tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post6568108194651544370..comments2023-10-08T10:16:32.648-05:00Comments on 43-Ideas-Per-Minute: A Set Of Beliefs Pt II: The Declaration Of Independenceaironlaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17870971883454679428noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7541828791652888926.post-29417872574509355612010-12-02T13:36:42.494-06:002010-12-02T13:36:42.494-06:00First, you make the mistake of equating society wi...First, you make the mistake of equating society with family. Families are rigidly hierarchical. A healthy society in no way, shape, or form looks like a family (nor should the family look like a society). This is the basis of the error in your example of being one's brother's keeper. If I don't take care of my brother, that makes me a bad person; but if you rob me at gunpoint to give my money to my brother, that makes you a bad person. (Obama, coincidentally, doesn't take care of his actual family, but insists on forcing us to "take care" of everyone -- which is really a euphemism for government control and the destruction of liberty.) Now, I think we certainly agree that the best society is one that takes care of the least among us -- but there is no historical evidence that government is the best way to do this; quite the contrary, in fact. History shows that governments destroy the social bonds that improve peoples' lives. We in fact see an inverse relationship between private giving and government "giving" (government doesn't give, as it first has to take from others to "give"). The least generous populations have the most generous governments, while the U.S., with one of the "least generous" governments, has the most generous population by far. As a result, the U.S. is the most generous society on earth.<br /><br />The blank slate theory is wrong. It has been known to be wrong for a long time now. If your liberalism is based on the blank slate theory of the mind, it is time for you to learn about how the mind actually works and the strongly heritable nature of intelligence, disposition, etc. <br /><br />There are different kinds of equal. There is the idea that people are equal in fact (also known as egalitarianism), which is demonstrably wrong. But there is also equality under the law (equal before God, if you will). Under equality under the law, no amount of money, intelligence, or social status comes into play when determining innocence or guilt. Here you treat people as equals. Under egalitarianism, you have to treat people unequally in order to get equality of outcome. This destroys equality under the law, and liberty with it. <br /><br />Does your right to life mean you have the right to demand something from another, potentially depriving them of their life? Does your right to life mean you have the right to demand anothers' right to liberty be curtailed? A right to something like health care means you are demanding that someone -- doctors and nurses -- hand over the life and liberty to you. Thus, a right to health care cannot be a right, because it necessarily infringes on the rights of others -- and no right can infringe upon another right. Feel free to argue for socialized health care if you want, but don't sully the definition of rights to do so. What you are really saying is that you value free health care over the rights of doctors and nurses. You never have a right to demand the actions of others.<br /><br />One has a right to pursue happiness, not to achieve it. Otherwise, for the most part, I agree with you. Live and let live. So long as you don't use force or fraud, do as you wish. Of course, this attitude against force and fraud are precisely why I'm anti-left/liberal and anti-conservative.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.com