It's no biggie. The discussion is actually a pretty good one, just the difference in theoretical and practical can have a person forming two different opinions on the same topic.

I'll wait to respond Ethan once you move the thread other then to say really good response and I think it's relevant to the discussion though, because you're suggestion of socialism and freedom coexisting is a very intriguing one similar to the construct of proposed American Socialized Health Care.

If it helps you JJJ I could explain my own political philosophy before we dive back into this. What I believe as it isn't really traditional Marxism at all in terms of the goal (this is where I guess it becomes socialist as opposed to Marxist) and I tend to lean more towards Trotsky then Lenin and there's other tidbits...that are just not typical characteristics of socialism.

The only economic system we currently have that respects the individual's pursuit of his own happiness is capitalism. That is why I like it.

When you take away property rights the individual cannot see the most objective value of his work. In other words, the output of man's work is screwed around with to the point where man doesn't know his work's worth. That is not good for the individual.

Property rights and personal responsibility go hand in hand. When society says that everyone must rely on everyone else it is lying. It is telling you a false statement about humanity. The fact that we have free will is undeniable. We cannot escape our responsibility for ourselves. The society that takes away property rights attempts to, but it will never work. It will never get to the point where a man does not have to fend for himself.

Lastly, I view any attempt to distribute the wealth as materialist. The idea that one cannot succeed in a capitalist economy is false. That is because succeeding in life has nothing to do with money. Might it make life easier with money? Maybe. Will it help one achieve happiness. Never.

P.S. I know I am jumping in at a horrible time.

What gives you a right to property?

What gives you a right to anything? The fact that we all need property rights to pursue our own happiness is what gives us the right. Ultimately nothing gives anything rights. The government protects "rights," so that might relate to the question your asking. There are no "human rights" or any of that stuff. Where do they come from?

What is rational in the pursuit of man's own happiness is what makes it a right. It all starts with the base right, that man may have a right to his own life. If that right is crossed, then no one on either side will experience happiness. It is a social contract.

So all "rights" stem from this right to life. Anything that infringes on man living his own life is not a right. Of course, there is a hierarchy. There are some things that we consider rights that infringe on other so called "rights." Some rights are more important than others. That is why one needs a hierarchy.

i realize this is basically a 2-way PM conversation being broadcast publicly for whatever reason but i'm still gonna butt in for a quick comment.

i don't have a problem with wealth redistribution, if everyone is working towards the same goal...

on the other hand i have a big problem with redistributing whatever wealth i've accumulated to those who just want a free ride regardless of their justifications. which then opens up a 'big brother' can of worms because there would obviously have to be some sort of system in place to ensure people aren't just mooching off the system.


then again the best comment i've ever heard in terms of social ideals (it kind of applies to this discussion as well)

if you're in your 20s and you don't believe in some socialist utopia - you don't have much of a heart.

if you're in your 30s and you still believe in some socialist utopia - you don't have much of a brain.

so you hunted and gathered your own food, taught yourself, made clothes for yourself and built your own computer?

in the society we live in we all rely on one another whether we like it or not

But you owning property infringes on my right to own property and therefore my own pursuit of happiness no? So doesn't that mean property rights are something only attainable to the people on a certain level of that hierarchy and up? Which would mean that they're better than those below - creating classes. Which means that those with, the upper class, can oppress those without, the lower class. How can the lower class pursue their own happiness then when the upper class has created monopolies, slave wages, and given them the whole laissez-faire package?

You're completely over thinking it. His point ( I think) is more along the lines of the concept of avoiding playing to the lowest common denominator. It's nothing more then applied societal natural selection.

A society should take things\goods\people that are useful and work with them without being forced to work around those people and things that can not pull their own weight.

You see what I mean?