Stop right there. I reject liberal rights of property as we have known them. I'm a socialist. I think there is no right to private ownership of productive assets. The liberal rights I accept are the right to universal suffrage, to vote and participate in representativbe govt, and extensive civil and political liberties. Those say and imply nothing about what foirm propert rights should take, and I think they should be socialist.
>There is no use resenting my remark; you need to deal with
>the inconsistencies in either your logic or mine.
Done that. your premise being false, the reasining's irrelevanr even if valid.
If that were enacted, it would be a legal right, what am I missing?
>
>If it were enacted, it could be repealed whenever the ruling
>class got tired of it,
That's democracy. Also, theruling class in socialism is the workers.
just as Welfare has been more or less
>repealed. I would not call that a right in the usual liberal
>sense, where rights are supposed to be permanent, unquestioned,
>and inalienable -- if not religious truths at least the basic
>principles on which the society is organized, which a
>guaranteed income surely is not.
>
Not what I mean by a right. A right to X (I tire of repeating) means that you may not take X away from mer without my say so. The basis of taht right can be as slender as a legally unenforceable custom. An ordinary law will certainly establisha legal right, whether or it is a priooni, natural, necesasry, blah blah. It needn't be basic principle on whic society is organized. It can be frivolous and minor. Anyway, you want it to be immune from legislative sniping? Put it in the Constitution.
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com