from all parts of society had a hand, over many decades, in creating our current mess. If there is to be a discussion, then all participants should marshall their facts and make their case in this relatively difficult medium of a threaded, asynchronous site with an understanding that, to keep posts relatively succinct, people must necessarily omit much, including details which would provide context. Thank you.
Social rights penalize wealth production.
Do legal rights or human rights penalize wealth production? If so, why? how?
Like I said, he thinks we should have the right to starve.
Enforcing 'rights' that are not individual penalizes productivity, rewards need and creates necessarily corrupt politicians and lobbyists, for to support the nonproductive, by force, you must unilaterally take property from somewhere else. You are the aggressor. It is completely immoral and irrational. This is because of the nature of mind and personhood. Moral choices are always made by individuals and it is immoral to take that right from someone by force. It cannot result in good, no matter what your intention. Haven't you ever heard of the nonaggression principle?
I give up. You just don't get it. "There is no too powerful" is a statement I cannot suppport. Some people in USA have more rights than others and more opportunities. Work hard, be faithful, dependable, reliable, conscientious, honest, thrifty, self-motivated, able to take on responsibilities beyond one's pay grade, take every opportunity for self-improvement and still can't get on the ladder to success. Unexpected events, an illness, accident, unplanned pregnancy, unexpected dependency of aging parents or a failed marriage can present challenges beyond one's ability to overcome. With rising costs of education, some children do not have opportunities that some others have.
I hear you blaming people for being poor and celebrating people for being rich, when in fact, the rich did not achieve all they have alone. Banks and financial institutions have a fiduciary responsibility to keep money in the system flowing among all those who participate in production of goods and services. When banks and financial institutions pay each other huge salaries, give big bonuses, and don't put the money back in circulation, then how can our nation thrive? Money in circulation is what builds community. The straws through which money'd people suck dollars out of the economy will dry up one of these days. They can't keep sucking the workers dry and expect the community to succeed.
In the end and at the beginning, you will remain the aggressor. Not only is wealth distribution immoral, it leads to tyranny.