reply to post by elfie
Antonia's arguments ask that we pretend that all this corruption and greed is not a problem with government, but is somehow a problem with "them".
Such a fallacious reasoning only ensures that "they", whoever the hell "they" are, continue with their business as usual while all the clamoring
for more regulation will only make "us" more of the very same slaves that "we" keep complaining about.
Further, and staying with antonia's argument, antonia may, or may not be, arguing that she/(he?) doesn't trust her own ethics and honor and needs to
be regulated, but she/(he?) is most assuredly arguing that you and I need to be regulated because antonia doesn't see where you and I, on average,
are worthy of anything more than mistrust and mild disgust at best.
Even more tellingly with antonia's post is that it begins by addressing my argument with Walking Fox regarding the Fox's implicit assertion that
only progressive taxation can save a suffering dying man. What is so telling about this is that I had restrained myself with Fox in regards to the
O.P.'s sloppy hypothetical. It was a sloppy hypothetical because the scenario demanded that the person suffering was also dying. No qualifications
given to this, only that the person Fox believed I have such a callous attitude towards is dying. No suggestions that this dying person could be
saved from dying if only we taxed the rich enough, only that I was callous towards dying suffering people because I don't want any income tax on
anyone, rich or poor!
So many assumptions have to be made about Fox's sloppy, lazy hypothetical, that when antonia pipes in taking me to task for my "solution" to this
imaginary suffering dying person, perspective and focus on the actual issue becomes so absurdly muddled that it is like unraveling years of
discombobulated string. The hypothetical itself was nothing more than reification. Antonia follows up this reification with more reification and all
of it has nothing at all to do with the nuts and bolts of taxation, how government actually operates, and how Constitutions mandate how government
can, and cannot operate.
Wildly emotional rhetoric replaces critical thought and no one really seems to care about actually fixing problems, just griping about them.
However, the problem runs far deeper than that, and yet another member (newcovenant) wishes to argue the efficacy of my own assertion that people have
the right to earn a living. Of course, newcovenant is addressing what is clearly my belief that people have the right to go into business for
themselves. Newcovenant argues that such a thing is not a fundamental basic right, but by what standard is newcovenant basing this argument and by
what standard do I assert it is a right?
If we cannot even have a rational standard by which we understand what a right is, how the hell can we even expect to have rights? For this reason we
must look at rights and determine what makes a right a right. If life is a right, what makes it a right? If speech is a right, what makes it a
right? If publishing is a right, what makes it a right? Too many argue that what makes it a right is legislation, but this is demonstrably false.
People were speaking long before any government declared such a thing a right, and publishing did not come into being because governments legislated
so. What then makes speaking, and publishing a right? What makes life a right? Too many will argue nothing does and they are not rights, but this
is demonstrably false as well. Not just people, but every species will act in self defense. This self defense is evidence of a protection of a
right, and because it is, self defense itself becomes a right.
What makes life, speech, or publishing a right is that generally, any one of these actions does not cause malicious injury, and here is how we can
better understand precisely what a right is, not by looking at that right in any positive light, but in a negative light in the absence of a right.
We better understand the right to speech or publishing if we have been censored. Our natural reaction to this censorship is outrage at the injustice.
Indeed, just like rights, we can better understand justice, not in any positive light, but in its negative light, and we generally do not perceive
justice as readily as we perceive injustice.
It is in the injury caused that we can know what is not a right, and the only exceptions to this would be defense. Defense of self, property, or
others in need of defense is a right in that they are defending a right, and outside of this we have no right to be injurious to others. Owning a
business is not an injury upon others until it does cause injury, and if it never does cause injury, then this business operates by right.