What is more important to a Democrat ~ Fair distribution of wealth

[Toots]

or rights of the individual? I suspect it is distribution of wealth ~ to mean schools, highways, hospitals, minimum wage, etc. etc. Rights of the individual ~ mean freedom of choice, freedom of/from religion, freedom to own guns, no free speach zones, etc. etc. I think Democrats want to distribute our wealth fairly while "Liberals/Progressives want individual freedoms. I do think there is a difference between the two.

[leftyandproud]

1. both

[el_gato]

2. false dichotomy

[lagniappe]

3. Fairness and rights but not distribution of wealth.

To me it's just a question of fairness and individual rights. This has nothing to do with distribution of wealth.
I would like leaders that believe:

*If you work overtime you should get paid for it.

*Your health insurance company should not cancel your coverage or deny your treatments just because you get sick.

*Corporate executives should be held accountable. They demand very high salaries. Well, they should be held accountable in proportion to their salary. Republicans howl personal responsibility for everyone but themselves, corporations, and CEOs.

*Your insurance company cannot raise your rates just because they made bad investments in the stock market.

*Doesn't scare the living shit out of you to advance their agenda.

*We should pay our bills now and not pass this burden to our children. Again, what happened to personal responsibility?

*We should not consume every resource in sight. Perhaps we should leave some for our children.

*Doesn't put our troops in harm's way because of a fanatical ideology.

*Believes education is more important than tax cuts for Dick Cheney.

I could go on and on.

[Toots]

4. So no to schools and sewers and highways and airports and???

We don't need no stinking guvment telling us how to spend our money.

[lagniappe]

5. Yes to schools and sewers and highways and airports...

How did you come to that conclusion based on my post?

[Toots]

6. Maybe because of your subject line

"Fairness and rights but not distribution of wealth."
After re-reading my post though what I meant to sound witty came out sounding mean and condescending. Sorry.

[IrateCitizen]

7. Expenditures on "commons" doesn't equal wealth redistribution

It is simply the spending of money on things that benefit society as a whole.

[blurp]

9. What about things like social security?

How do you reconcile the right to keep what you produce with helping seniors? A tradeoff has to be made.

If you don't have a right to keep what you produce, is that a form of involuntary survitude? Does the promise that you'll get it back change that?

Again, it's a tradeoff.

[vpigrad]

8. Huh?

No to sewers? I wonder what those cities would smell like. Yuck!

Back to the original post:

> Fair distribution of wealth or rights of the individual?

How can you have individual rights without fair distribution of wealth? What do rights mean to someone that is starving? Rights are about fair access for everyone to the same things.

> freedom to own guns

What about freedom FROM guns? I like living and would like to have the freedom to stay away from those things. You can't have a truly free society unless those things are gone. After all, what good is freedom if you're dead!

[blurp]

11. What about the right to what I produce?

How can you have individual rights without fair distribution of wealth? What do rights mean to someone that is starving? Rights are about fair access for everyone to the same things.

Does fair access mean everyone should have fair access to the contents of my wallet? Am I free if I have to support others? Some individual rights must be sacrificed for the sake of things like social security.

Besides, there are plenty of rights that don't require equal distribution of wealth. Can I tell my friends I hate George Bush, even if I'm poor? Sure. Free speech.

What about freedom FROM guns? I like living and would like to have the freedom to stay away from those things. You can't have a truly free society unless those things are gone. After all, what good is freedom if you're dead!

People have differing tolerances for risk. Some don't mind the presense of guns and want to be free to own them. Other people are willing to give up that individual right to be safe. It's subjective. Each community should decide for itself.

[Silverhair]

10. Yes, there is.

I am strongly a Democrat of freedoms, and of taking responsibilty for the results of your own actions. I believe that the doors of opportunity should be open to all, but it is the person's choice to walk through those doors.

The distribution of wealth types seem to want everybody to have the same, no matter what they do with their lives.

There is some overlap between the two, a middle ground of some redistribution to give a person temporary help and make opportunity available. After that, people should be on their own. Except for health care, which I address in a series of posts.