Who is demanding. I'm saying you have a responsibility, not that the other person has the right to demand something. You have the responsibility and quite frankly you should be happy to do it. Which apparently you are.
When you call something a right, you are demanding it. Because in our society, rights are things which we're not supposed to infringe. When you defend social spending on the grounds that people have a right to food, shelter, and health care, you are demanding that others pay for it. Aren't you?
You not being a surf is a benefit. There's nothing intrinsic in human nature that stops us from dominating one another like other primates do.
First off, it's "serf" (I'm assuming you mean "peasant" and not "waves near a shoreline"). I was like "whut?" when I read that sentence. And I think you don't understand what I'm talking about. The outcome isn't about rights or benefits. How you get there is. You are correct that if someone is dominating you and preventing you from succeeding, then that's a violation of rights and we should act to prevent that. But when you move past that and start requiring that others improve your lot in life, that act is not about protecting a right, but providing a benefit.
If someone's actions prevent you from doing something, then your rights are being infringed. It's really that simple. Taking away obstacles which prevent people from earning success themselves is a protection of rights. Giving someone some measure of success is not. It's frankly amazing to me how many people in modern western societies actually don't understand this.
Any idea on the raw amount of food which is wasted every year because it's not paid for by consumers? Here's a hint: More than enough to feed everyone in the world. So no, not a catch-22 at all.
Yes, it is. That food wouldn't exist without a profit motive. It certainly wouldn't magically transport itself around the world to hungry people. I think you really don't understand the issue at all.
You are aware that charitable giving is pretty directly proportional to how capitalistic the society is, right?
Interesting you assume that. Would you care to provide a citation for an economic study which shows any of this? Fact is I know for a fact I've done more to help my fellow countrymen than you will ever do in your life. And you've got a good 15 year head start on me, if I remember right.
While I suppose we could argue about the relationship between capitalism and giving, it's certainly true that the US population gives more to charity than any other nation: here
, and here's a longer explanation
Remember, I was speaking about people giving money in the absence of government funded programs. My assumption is that people will give less if they believe that their taxes are already paying for food, housing, medicine, etc for those in need. So maybe it's more like an indirect relationship between social spending and private giving? At least among western nations anyway. Point being that there is a clear and massive difference between giving in the US and giving in other countries.
Why would you think otherwise? I didn't bother to provide a source for this because I honestly didn't believe anyone wasn't aware of this or would bother trying to contest it.
Your corporate shill is showing. I had figured this thread had since derailed and moved on somewhat. As far as OWS goes, I agree with a lot of what their ideals are, yes. I don't really care what they're like on a personal level. Neither do you, really. At least, you don't care that a lot of racists are republicans, because that doesn't stop you supporting the party's ideals, right?
You're really going to try to pull that? How about we compare the condemnation of racism at Tea Party events to condemnation of violence and antisemitism at OWS events? You're tossing out an unfair stereotype that is not true about conservatives while ignoring very real and blatant violence and hate speech going on by the liberal activists. But that really doesn't surprise me.
You've got every right to take responsibility for your own life, gbaji. Like I said above, it's not always possible for 100% for a population to work. There need to be safety net programmes in place to help those who can't work.
Which is a benefit for those people, not a right. The moment you say those people have a right to those programs, you are requiring that the rest of us pay for them instead of asking us to do so out of the goodness of our hearts. That's the distinction I really think you don't understand.
-As I also said above but you refused to address apparently, is the fact that other legislation can be put in place to prevent abuse of these systems. I also said they don't always work, but if you can point to any system that always works I'll be surprised.
I didn't address this because it doesn't address my issue. I'm not saying we *can't* provide for those in need. I disagree with arguments saying that we should do so because those in need have a "right" to the assistance. It's the rhetoric used to argue for it that is wrong.
And no, once again, "free market enterprise" does not always work. As is evident from the current global crisis. I suppose you refuse to accept that point too, eh?
Of course. The current global crisis did not result from a free market. While I freely admit that this is more complex than simplistic labels like "free market", it's a pretty easy argument to make that if the US government hadn't been involved in bundling subprime loans on the market at ever increasing rates in order to fulfill the very sort of social assistance goals that you praise, and had not in fact created significant leverage on banks to buy those securities on the back end, and then acted to shield the entities involved in doing this (fanny and freddie) from investigation, we would not have had a housing bubble (or at least it would not have been nearly as severe). You really could not have picked a worse example.
Maybe your definition, but I remember one of the rules about how you debate is we're allowed to make up definitions. Besides, I like mine better.
Not make up definitions, but that if there are multiple meanings for a word, you get to pick which one you're using (as long as you are consistent). But you're just making up a meaning entirely.