I have a question and I hope I get some serious answers and/or comments.
At what point does someone have the authority to deprive one person of their rights and accomplishments to satisfy the desires of someone else?
I am a fussy person about words and their meaning. I ask the above question but it frustrates me that I don’t have the words to express it more clearly. Let me try to explain my dilemma. “Point” is a terrible descriptive word. By it I mean under what circumstances that may exist. By authority I mean “control over”. That probably does not clarify much, but I have tried.
I wanted to try to keep the question short. That was the best I could do at the moment.
The key, or most important aspect, to this question is what is not said outright. What is the precise point or circumstance under which one person has right to control another?
Here is the development of the discussion.
- Do we or should we live in a society where there is equal protection under the law? Let’s momentarily say “yes.”
- What is the precise point where I, you, or our elected officials have the authority to take money from one “rich” person and give it to a poor person? $50,000, $100,000, $1,000,000? What is the precise point?
- Better still, who and how decides that point?
One answer I have received is “Do what is fair.” What is fair? Does a single 19-year-old, going to college, deserve more than a single 19 year old, not going to college? Why? Who sets that standard?
Does and elderly couple have an entitlement to less than a young couple? Why? Who sets that standard?
“There are basic human rights that everyone should have,” is another answer I have received. Then a list of issues like education, health care, a home, etc. follows.
Again my question is who decides what those basic human rights are?
Is it a high school education?
Is it one annual health check-up?
Is it an apartment, house, or mobile home?
Those questions are automatically followed by other equally serious questions.
What if someone does not want a high school, college, or advanced degree? Yet, they want the benefits that come from whichever one meets their fancy, what then?
What if someone wants a homeopathic check-up, instead of a medical certified one? What about someone with chronic disease; should they be limited to one annual visit?
What about a family of two versus a family of six?
The question really is who gets to be judge and jury to decide who gets what and at whose expense?
I want to know precisely. Platitudes and lofty pontification are just dust in the wind. Someone please give me the precise answer!
When a society, which in reality is nothing more than conglomerate of individual controllers, takes from one to give to another I would like to know the standard it uses.
Why do I want to know that standard? Because as the cliché’ says, “There ain’t no free lunches.” When the individual, or a society, decides to gift something to one person…somebody pays the tab. Who is the Master of Ceremonies, besides the thief?
I am serious when I say want someone to give me a cogent answer. My views are pretty clear. I seriously want others to opine. This may appear frivolous and specious, but the truth is, it is the most relevant question that can be asked of our elected leaders. Otherwise, they will thoughtlessly get the answer incorrect.
That Is the Way I See It.