A Simple Question: Why?

[rationalpassion]

Over at her LJ in a private thread, which I have been given permission to excerpt in this public post, phamos818 wrote:

But it's a generational rights issue between us at this point: You believe rights stop at what HR folks call first gen rights (civil and political) where as I also believe in 2nd gen rights (economic and social).

"HR," for those who don't

Comments

Part II

[rationalpassion]

6. Having asserted, but never proved, that property is an "economic and social right," he says that it may be a "limited" right. He never suggests anywhere that welfare is limited--indeed, he suggests that, for many, perhaps most, people, other benefits are far more important than property rights. As such, property rights can be allowed on a limited basis, but only insofar as "economic security and autonomy for all" are provided for by the welfare state. Bogus

Re: Part II

[ilcylic]

I responded to your first comment in this thread before reading the rest, but I think, in light of these two points, that my reply still stands. They don't seem quite as radical as you made them out to be at first, but that doesn't change the underlying premise of their claims. Rights are what a popular vote on the subject deems them to be. If that means that the majority of people, being less able to generate wealth than the top echelon, decide that they have a "right" to that output, then so be it.

(Note to the leftists, I don't think that the people occupying that spot on the ladder in today's world are the same people who would be there in a world of perfect respect for free-market ideals; today's "top echelon" is mostly crooks who work to engineer the shape of the playing field via government interference in the market more than they work to engineer products that individuals want, but there would be a top echelon in any system. Men are equal in rights, but not in ability, and some abilities will have higher value to other