Amp, this discussion is bifurcating. I maintain that real rights are in fact birthrights, as broadly identified in the Constitution. You seem to say that they are conferred upon the individual by society. The second leg of the argument regards the merits of the nanny state vs. LF capitalism. Lemme try the first branch.
If rights are conferred on the individual by the government/society, then by what authority do individuals resist the predations of said society? What was done to the Jews of Germany before the war was the will of the majority, and completely "legal" as that term was understood. What of Herr Golberg's right to life, liberty, etc.? The duly elected and installed government, operating with the approval of the majority (thanks to demagoguery (sp?))were systematically looting and expropriating Jewish business owners before the war. (Let's leave the Final Solution out of this. Too emotional). While I know you disapprove of these actions, how are they inconsistant with your theory that the only rights the Jews had were those conferred by the Reich?
Regarding the second argument, does confiscating the economic output (money) of the productive to give to the nonproductive = slavery? I must concur that it does NOT equal chattel slavery as was practiced in this country prior to the War between the States. I mean no disrespect in appropriating that term, slavery, and don't mean to belittle the suffering and anquish of those held by slaveowners.
That being said, allow me to sum up our disagreement, as I understand it. You are convinced that unencumbered capitalism creates unacceptable disparities in wealth, and that the poor are exploited by the wealthy, and that taxation for the purposes of income redistribution (my addendum: By gunpoint, if necessary) is required to redress this. Feel free to correct me if I am too glib, here.
My belief is this. While LF capitalists may in fact amass great wealth, the do so by creating wealth that would otherwise not exist. Please, don't bring up the robber barons of the late 19th Century. They were state capitalist, or demi-fascists, as far as I'm concerned. JD Rockefeller is quoted to have said "competition is a sin". As long as any capitalist or entrepreneur may not compel me to do business with them AT GUNPOINT, then I am free to choose other vendors, or to do without. Further point here: Wealth in this country is not a zero-sum game. What the entrepreneur gains is not necessarily at the direct loss of others in the economy.
My summary is this. While you may decry the disparity of wealth results from capitalism in this country, capitalists have never extorted (taxed) money at gunpoint from the public, much less kicked in doors and hauled people off to the camps. The same can't be said of many socialist governments.
