PDA

View Full Version : How are entitlements any different than theft?




Catatonic
11-10-2009, 06:21 PM
In my opinion, the reason the founders have a legitimate argument for the rights listed in the bill of rights being natural rights because they are more or less the boundries of acceptability people would set for themselves if there was no government.

For example I don't think many people would argue that in an anarchy setting, you have no right to defend yourself and your property. In that same setting you would expect 99% of the population to object to you entering their home to take whatever you want.

This is what confuses me about entitlements. Liberals seem to think that entitlements are natural rights also, like what they see as the right to health care. There is no such thing as a right to health care because its something you have to get from someone else, making it a commodity. So what they're really saying is they are entitled to the resources to attain health care.

To consider this a natural right, that means they think if there were no government around to enforce their entitlements, it would be perfectly acceptable for them to walk into their neighbor's house and take whatever they feel they are entitled to. At the same time it means they would find it acceptable for their neighbors to do the same to them.

How can anyone honestly think this? Or am I missing a step somewhere?

Epic
11-10-2009, 08:07 PM
How can anyone honestly think this?

Indoctrination starting at an early age. And some people are on the receiving end of the redistribution so they like it ("Obama's gonna pay my mortgage!!"). In general, the same as that which upheld slavery for a long time.

Danke
11-10-2009, 08:14 PM
For example I don't think many people would argue that in an anarchy setting, you have no right to defend yourself and your property.

what?

Catatonic
11-10-2009, 08:31 PM
what?

If there were no government around to protect your property, would it be unreasonable to assume people would protect their own property?

If you happen to be an anarchist and you have the urge cite private security firms, etc, that is not my point. I'm just trying to show that what is in the bill of rights are arguably natural rights.

I'm curently debating a guy that is trying to argue that there is no such thing as natural rights, the bill of rights is just a social construct, therefor society can add or remove rights at will. Like health care.

Mike4Freedom
11-10-2009, 09:00 PM
If there were no government around to protect your property, would it be unreasonable to assume people would protect their own property?

If you happen to be an anarchist and you have the urge cite private security firms, etc, that is not my point. I'm just trying to show that what is in the bill of rights are arguably natural rights.

I'm curently debating a guy that is trying to argue that there is no such thing as natural rights, the bill of rights is just a social construct, therefor society can add or remove rights at will. Like health care.

The Bill of Rights was made to make sure your natural rights were not messed with.

Our whole government was supposed to enforce natural law. They just wanted some organization to go with it. That is why we have the constitution.

It's as simple as this:

I have the right to do whatever I want to do as long as me doing so does not interfere with your right to do the same.

SimpleName
11-10-2009, 09:08 PM
If you need to take from others to obtain an item, it isn't a right.

Simple threads. I like 'em. You could also say: If you need to use force to obtain something, it isn't a right.

Reason
11-10-2009, 09:46 PM
If you need to use force to obtain something, it isn't a right.

Thread answered & closed. :cool:

AuH20
11-10-2009, 10:09 PM
I have an interesting psychological take on the entire entitlement system. Basically, the bankers, bureaucrats and the elites have carefully created an entitlement system that benefits them first and foremost. So to cloak and mitigate their crimes they need to entrap the general population into a similar philosophy in order to render them powerless. It's similar to criminal organizations that test the mettle of new members with tests to prove their worth. Once you knock someone off (or start becoming an entitlement pawn LOL), you've been officially assimilated into the crew as a complicit member of the party. From the top there is a near complete dereliction of responsibility and it flows right down to the lowest castes.

noxagol
11-10-2009, 10:12 PM
Simple, they aren't.

heavenlyboy34
11-10-2009, 10:23 PM
In my opinion, the reason the founders have a legitimate argument for the rights listed in the bill of rights being natural rights because they are more or less the boundries of acceptability people would set for themselves if there was no government.

For example I don't think many people would argue that in an anarchy setting, you have no right to defend yourself and your property. In that same setting you would expect 99% of the population to object to you entering their home to take whatever you want.

This is what confuses me about entitlements. Liberals seem to think that entitlements are natural rights also, like what they see as the right to health care. There is no such thing as a right to health care because its something you have to get from someone else, making it a commodity. So what they're really saying is they are entitled to the resources to attain health care.

To consider this a natural right, that means they think if there were no government around to enforce their entitlements, it would be perfectly acceptable for them to walk into their neighbor's house and take whatever they feel they are entitled to. At the same time it means they would find it acceptable for their neighbors to do the same to them.

How can anyone honestly think this? Or am I missing a step somewhere?

From my debates with left liberals, they seem to think that "health care" is somehow exempt from laws of supply and demand. They thus think that doctors are being "greedy" by charging for their services. Some of the more intelligent ones make the point that many things about health care are subjective and can't really be objectively priced. (the latter is a more reasonable point, but I believe the market should set the price)

Catatonic
11-10-2009, 10:52 PM
From my debates with left liberals, they seem to think that "health care" is somehow exempt from laws of supply and demand. They thus think that doctors are being "greedy" by charging for their services. Some of the more intelligent ones make the point that many things about health care are subjective and can't really be objectively priced. (the latter is a more reasonable point, but I believe the market should set the price)

That doesn't make any sense to me. Health care is a service. The price of any service is determined by the market. What makes health care special?

Catatonic
11-10-2009, 11:16 PM
If you need to take from others to obtain an item, it isn't a right.

Simple threads. I like 'em. You could also say: If you need to use force to obtain something, it isn't a right.

Well said, that shuts them down pretty fast.

Catatonic
11-10-2009, 11:39 PM
This is where I'm at so far. Think I'm going to give up on this guy at this point, but he's done a great job of showing moderates how bat sh*t crazy collectivist ideas really are:


social constructs are the product of human thought processes. In this processes that could have no comprehension about what america might become.

the rest of what you wrote is underminded by the fact you only have this thought process because you were born into a given societial structure, if there was no government you may have been born a slave, most people in previous human histories have been just that.

non of the things you mentioned would be possible without the human construct of change. the thing that cnservatives dont want to see in society.


it wouldnt be a right, again rights are human constructs, it would be survival of the fittest.you would protect yourself and you "property"(again a human construct) so you could survive the cold ect.

wrong, indiviudal soverignty evolved out of a dislike for moniachal, totalitarian kings and queens, it began with the writings of Mills, Bentham and Locke (many others), and then the ideas began to diseminate, and it started from their, but it was certainly a human construct.

natural rights are human instincts, the rights you are talking about are evolved human thought processes on individulism.

and it started from a "change" or evolution in the thought processes of the individual and society.

Natural rights are a misonomer when your talking about the constituion, the constituion is not "natural rights" its evolved human constructs, and then a social norm and then contract.

The relevant definition of a right:

18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.

What you're saying is that without the government, you would have no just claim to the action of defending yourself or your property. Therefor it would be wrong in a moral sense to do so. Moreover that implies that even with a government, I own nothing because only the government can decide whether or not I keep my property, since I have no just claim to defend it.

You are advocating hard core collectivism, and its ironic because you're trying to play collectivism off as some kind of natural progression. Collectivism is what we had prior to John Locke's time. Now you want to regress back to it and through some kind of Orwellian double think, you see that as progress.


im not anti constitution, i love the US constituion, i just think people who stick to it ardently do a dis service to the founders who expected it to grow as society grew.

in this case conservatism is a failed theory because it refuses to accept this change.

our constitution was great for 100 years or so, but it now needs work to meet society progression, conservatives dont want this change. this is a problem.

If you loved the constitution you would recognize its importance as a legal document and you would want drastic changes, like this health care reform, to be done through an amendment. Obviously you only love it when its in your interest to do so. When it doesn't suit your purposes you would just as soon pretend it doesn't exist.

powerofreason
11-11-2009, 05:38 AM
Theft=taking property without permission. All that government has it has taken without permission. Therefore, government=anti-social, chaos-causing, criminal organization. MASSIVE theft is of course only one of the horrific crimes of the State.

Why is it wrong to take property without permission? There is a logical answer to this question. (Put away your bible.) The more property rights are violated in a society the more disorder there is. Order is what any sane individual in this world wants. For more in depth answers on what makes a given action "wrong" or "okay" check out Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty or Butler Shaffer's excellent book The Boundaries of Order which takes a very scientific approach.

Bucjason
11-11-2009, 07:19 AM
In my opinion, the reason the founders have a legitimate argument for the rights listed in the bill of rights being natural rights because they are more or less the boundries of acceptability people would set for themselves if there was no government.

For example I don't think many people would argue that in an anarchy setting, you have no right to defend yourself and your property. In that same setting you would expect 99% of the population to object to you entering their home to take whatever you want.

This is what confuses me about entitlements. Liberals seem to think that entitlements are natural rights also, like what they see as the right to health care. There is no such thing as a right to health care because its something you have to get from someone else, making it a commodity. So what they're really saying is they are entitled to the resources to attain health care.

To consider this a natural right, that means they think if there were no government around to enforce their entitlements, it would be perfectly acceptable for them to walk into their neighbor's house and take whatever they feel they are entitled to. At the same time it means they would find it acceptable for their neighbors to do the same to them.

How can anyone honestly think this? Or am I missing a step somewhere?

Because Liberals don't "think" , they "feel" .

You are completely right .

Bucjason
11-11-2009, 07:22 AM
If you loved the constitution you would recognize its importance as a legal document and you would want drastic changes, like this health care reform, to be done through an amendment. Obviously you only love it when its in your interest to do so. When it doesn't suit your purposes you would just as soon pretend it doesn't exist.

Exactly ! The constitution is allowed to grow , of course , but only through the amendment process. The founders made passing amendments a difficult process for a REASON. In order to impose the change it has to be something that an OVERWHELMING majority of americans feel is important. Imprisioning all Americans in a national health-care boon-doggle does not have this kind of support , not even CLOSE....

Bucjason
11-11-2009, 07:27 AM
Some of the more intelligent ones make the point that many things about health care are subjective and can't really be objectively priced. (the latter is a more reasonable point, but I believe the market should set the price)

I don't think that's an intelligent argument at all. The price of EVERYTHING is subjective. Like you said, that is what the market is for....

Catatonic
11-11-2009, 07:29 AM
Theft=taking property without permission. All that government has it has taken without permission. Therefore, government=anti-social, chaos-causing, criminal organization. MASSIVE theft is of course only one of the horrific crimes of the State.

Why is it wrong to take property without permission? There is a logical answer to this question. (Put away your bible.) The more property rights are violated in a society the more disorder there is. Order is what any sane individual in this world wants. For more in depth answers on what makes a given action "wrong" or "okay" check out Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty or Butler Shaffer's excellent book The Boundaries of Order which takes a very scientific approach.

I came to a bit of a revelation in that thread....entitlements are even worse than theft, if you think about it.

To consider entitlements valid, that means you don't think it is stealing to take from your neighbor, because you are entitled to the fruits of his labor. That means he never owned them in the first place, they were always the property of the society or collective.

So its not stealing when the government takes 40% of your earnings because you never owned it in the first place. It is by their good graces that you even get 60%. It is amazing to me that so many people are ignorantly supporting such regressive collectivist principals without even knowing it.

silverhandorder
11-11-2009, 07:35 AM
The reason why I can't stand entitlements is because as you said they are no different then petty thievery. By the liberal logic if a liberal is mugged on the street he should give his money willingly because the thug needs it more than him.

Some liberals also like to say the majority is right. This logic fails whenever there is a coalition on issues that would fail if they ever came up alone.

Catatonic
11-11-2009, 08:20 AM
The reason why I can't stand entitlements is because as you said they are no different then petty thievery. By the liberal logic if a liberal is mugged on the street he should give his money willingly because the thug needs it more than him.

Some liberals also like to say the majority is right. This logic fails whenever there is a coalition on issues that would fail if they ever came up alone.

I guess that is why liberal states allow criminals to sue their victims.

Pericles
11-11-2009, 09:29 AM
I came to a bit of a revelation in that thread....entitlements are even worse than theft, if you think about it.

To consider entitlements valid, that means you don't think it is stealing to take from your neighbor, because you are entitled to the fruits of his labor. That means he never owned them in the first place, they were always the property of the society or collective.

So its not stealing when the government takes 40% of your earnings because you never owned it in the first place. It is by their good graces that you even get 60%. It is amazing to me that so many people are ignorantly supporting such regressive collectivist principals without even knowing it.

This is the key, or otherwise said - It is not illegal when the government does it.

We start from the assumption that political freedom and economic freedom is the goal of mankind, and any system of government to be just, must further this end.

The statist or collectivist, views "fairness" as the goal of society, and the way "fair" is defined determines what that society will permit you to have. These people believe that society as an entity has rights which are superior to the rights of any particular individual.

We don't think so. The two views can never be resolved. The only way we can continue to live in peace with each other is the return to a true federalist system, where states can have the degree of individualism and collectivism that allow individuals to live in the state that best suits the beliefs of that individual.

Catatonic
11-11-2009, 09:37 AM
This is the key, or otherwise said - It is not illegal when the government does it.

We start from the assumption that political freedom and economic freedom is the goal of mankind, and any system of government to be just, must further this end.

The statist or collectivist, views "fairness" as the goal of society, and the way "fair" is defined determines what that society will permit you to have. These people believe that society as an entity has rights which are superior to the rights of any particular individual.

We don't think so. The two views can never be resolved. The only way we can continue to live in peace with each other is the return to a true federalist system, where states can have the degree of individualism and collectivism that allow individuals to live in the state that best suits the beliefs of that individual.

The irony is that a libertarian has no problem allowing people to live as collectivists if they voluntarily choose to do so. A statist however will not suffer a single person to live freely.

Catatonic
11-12-2009, 06:30 PM
Well, I don't know if anyone cares but this is pretty amazing to me. I've gotten this guy to just come out and admit it - there's no such thing as ownership, no such thing as rights. Incredible. He spent the longest time dancing around it by claiming he believes in private property 'with limits', so on and so forth.

For whatever its worth this isn't a typical liberal, this guy's ideas are more like what you'd expect from Kucinich than Obama. But in the end he's a collectivist.

Anyway, here you go. The quotes are his comments. I'm convinced this is what most lefties think, even if they don't realize it. And a light of right wingers too.

So the first quote is from a racist on the forum. He knows to be careful enough about what he says to avoid a ban, which is pretty amazing considering intolerance for racists.

The 2nd quote is the guy I've been debating the past couple days, and the third quote is just some other guy that decided to chime in.



If I have the force to take something, I have a right to it. You own only what you can keep.(using natural law)

It always comes down to force.

Force doesn't determine ownership. Ownership has to do with making a claim to an object (for example I own this because I paid for it, I own this because I created it), it doesn't just mean something is in your possession. Ownership and possession are two different concepts.




I NEVER CLAIMED I HAD A RIGHT TO THAT(a right to take another person's property), you just don't get it. I don't have a "right" to anything.



Exactly. Rights, if they existed, could not be taken away.



Correct. You don't own property.

Actually I do get it. I just wasn't sure that YOU get it, because you were talking about granting rights and believing in private property. The truth is that you , and this juggalo below, don't actually believe in rights or private property. All there is, is power and force of the mob.

It is typical collectivism, the foundation of such social concepts as racism, biggotry, and tyranny.




Ownership DOESN'T really exist at all. That's the point. Whether I would 'object' or 'be okay' with someone taking something that was 'mine' or not doesn't change reality.

I only have the 'right' to something through force and/or the threat of force. That's the only way I can 'own' anything. You are talking about preferences, wants, your own sense of morality, but that doesn't change reality.

If I build something and you take it, I would object because I built and I (presumably) want it. Not because I have an inherent, inalienable right to it. If I don't have the ability to stop you from taking it, it is no longer 'mine' because you have it. The only way in which it remains 'mine' is if there is some outside body (society at large/government) that doesn't recognize your right to it, but does recognize mine, and they would USE FORCE to return it to me.

In 'natural' society, with no law or organization or government, my ownership of the item ceases to exist the moment you take posession of it. Society is a collection of individuals, but if you live in a society, you do not live outside of the others. This is another fallacy that the libertarian philosophy is built on, the idea that it's possible to live a life in a society without affecting the whole of society... but it's not!

You aren't 'sovereign' in that you have complete control of your own personal circumstances. This isn't a matter of what I like or prefer or what's right or wrong, this is just the nature of reality. If you want to live the life of a sovereign individual, you have to leave society. Otherwise you will always ben influenced by (and influencing) other individuals.


I believe some of them actually do.

Or more to the point, I think some of them, having grown up in a society (run by a government) that has supplied them so many rights have begun to take for granted the fact that this society/government is the source of said rights.



The moral of the story? There are some people out there that will at least admit to what they believe instead of making it PC.

Bucjason
11-14-2009, 02:09 PM
The irony is that a libertarian has no problem allowing people to live as collectivists if they voluntarily choose to do so. A statist however will not suffer a single person to live freely.

This statement seems to contradict itself.

If it's true then you SHOULD mind if collectivists are around , because eventually they will come for YOU, and force you into thier "voluntary" service--for your own good , of course....

Catatonic
11-14-2009, 03:42 PM
This statement seems to contradict itself.

If it's true then you SHOULD mind if collectivists are around , because eventually they will come for YOU, and force you into thier "voluntary" service--for your own good , of course....

You shouldn't care if people live as collectivists as long as they don't try to force their ideas on you. I don't believe in pre-emptive paranoia. If 10,000 people want to found a city called 'commie ville' and live as commies that is fine with me, in a libertarian world. I don't have to pay for their folly if it falls apart. If they make it work then good for them.

They day they decide its not fair that commie ville fails while paulville flourishes so the government needs to rob paulville, though, thats another story.