: : : Don: And these rights must be provided by action by the government. This means these rights end when the government cannot provide for all.::bill: The right is defined and determined by a people who decide that right.
: Don: But the rights you want must be *provided* by the government, using government funds. When (not if) these funds grow low the government will have to decide who gets these rights and who doesn't, or perhaps it can simply redefine "housing" to mean "cardboard box" and "education" to mean "several lashes".
bill: This question of how a people relate to their government has been described by Chomsky when asked the question:
"You say you are an anarchist. Maybe you shouldn't take benefits from the state"?
To which Chomsky replied:
"This question, when thought out, presents a fascist state of mind. When one takes benefits from the government, they are expected to "owe" something, or to be "good" and help out the government through your benefits. This idea presents a master/slave relationship, where the government is the master who has given his slave a benefit. This common idea is opposite to democratic theory. In reality, a democracy that gives someone a benefit is giving it to them from the people, who are using the government as a tool to distribute the benefits. In the democratic form of government all benefits come from the people, and go to the people. The government is your slave and you are the master. Notice how the master-slave idea is already inverse today, where the government is perceived to be the master, and citizen the slave..." -Fascism & Media:
Naturally a ruling class, the owning class, have huge contempt for democracy, and encourage the above master-slave relationship.
: : :So these rights aren't real rights, but really are a sort of privledge.
: : Privilege implies exception, ie, not available to all.
: Don: Which must be the case for housing, food, education, and health care under any system at some point in time--so these are privileges.
bill: Available to ALL.
: : :Further, these rights must be based upon some form of taxation, ie., taking from others, by force if necessary. These rights imply force.
: : Force is implied in the implimentation of rights. This applies to ALL rights.
: Don: This is only true if rights must be defended.
bill: OK
:Don:...This is quite a different thing than the force implied in the "rights" you want,:
bill: No it isn't.
Don:...a daily initiation of force against all citizens.
bill: Nonsense. In a true democracy, any force that might be necessary would by definition have to be on behalf of the majority - and depending on the type of consensus, a large majority.
: : ESPECIALLY Property Rights.
: Don: Only from the point of view of a thief . . .
More nonsense. The implied use of force defending property extends to all those that would find themselves confronted by "No Trespass" signs in the middle of nowhere, to those that would like to be able to use generic drugs but are prevented by "intellectual property" 'rights'.
