A right in the US is what is defined in the Bill of Rights.

I am a student at a magnet high school with 100% college admission rate. I hope to become an environmental scientist in the future.

"As I said, selfish people outnumber kind ones"

Do you have anything to back that up? Or is it just a spurious claim?

"A right in the US is what is defined in the Bill of Rights."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

i suppose i would like to live in a world where skill is valued more then whatever the lowest primal demand is. oh well. i guess i'll just let the invisible hand of the marketplace give me the ole heave ho.

I did not say that socialism cannot exist. I said that it is an unfair and inefficient system. The average standard of living today is far better than that when hunting and gathering was widespread.

Now you're just lying.

You literally said it minutes ago, on Page 3: "Your idealist world where everyone would do what is best for society does not exist and can never exist on this mortal world."

wjessop, the fact that rich people are not donating away their lives' earning in large numbers proves that people are not absolutely selfless and will put financial gain first.

TrPrado, I do not understand your point.

ishirkmywork, Most children want to become an astronaut, a firefighter, or a princess. That simply doesn't work.

Yes, socialism can be imposed by government, but humans would not voluntarily do what is best for society.

That is why communism is so often associated with dictatorships. It requires an iron first.

Oh Leon.

Lies.
Spurious claims.
Ignoring questions.

Capitalism has taught you well.

"Most children want to become an astronaut, a firefighter, or a princess."

Inexplicable.

= "An astronaut, a firefighter, or female royalty."

ah. it all makes sense. if you are looking for a job after school, Leon, send me a PM. I am usually hiring in the spring. We would have some fruitful discussions, i think. :-)

i kinda feel like all of these heated arguments should be settled by an anonymous dip game. anyone interested? i can put one together.

Communism is probably the best economic system in an ideal world. Unfortunately, the world is not ideal, and there exist many people who actively try to game any system they are in. That is what doomed the communist experiment in Russia from the start.

"If you don't aim for utopia you'll never fall far short of it".

amen. +1

"TrPrado, I do not understand your point."
I'm sorry, the better response to your prior statement should have been:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Bill of Rights does not state you have the right to work.
It does not state you have the right to own a company.
It does not give you the right to reproduce.
It does not give you the right to be free of slavery (in the constitution, but not the bill of rights).
It does not give you a right of privacy.

It requires either amendment or inference to claim that you have all the rights that you have, and that's only possible through the Ninth Amendment, which does not itself articulate any rights. To say that "rights" in the US are defined by what is in the Bill of Rights is to ignore a very large number of rights Americans enjoy.

wjessop, I did not lie, make spurious claims, or ignore any questions.

I understand why children would want to become those things. My point is, not everyone can become what they want to be. Otherwise, certain industries would be overwhelmed.

ishirkmywork, I doubt you live anywhere near me and therefore respectfully decline your offer. I would be interested in the game you speak of though.

Gobbledydook has the right idea.

wjessop, Your aphorism is false. Consider: If I want to buy a house and use my life savings to make the downpayment but am unable to pay the mortgage, my house would swiftly be taken away from me, and it would have been better if I had never pursued my dream of owning a house in the first place.

TrPrado, I suppose you are correct in this regard. I therefore have found a new definition that better represents my viewpoint.
"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another. " (John Locke)

He declares that no on ought harm another in his possessions. If every homeless person should be given a home, money (possession) must necessarily be taken from others. In fact, at the onset of communism, as occurred in USSR, all private property would be taken by the government. Here is another quote from John Locke:

"Government has no other end, but the preservation of property."

Government shouldn't be redistributing property. It should be making sure that those who earned their money aren't unrighteously separated from it. Mind you, Wikipedia calls John Locke "the 'Father of Liberalism'".

Oh, and it's true there is no right of privacy. It is a right made up by the Supreme Court using the Bill of Rights despite privacy never being mentioned. Mind you, I fully believe that a right to privacy should be added.

So you would argue that all property that exists should be private property and therein not to be tampered with by the government in your view?

This is a very interesting discussion, but seems to be ruled by extremes

TrPrado, no. Government can have property so long as they buy it from consenting individuals. I am against habeas corpus because sentimental attachment cannot be paid for by money. The property I was thinking of is money. I believe that the income tax should be repealed. The government operated perfectly fine without it for nearly 1 and a half century.

What is uniquely nonconsensual about the income tax, leon?

The government forcibly takes money from a person's income and gives part of it to people who did not earn it.

Like schoolchildren?

The government operated fine without it in completely different market conditions. We've become an industrialized country since then.

Wjessop, I believe public education from K-12 is necessary to give children a somewhat more even footing. However, unemployed people and those who irresponsibly give birth to children they cannot support should not be given aid.

TrPrado, I'm sure that the canals and railroads, all built before the income tax, couldn't have cost too much more than maintaining some roads.

*too much less