: "How noble the law, in its majestic equality, that both the rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the streets, sleeping under bridges, and stealing bread!" - A.F.
: Which was plainly not the context in which Nikhil was speaking; he was speaking about the ultimate equality of each member of the human race;
What on Earth does that entail? What is "the ultimate equality of each member of the human race"?
: If you don't believe in this, then why do you support market capitalism; in which the vast mass of the populace are effectively playthings in the hands of the elites?
: Joe Schmo's capital is less than that of J. Rockefeller; as a result of which, it is highly unlikely that J. Rockefeller will ever be ordered about by Joe Schmo.
Your concern here seems to be autocracy in the workplace. Assuming the original Rockefeller made welath by his brain (don't kid me he was lucky or some such BS) then in what way does Mr Schmoe have a right to that brain?
: It's not limited to majorities; a disproportionately loud minority can do the same sort of thing.
Watch those pressure groups in Washington.
: Bill Gates' capital equals the sum total of the USA's poorest 45%; essentially, Bill Gates is held to be more important to the USA than the entire U.S. working class and a good chunk of the middle class.
Richer, not 'more important'. He does not have increased right to life.
: Do you believe in one 'freedom' for all; yes/no? - if you do, then by definition, everyone is equal in their state of 'freedom' - and if you don't, then it isn't 'universally applicable'.
That works for the declaration quotation.
: It's predicated on the idea that all humans are fundamentally equal, Gee.
Equal right to existence, equal before laws of justice. Not equal in brain or ability.
: And it's clearly not the case when people are denied access to the law,
No, you are right on this. Equality before the law is vital. Equality if food creates inequality in terms of the extent of your obligation to meet it.
: Not at all; you're missing the point again. Einstein was better at maths than you; it doesn't mean that his maths was more 'valuable' (on an absolute scale) than yours.
Which scale is that please? Is not the inventor of a new medicine more valuable to sufferers than I?
: The facts in themselves are not sufficient to convey value; it's public perception and valuation of the facts that renders 'value'.
Nice to see someone support the STV. ;-)
: We are (nominally) civilised, as I said; we have gone beyond a 'state of nature'. It's why we don't leave our old people to be eaten by wolves any more.
That doesnt negate the different abilities of people to tend to thir own pursuits.
: Oh yes it is, Gee. Either you believe everyone has a fundamentally equal right to life and the fruits thereof, or you don't.
I do, now about those fruits - whose lives are you saying should produce the fruits and which lives are to benefit?
: If you make things like health facilities dependent upon the amount of money you have, then you are implicitly declaring that the poor have less right to life than the rich.
There would be nothing implicit. There would be simply the fact that some could buy more than others.
: Do these quotes mean anything to you, Gee?
I can see how, by altering definitions, their intent can be changed. And how I wouldnmt agree with them all anyway.
- oh, and you haven't responded to my previous message yet...
which one? Must have missed it.