While partially meant to be a counterexample to the thread, "In the Absence of God: Human Rights is a Concept Without Meaning", this hypothetical situation I present is meant to address a concern with capitalism devoid of any communism or socialism... or as PI might put it, a system that puts Community before Individual Rights.

You are a member of a small town, maybe 1,000 people, somewhere in the mountain ranges of Canada. A recent freak weather event has stormed in the town, shuting off electricity throughout the town. You are in one of several towns effected by the disaster and it's unknown how soon help will arrive.

You and 3 others in the town were recently injured on the job and require a source of electricity to run your medical equipment, or you will all likely die within 24 hours.

Fortunately, one man in town has a small gas powered power generator. It has 4 outlets, and there is enough gasoline available to run the generator for about a week, more than enough time for the medical helicopter to make it to the town.

Being the good business man that he is, he offers to sell his generator to the highest bidder. You and the 3 other men in town that need the equipment put together an offer of your assets. However, Bill Gates, who also happens to be in town, doubles your current offer. He wants the generator to power his computer because he's bored and wanted some entertainment while he waits for help to arrive.

What do you do? What do the other people watching the situation do? the capitalist in you tells you that you are outbid. Individual rights, as granted by "God" or otherwise, say that everyone has a right to live their own life as they so choose so long as they are not interfering with the individual rights of others. For the greater good of the community, it seems necessary to violate capitalistic principles and the individual rights of Bill Gates and his trading partner. Do you violate them? As another person also watching the situation, do you help?

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Bill gates simple wouldn't do that. This is not a problem it's ridiculous..

The person who is selling the generator has every right to sell it to whoever he wants to, and Bill Gates has every right to buy it and use it for himself. It does not give an onlooker the right to beat the crap out of them and take the generator for you. It would be all of their moral responsibilities to give you the generator, and not even Bill Gates is that evil. Your situation is very interesting because it makes a large scale and almost invisible issue, the unequal distribution of wealth causing people to die in other countries, a small scale issue where it can be easily seen, but the principles are still the same. No one can take your life, liberty, or property without due process of law owing to a person's infringement of those right with regards to another person. No one in your situation is taking your right to life. They are not killing you, they are just not helping you.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

Ah, but why wouldn't he? Obviously it's not the capitalist in him or the "individual rights" theorist in him that is explaining why he would not do it. What greater principle is there at play? Does bill feel others have rights greater than his own individual rights that he must respect?

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

People have rights, and people also have morals. Whether they choose to use those morals is up to them, but their rights cannot be violated.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

So the queston here is might a chang in the "due process of law" be in order establishing the good of the community over the individual and free market capitalism? Or would we just sit on the sidelines and say "shame on bill gates" and do nothing about it because we don't have the "right" to?

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

You just said they could be violated with due process of law. Unless you were refering strictly to criminal proceedings. But certainly that is not the only example of due process even in our own country. Imminent Domain for example.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

I find it really hard to imagine Bill Gates or anyone just standing there on their computer while three people die because of them. The people would probably do something but that would be illegal. Due process applies only to life, liberty, and property. Another solution would be to take, through group action, the generator and compensate Bill gates for its loss to what an objective outsider would consider it to be worth. I would not really be opposed to this even though I am a very strict capitalist.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

Exactly then less people want to buy from bill and he goes out of buisness. And so capitalism is shaped based on what the consumer wants.

I thought i heard this before this is a case of the rich mans dilemma the answer to it is he can help other people using his money if he wishes but he should NEVER be forced to. Even for the good of others as in this case.