Re: Why Im no longer an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
but I don't go around calling your beliefs illogical.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you think I was attacking you with the comment about logically consistent belief systems, I wasn't, unless you are actually some staunch party line Dem and I didn't know it (which I seriously doubt). Frankly, I have no idea what you believe. I know you're not an ACist or a neo-con - but that's about it. You really don't spend much time arguing in support of anything - mostly just detracting from things you oppose, and even then you sometimes hint you are playing devil's advocate. Not that that's necessarily bad.
So, yeah - if you accept all those positive rights as axiomatic, you can be logically consistent I suppose. I happen to think it's a disgusting set of axioms, but logical? I guess it could be.
[ QUOTE ]
20'th century governments were the first to actually provide it to *everyone*.
[/ QUOTE ]
Absurd. Having a government undermines property rights in the first place. That said, some gov't somewhere might have done something vaguely resembling this - I don't know, I'm not a history expert - but Kelo was a nail in the coffin for property rights in America. (How bout that! I worked in a Supreme Court case reference in a reply to Adanthar! *braces for 2500-word legal critique*)
Sure, my house hasn't been condemned, but basically what any of us have is only what the gov't lets us keep, which is basically true when any one group has a monopoly on the use of force. I don't call that providing property rights to anyone, much less everyone. Pretty sure the people who've had their homes seized for the sake of gov't/corporate profiteering wouldn't think so, either.
|