That (no offence) is an utterly stupid idea. If government guarantees "basic human needs" by which you mean, if you are like most socialists, anarcho-Marxists, and other such people, "fair wages" "full employment" "free healthcare" "welfare" "universal education" than you must first consider how you'd pay for all that. That's right, YOU WOULD TAKE PEOPLE'S MONEY (that's what taxes are.) The definition of "stealing" is and I do quote the Oxford Dictionary of British English : "the action or offence of taking another person's property." That's what taxes are. So in order to guarantee the long list of so-called "human rights," (a secular ideology completely different from the Founder's conception of rights) it must, of necessity, deny the natural property rights of other persons in so doing. Using tax revenues to regulate business and labor management, set wage and price standards, and provide state-operated healthcare does not increase liberty or human need, it destroys it.
I am not denying that high wages, full employment, affordable healthcare, and education are not desirable things – like most libertarian conservatives I would love people to have all those things – what I am here contesting is that the government should be allowed to disregard people's inalienable natural rights in the pursuit of giving people those things. Even if such rights did exist (they don't) the right to property, one of the three of the "triumvirate of fundamental rights" God has endowed all human beings with, would outweigh them by far. I'll leave off with a quote from one of the most brilliant men who ever lives, my hero, Thomas Jefferson:
"A government that is powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have."
Human nature being what it is, what else can we expect?
–TruthHurts101
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
Firstly, "the government" should BE the public; the government should not be some kind of private or exclusive group of people that make decisions outside of the public's reach, the government should be all of us: the people in society. Anything less would be oligarchic, and if you claim to care about genuine freedom and liberty, then you'd agree. This is incredibly important and you should keep this in mind, because when I say "government", I am not talking about state politicians or presidents or any bureaucratic structures of hierarchy, I am talking about ever… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
If you do not believe in God then all you have is relative morality and might-makes-right despotism. Please explain to me why you lack faith in God and I will be glad to discuss this all-important issue with you in depth.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
Morality IS relative; it is entirely subjective because we made it up. Morality is nothing more than our own personal values and opinions on any given conflict or issue. There is nothing objective about it, that's why we rely on some form of laws to determine what we as a society will or will not allow. Without any kind of mutual agreement on what will or will not be acceptable within society, that is how you end up with some kind of "wild west" every-man-for-himself nonsense, because morality is not objective and people have different morals.
As for your question, I do not hav… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
Your argument is fallacious: Morality IS relative means the exact same things as "it is entirely subjective because we made it up. Morality is nothing more than our own personal values and opinion on any given conflict or issue." You were just summing your position up using different words. You've made no argument at all, nor have you answered my question.
And you have said you do not believe in God because God lacks any evidence, but that's again begging the question, you have just restated your position without providing evidence for it. This is all fallacies and circular reasoning cloaked in emotion and deceptive rhetoric.
@VulcanMan6 4mos4MO
What exactly is fallacious about stating that morality is relative? Yes, I said that morality is relative AND i also said that morality is subjective BECAUSE it's the same idea...I was literally just explaining it in more than one way. What exactly is the fallacy here? My statements mean the same thing because that is what my argument is, I simply explained it from multiple different angles: 1) morality is relative, 2) morality is subjective, and 3) morality is made up. They mean the same thing because the argument is the same: morality is not objective. What wasn't clear about that… Read more
Secondly, your claim:
