Originally Posted by spence
You could say the same about manufacturing or power generation. Nobody should have the right to pollute, but if given the opportunity history has proven that they will...and a lot.
What's that got to do with your saying that freeloaders don't have the ability to rig the game? What is their freeloading a product of if not some rigging? And if they don't have that ability, then somebody is rigging for them. And "history has proven" that politicians promise and give goodies for votes, so "groups" of voters have the power to rig by holding their vote as ransome for goodies. Besides, the "right" to pollute, as far as I know, was not considered an unalienable one by the founders, so could only be a right if it was granted by government. Unalienable rights, such as life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were considered unalienable if they did not impinge on others right to the same. Government can giveth or taketh away the "right," to pollute, and it does. Nor is freeloading an unalienable "right." But government can provide legislation that provides it.
The people subsidize the business behavior with their health.
People do not subsidize business with their health. That's the type of "interpretation" of words and language that progressives have used to neutralize constitutional limitations on government and transform rights from being unalienable to being granted by government. People don't directly subsidize business, and only do so (when it's done) indirectly through government which uses their confiscated taxes. Or, more commonly, by lowering taxes on business, either as corrupt crony capitalism, or to motivate business. The people's health can be a benefit to business only if the people are healthy enough to earn an income and spend it on business products ,or if sick, gain a government subsidy (at the expense of business or other tax payers) to spend it on business products. But either is commerce, not a subsidy.
I think the difference is that the elite seek to rig for profit while the non-elite seek to maintain a minimum threshold. The freeloaders are a bi-product of both systems...
Nobody will dispute the obvious. By definition, there is a difference between elite and non-elite. BTW, the non-elite are comprised of the largest segment of our population, and the largest portion of that segment does not merely seek to maintain a minimum threshhold, but strives for and enjoys a much higher standard of comforts. And a difference between elites seeking profit and non-elites seeking to maintain a minimum threshold, is that profit seeking promotes business and the wealth that makes possible assistence to the poor. The poor don't contribute to the formation of wealth, but can only profit from wealth created by others. Which is not to excuse the collusion between powerful businesses and government, but that also doesn't mean that there is not a collusion between non-elites and other special interests and government via distribution and legislation for votes
It is an election.
-spence
|