Or work near where you can afford to live? If there aren't jobs that support living there, live somewhere else? You're presenting an absurd dichotomy.
> The majority are screwed over by an ultra-rich minority, personally I think that deserves addressing.
No, they aren't. Wealth inequality is not a real problem. It's politicized jealousy. Wealth is not zero-sum, and someone having more than someone else is irrelevant.
> Positive rights for all do not require violence provided those who benefit from others not having simple rights will give up their excess for the greater good.
"Right" means it must be enforced. "provided .. will give up" means taking by that same force if they choose to not turn over what they own.
Taking to support a right absolutely requires violence.
> but that's only because those who, by no greater virtue, have acquired wealth refuse to act justly and recognise the equal dignity of man.
Why should they? What is their obligation? You have undoubtedly acquired more wealth than a subsistence farmer in rural India: why do you refuse to act justly and recognize their equal dignity?
> Or work near where you can afford to live? If there aren't jobs that support living there, live somewhere else? You're presenting an absurd dichotomy.
And what happens when there's no jos where you live, and the only places where jobs exist have extreme housing shortages? You can spend hours commuting each day, but then you're probably burning just as much money through gas - not to mention destroying the environment.
> Then you start a small business, employing others and building up your community.
The idea that anyone can just start a business is seriously indicative of how our of touch this forum can be.
What if there's no goods or services that are in demand in your immediate community? What if your community is impoverished and dying? What if you have no capital to start a business?
> How do you think the ‘places where jobs exist’ started?
Often it was because of natural resources, or geographic factors that made it conductive to establishing a population center (like river or harbour access).
> If it’s intolerable to enough people, they won’t be able to hire. They’ll have to move, or pay more to overcome the housing shortage.
The latter is what's happening: prices of housing are skyrocketing and locking people into poverty.
Or work near where you can afford to live? If there aren't jobs that support living there, live somewhere else? You're presenting an absurd dichotomy.
> The majority are screwed over by an ultra-rich minority, personally I think that deserves addressing.
No, they aren't. Wealth inequality is not a real problem. It's politicized jealousy. Wealth is not zero-sum, and someone having more than someone else is irrelevant.
> Positive rights for all do not require violence provided those who benefit from others not having simple rights will give up their excess for the greater good.
"Right" means it must be enforced. "provided .. will give up" means taking by that same force if they choose to not turn over what they own.
Taking to support a right absolutely requires violence.
> but that's only because those who, by no greater virtue, have acquired wealth refuse to act justly and recognise the equal dignity of man.
Why should they? What is their obligation? You have undoubtedly acquired more wealth than a subsistence farmer in rural India: why do you refuse to act justly and recognize their equal dignity?