• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do so many liberals consider materialistic possessions a human right?

The first rule of economics is scarcity. There is never enough resources to satisfy the needs and wants of all people. The first rule of politics is to disregard the first rule of economics.
I don't believe scarcity is a solid argument against. Of course we won't have infinite resources, but right now, we have sufficiently ample resources to provide a good quality of life for everyone and we will probably have this for at least 50-75 years or so. I think scarcity of resources is a technological and conservation issue, not a reason against having a good quality of life.
 
LaMidRighter was right -- squirmy squirmy McSquirm-Squirm. :lol:

These links are quite enough to support the premise of the question of why "so many liberals" consider these things human rights. It isn't why "all" liberals do so, or even why "the majority" do so, only "so many." I identified "many" who do.

Only to te partisan mind that prefers sterotyping over truth. A small number of people can put a lot of stuff on the internt, and I think I have shown that any silliness will lead to a lot of hits. But that doesn't mean it is representative. That requires actually trying to find out how many.

Many BTW is a vague word that requires more information. How many? For some 10 would be many. But as there are millions of liberal leaning minds in the world, 10 would not really equal many. So, showing some, without a comparison to the whole, making sure you kow how many ctually belive this is just sloppy. It is playing to stereotypes without any effort to seek the truth.

Sorry.
 
I don't believe scarcity is a solid argument against. Of course we won't have infinite resources, but right now, we have sufficiently ample resources to provide a good quality of life for everyone and we will probably have this for at least 50-75 years or so.
Close.
There -may- be enough of everything to go around -- the 'problem' is that there are people that cannot gain access to it because of natural, artificial or enonomic reasons.
 
Only to te partisan mind that prefers sterotyping over truth. A small number of people can put a lot of stuff on the internt, and I think I have shown that any silliness will lead to a lot of hits. But that doesn't mean it is representative. That requires actually trying to find out how many.

Many BTW is a vague word that requires more information. How many? For some 10 would be many. But as there are millions of liberal leaning minds in the world, 10 would not really equal many. So, showing some, without a comparison to the whole, making sure you kow how many ctually belive this is just sloppy. It is playing to stereotypes without any effort to seek the truth.

Sorry.

Squirmy squirmy squirmy squirmy squirmy. :lamo
 
How can any rational human being come to think that FDR had a great idea when he proposed his second bill of rights? How is housing a universal right? How is healthcare a universal right? Why do people continue to believe that scarce resources, and the labor of others, is a right guaranteed to them by some higher power?

The first rule of economics is scarcity. There is never enough resources to satisfy the needs and wants of all people. The first rule of politics is to disregard the first rule of economics.
Do I have a right to a fair trial? Am I entitled to the labor of a judge and jurors and bailiff that would give me that trial?
 
Do I have a right to a fair trial? Am I entitled to the labor of a judge and jurors and bailiff that would give me that trial?
These are rights that -require- the participation of the government because they are rights that -limit- government in its relevant functions. These rights exist because government exists, as if there were not government there's be no trials, etc.

This is not the same thing as the right to free sppeech or freedom of religion or whatnot.
 
Do I have a right to a fair trial? Am I entitled to the labor of a judge and jurors and bailiff that would give me that trial?

Nice try, but nothing there is a personal material benefit. It's a guarantee not to be disappeared by the government.
 
There wasn't anything to answer. Just a lot of hooey that makes it clear you'll move the goalposts no matter what. So, yeah, it's :lamo :lamo :lamo
 
I don't know if I would call them rights, but those are good policies. People bereft of those things tend to put a lot of strain on society one way or another.
 
There wasn't anything to answer. Just a lot of hooey that makes it clear you'll move the goalposts no matter what. So, yeah, it's :lamo :lamo :lamo

Again weak on your part. No goal posts have been moved. I showed that linking internet offerings dosn't answer the question. The question is not can you find an internet link to some small fraction of people, but if you can show that a large number of liberals belive this. Many, as vague as it is, as to be a number we can see as significant. You need some kind of study, or poll, or something that actually addresses that question.

And when you can't provide that, the tactic for you, it seems, is to go off silly.
 
Again weak on your part. No goal posts have been moved. I showed that linking internet offerings dosn't answer the question. The question is not can you find an internet link to some small fraction of people, but if you can show that a large number of liberals belive this. Many, as vague as it is, as to be a number we can see as significant. You need some kind of study, or poll, or something that actually addresses that question.

And when you can't provide that, the tactic for you, it seems, is to go off silly.

This is just getting funnier and funnier.

:rofl
 
Often times material items are required to secure life and reduce suffering. Hopes and best wishes alone won't make it happen.
 
Thanks for the political sneer. What a subtle way to sling mud! Now, what do you REALLY think?

He's a supporter of that second bill of entitlements
 
You pose an interesting philosophical exercise. At the heart of your question is: how can people possibly believe that certain concepts could be considered rights?

But if you think about it, the freedoms enumerated in the US and English Bills of Rights weren't always considered rights. If they had been, there would be no need to codify them. At some point, they became rights in the minds of those that desired them. Freedom of Speech in England wasn't codified until 1689; 100 years before the US Bill of Rights. Was that when freedom of speech became a right? Or is that when a critical mass of the populace decided to claim an existing but unrecognized right?

Think about the deeper meaning of the phrase in the Declaration of Independence:



The DoI implies that certain rights exist as a natural consequence of human nature and culture (or Creator, if that is the part of human culture you wish to credit). The meaning is clear: whether the powers that be agree or not, men have certain freedoms. If the PTB do not agree, it is the responsibility of the governed to establish a government that does recognize those rights. The rights recognized will be established by those that institute the government - the ones that want the rights to be recognized. Or, We The People.

So...if a critical mass of the population in America decides that housing and health care are basic rights, then they are. Just as the English people rose up and claimed their right to free speech 331 years ago, Americans at some point in the future may rise up to claim what they see to be their right to affordable adequate medical care.

Also, be careful when you talk about material possessions as rights that you aren't confusing them with the concepts that those possessions represent. Take housing, for example. The right to housing isn't necessarily a right to possess a house or own a building. It means much more than that. It symbolizes a right to safety, security, roots, heritage, a sense of self and of self-worth. Taken as an aggregate, a sense of community and of belonging. Not really materialistic, wouldn't you say?

But, don't you see the difference? In the past, the only negative of achieving these "rights" were the negatives imposed on the power of the elite. In this day and age, new materialistic "rights" come with devastating consequences. It entails that you actually force others to sacrifice their own labor and their own earnings to promote what may or may not be a good political idea. It may or may not benefit some people. You never know until you try, but once you try it's almost impossible to reverse. And basic human tendencies provide that humankind will not wallow in hardship and cruelty under a laissez-faire regime that protects the fundamental rights of individuals to live free and just lives. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Your rationale is simply the status quo. The people say it's a right and therefore it is. "The people" voted Hitler into office and "the people" killed Socrates. Therefore, "the people" made an incredible mistake in judgement.
 
Often times material items are required to secure life and reduce suffering. Hopes and best wishes alone won't make it happen.

And no one should obstruct you from obtaining those items that are rightfully yours. No one should obstruct you from helping others obtain these same material items. And finally, no forceful government should withdraw money from your labor and ideas in order to distribute largesse, at their convenience, to those who may or may not need it.
 
Capitalism is not perfect but Corporatism, Fascism, Socialism and Communism are worse.
 
The first rule of economics is scarcity. There is never enough resources to satisfy the needs and wants of all people. The first rule of politics is to disregard the first rule of economics.


Here is the US, there are more than enough resources to "satisfy the needs" of all people.
No one credible has ever suggested that the wants of all people should or can be fulfilled.

One of the luxuries the wealthy expect in this wealthiest of all nations we live in is the luxury of not being exposed to third-world contagions, epidemics, and plagues, because even the poor are immunized against them, and are provided with clean water, in order to practice basic hygiene.
Another luxury the affluent expect is not to have to see- first-hand- starving people. Especially starving children, elderly people, and handicapped people.
This is very different from many third-world countries, where even the wealthy have to kick starving children out of their way in order to go about their business each day.

But these are the luxuries money can buy, in a country so obscenely wealthy as ours.
Lucky for us, eh? :)
 
And no one should obstruct you from obtaining those items that are rightfully yours.

I agree.

No one should obstruct you from helping others obtain these same material items.

I agree.

And finally, no forceful government should withdraw money from your labor and ideas in order to distribute largesse, at their convenience, to those who may or may not need it.

I believe this is where our opinions diverge.
 
Well, just d@mn that constitution for giving us the idea we should promote the general welfare and not just the interests of the most privileged and powerful among us.
 
That's not what the General Welfare clause refers to, but why bring up such an academic point?
 
I believe this is where our opinions diverge.
Yes... because you firmly believe that anyone that wants a gun but cannot afford it should have one provided to them by a federal entitlement program.
 
I thought you would be happy to call FDR the father of the "wonderful" second bill of rights; these "rights" mimic several of the articles from the Universal Declaration on HUMAN RIGHTS.

Is housing and medical care included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
 
Is housing and medical care included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
I really dont understand why some people do not understand that having a right does not equate to the entitlement to the means necessary to exercise said right.
 
Back
Top Bottom