In a world of increasing inequality, the legitimacy of institutions that give precedence to the property rights of 'the Haves' over the human rights of 'the Have Nots' is inevitably called into serious question.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We live in a world in which we're seeing an increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots.
To be clear, the gap between the have gots and the have nots is widening. In this most multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic America ever, that concerns me.
We throw to the winds the old dogma that governments can give rights. Before governments were organized, no one denies that each individual possessed the right to protect his own life, liberty and property.
Richness in the world is a result of other people's poverty. We should begin to shorten the abyss between haves and have-nots.
Inequality of any kind, once considered a normal, natural part of human existence, came to be seen in the course of the twentieth century as increasingly illegitimate.
By nature, every individual has the right to govern himself; and governments, whether founded on majorities or minorities, must derive their right from the assent, expressed or implied, of the governed,, and be subject to such limitations as they may impose.
Whereas it has long been known and declared that the poor have no right to the property of the rich, I wish it also to be known and declared that the rich have no right to the property of the poor.
Schools are not equal. There are still the haves and the have-nots.
If you insist that individual rights are the summum bonum, then the whole structure of society falls down.
We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have-nots. We must always be a nation of haves and soon-to-haves.