"Equal rights" is not the same as the broader and less-defined "equality". If this conversation is to go anywhere, it behooves us all to be very specific in which meaning of "equality" we are using.
>"all men are created equal", "to ... secure these rights".
People are equal, and have equal rights.
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
Note, this is about forming a government, not an economic system. The problem at hand is the economic system can corrupt the government.
I'm not sure what point you're making.
Typically I see that response as a reactionary take from the right when they feel like their 'right's are threatened when someone in a minority is successful. I'm not sure if that is what you are implying or not.
You're arguing about us individuals down here working for a living.
I think the point is that in Capitalism, the money flows to the top, the top then has the money, can pay off the government, sway officials, and get 'un-equal' advantages. This then destroys democracy, because the rich can buy the power and votes don't matter.
It's about rich and the rest, not black/white, left/right.
But they could have, thanks to imprecise usage of "equality". Therefore the difference is not of interest only to pedants.
> I think the point is that in Capitalism, the money flows to the top, the top then has the money, can pay off the government, sway officials, and get 'un-equal' advantages. This then destroys democracy, because the rich can buy the power and votes don't matter.
I don't dispute this part, and apologize if I gave a different impression.
It is a slippery slope. I grant that. What is 'equal' is pretty difficult to nail down, and means different things to everyone. So guess, it is correct to want to define it up front. I took the tone wrong.
If the 'Rich', can buy power, or inherit wealth. Then they didn't really 'earn' it 'equally' or 'fair and square'. Are they equal? They seem more than equal. Their wealth can't simply be taken away so that they start out 'equal'. In an extrema, we could have 100% inheritance tax, so all children start out equal. That would never work.
Yet today we have the extrema the other way, the rich pass along such exorbitant wealth to their heirs that it creates like 'icebergs of capital' in the economy that don't really produce anything, these people aren't driven. Spending money on another dozen mansions isn't producing the next technology breakthrough.
I'd argue for some basic minimum of equality. Equal schools, equal access to knowledge. Maybe even a basic income, so everyone knows they can eat and not starve. And yes, do need to tax the rich, to free up their capital to put it back into circulation.
>"all men are created equal", "to ... secure these rights".
People are equal, and have equal rights.
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
Note, this is about forming a government, not an economic system. The problem at hand is the economic system can corrupt the government.