Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
You might benefit from dispensing with the caricatures of liberals you are currently employing--they won't serve you very well in this discussion.
|
To which "caricatures" are you referring?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
What I have to say aligns very cleanly with classical theories on the importance of individualism.
|
But not individual rights.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
I don't know what you are basing your ideas on, but mine are well supported by classical philosophy, classical liberal ideology, and a long history of law and society scholars recognizing that individual rights are a means to guarantee space for personal achievement and encourage citizens to adhere to the social contract--not an end in and of themselves.
|
I'm basing my ideas on a rational definition of individual rights, and I believe that individual rights and freedom are the desired outcome in and of themselves.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
To reiterate, I don't see personal rights as an end in and of themselves; rather, as a means to ensure equality and one's ability to come to the market and engage in the social contract with full knowledge that everyone is subject, and adhering, to the same rules.
|
And therein lies your problem. You are insisting that two imcompatible concepts - individual rights and forced economic equality - are somehow compatible. You can't have it both ways. A free society based on individual rights guaratees no equality other than equality under the law. A society that uses property confiscation to guarantee economic equality by definition cannot guarantee individual rights. Which do you want?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
To guarantee full participation, I would argue that one needs to be secure in the knowledge that one's success depends on one's actions, not the actions of others.
|
Just out of curiousity; how do you feel about welfare programs?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
The things you listed: intelligence, looks, and values, are personal traits.
|
I mentioned this to point out that you simply can't guarantee that everyone starts out on equal footing, even with the presence of socialist programs to confiscate the property of parents. Like it or not, some people are simply better equipped - due either to inherited traits or upbringing - to succeed in life.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that you can ignore individual rights.
|
I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that
I'm ignoring individual rights by opposing the confiscation of private property.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
The theories I read that would speak to this issue argue that equality requires a level social playing field. Then individual traits are played out on that field and the best person wins...
|
The goal of individual rights is to preserve freedom, not equality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
Usually, the conservative's response is that we ought not to guarantee equality of outcome; this is the first time I've heard someone say that we ought not to even establish equality at birth...
|
Where did your previous debates take place? Unless all of your debates on this topic have occurred in extreme left wing environments, I'd be very surprised to hear that someone could spend any significant amount of time arguing for the complete abolition of inheritance without ever hearing a single word of opposition.
As I said before, the only way you can establish economic equality at birth is by massive violation of individual rights (property rights). That is unacceptable.
And, for the record, I'm not sure that it's accurate to label me a conservative.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
It's going to be difficult to describe a coherent course of action according to current conservative party ideals mainly because the platform itself contains logical inconsistencies and attempts to bind divergent classes under one belief system--necessary because the economiclly and politically powerful are few in number but our system secures its legitimacy via the voting public.
|
The person who claims that confiscation of private property to ensure economic equality is compatible with individual rights is now complaining about someone else's logical inconsistencies?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
I don't see how your negation of everything I wrote explains your position to me very well.
|
I thought the explanation was pretty clear. You argument was based on the idea that forced economic equality at birth was somehow compatible with and necessary for individual rights. I pointed out that it isn't, since forced economic equality at birth can only be achieved by violating one's individual right to pass on his or her property to another.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
I would find this conversation more stimulating if you explained why you believed the way you do, how you came to your conclusions, rather than merely refuting what I wrote.
|
I already explained how I reached my conclusion: property confiscation to ensure economic equality is not compatible with individual rights. Given the choice between the two concepts, I'd prefer individual rights. What other explanation are you looking for? Some kind of life-changing event that made me prefer capitalism to socialism?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
So far, I see your comments as running afoul of both classical liberal and conservative ideology in regards to the individual's place in society and the importance of individual achievement.
|
I believe that individual achievement is important, but should not enforced at the expense of individual rights...which seems to be what you're proposing.