[MD] freedom is for the rich

[Micah]

Steve H,

You haven't said how you propose to supply the minimum standard of living.
Please elaborate.

You do not know what I would do, in the "dying of thirst" scenario you
suggest - don't assume my response to your "most ridiculous extreme"
scenario. You are being an ass.

Yes, I agree that you have a right to life, but living is a personal
responsibility. You are still proposing that some pay for others, and again
I ask you - by what right?

I also think you owe Ham and Platt an apology for assuming their responses
to your "most ridiculous extreme" scenario.

Micah



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Stephen Hannon
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 5:28 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] freedom is for the rich


[Micah]
By what right are people owed a living?
Who supplies that living?  Is the supply of that living forced?

[Steve H]
Are you saying that people don't have a right to life?  And do you
mean "standard of living?"  I believe the preamble says that one of
the reasons for the Constitution was to "promote the general welfare."
 I would interpret this as we should, as a society, be able to provide
the bare necessities for those people less fortunate; that is: food,
water, shelter, and nothing more.  Anything else you want you have to
get yourself.

I suppose there is a difference between "life" and "living" being made
here.  If I passed someone on the street who was dying of thirst and I
had a bottle of water, I would give it to him.  I supplied him with
"life" but not "living."  So to answer your questions (using "standard
of living" instead of "living"):

No one is owed a standard of living, but everyone has a right to life.
People supply their own standard of living and life, unless in an
emergency where they cannot supply their own life (anticipating next
question: "What defines an emergency?")
Standard of living is not forced, but a society should support "life"
amongst its citizens.

Of course, perhaps you meant something different by "living" instead
of "standard of living."  But, I could be wrong :-)

[Micah]
Gav is mistaken about capitalism, it is about
individual freedom - anything less is a form of slavery -
like your proposal.  Capitalism depends on individual freedom
to trade in the marketplace, nothing more or less. It's quite
simple. Are you against your individual freedom?  Or just others?

[Steve H]
I would say I would use my individual freedom to help the man on the
street dying of thirst if I ever encountered such a situation.  If you
want to use your individual freedom to deny him a drink of water
because you would feel like a slave doing it, go ahead!  I just think
that you, Ham, and Platt come across as selfish people for thinking
that way.

Regards,
Steve H

> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/