first of all,in a fair society, the rights of anyONE is shared by all others therefore removing the rights of one is the destruction of that right for all.(if it is through an overarching law and not just an individual case)
On the side of economcs.
the moral grounds for an economic system lies in its principles and its results.
socialism vs capitalism
if the goal of socialism is to give control and distribution of resources to an amalgamate group of people one needs to look at the means of achieving that.
through a government
tanis1lionheart said:
Glass Joe the Champ said:
Okay, here's an example: Would you have government control aspects of the economy if it meant that poor people would have better living conditions? (see: welfare and/or universal health care debate) In that case, the rich few are denied their right to property by being forced to give to a cause they don't support, but the many poor people improve their lives by having some money and access to health care.
Yes I would.
Remember when the government had NO say in the economy/regulations?
Yeah, 'The Jungle', massive monopolies, cocaine in 'legitimate' medication, more shit in meat than actual MEAT, ect.
Not 'good times'.
.
While I'm not for a pure Communist state - a purely Capitalist state is BAD for consumers.
.
.
.
With regards to that, the rich aren't being denied ANY 'rights to property' anymore than I am.
Do you honesty think I want my taxes to bail out banks and failed businesses, a failed war, and the salaries of jerks who don't give a FUCK about me?
-Where's MY rights...or am I not money enough to matter???
.
.
.
When it comes to 'the rich being forced to give'...
There are loopholes that 'the rich' tend to use - it's normally the middle class that's forced to shoulder the burden so I have no issue with 'the rich' being forced to pay taxes that equal things out.
what about government monopolies?
they have a monopoly on legalized force.
there's no citizens police force.
There's no citizens defense force.
All public defense forces take orders from the state and only defend citizens as long as they are recognized as citizens by the state.
the government takes the money of the people under threat of violence(taxation) and half the time the people have no say in how it's being used.
-through the party system
-through the political machine of elected officials only being loosely held acountable for their policies and their effects.
-the whole deal of voting is basically a contest of popularity to decide who will give the people's stolen money back the best way...if at all.
The government has a monopoly on printing currency. without competing currencies within the borders a government is free to duplicate receipts of value for whatever purposes it pleases.
This is achieved through the federal reserve.
in the end,the currency people are forced to use based on the nation they live in may lose value do to how it's being used by the state. They have no control over that and never enough enough power to oppose it.
the nature of a democracy is diluted around the power relations between the people and the state due to the disparity in accumulated and articulated force.
As for economic regulations.
due to their static nature, regulations often cause more harm than good in a market since the nature of all markets is to fluctuate as much as is needed to function.the primary function of allocating services and resources most efficiently and at the lowest costs possible for all parties involved.
regulations can essentially kill communities by killing their economy. since regulations do not rely on the success of a market to exist they continue on to form barriers for development and cause degradation in some areas despite their purpose to prevent abuses in others.
overarching regulations are too arbitrary to avoid causing more harm than good.
therefore an enforceable case by case system should be implemented to prevent abuse while avoiding communal damage through suffocation of economic development.
