Quote:
Originally posted by wonderwench
No - laws which protect people from being the victims of fraud, coercion and violence are right and just. They are consistent with protecting the rights of the individual as outlined in the Bill of Rights (which describes "negative" rights - or the right to be left alone). The addressing of inequalities of situation, however, are largely done through the assertion of "positive" rights - which are really just needs. To claim a "positive" right, be in health care, food, shelter etc., is to insist that someone else supply the productivity to fulfill one's need. That is not protection of one's liberty - it is the exploitation of another.
|
Although I do see the distinction that you are trying to make, I think that in reality the line between the two is blurred quite a bit. For example, when does treatment of a worker constitute harm? Almost everyone would agree that 10 cents an hour is an exploitative wage, but at what dollar amount does exploitation end and just payment begin? At what point does the government step in and protect the workers from unfair paractices? Do you see my point here?
Whatever the case, most Americans do favor some sort form of limited social safety net. This is why Beltway Republicans have only gingerly approached the topic of Social Security, advising reforms (privatization) rather than abolition. If a person is a willing participant in a program, they are hardly being exploited by it. Not that you feel the same, of course.