Conservatives

Actually, I disagree. Rights exist regardless of what society says, otherwise Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did nothing wrong. Ultimately, if society determines what is right and wrong, then all morality is relative and there's no reason for the rich to act justly or charitably, and really in that world both of those terms would be meaningless.

Right and wrong only have meaning if they transcend society, and so rights and obligations only have meaning if they too transcend the opinion of societies.

Furthermore, who is to say what constitutes a society? Is society the whole world? Is it the EU? The UK? Even if we go with self-determination, we run into problems with groups like the Scottish National Party, or nation-counties like Cornwall. Are you British, European, English... or what? ... See More
I live in the United States, but have greater loyalty to Texas than to the Union, though I consider myself a member of both. I identify myself as a Christian, but not every Christian recognizes the Church as a society. So even self-proclaimed societies have conflicting boundaries. What then do we resort to? A shifting consensus of multiple societies? In such a world there are no rights.

Now, all that said, I am actually very much a populist. I think the people should have a whole lot to say in how they are governed. But I also think that any society is merely the sum of all its flawed parts, and is certainly not the measure of what rights any man does or does not have, though it may conform to that transendent standard or not.

So, long story short, society does not own anybody's money. Individuals own their money, unless they freely and explicitly give it to someone else.

Now what did you mean about the US and a stern nanny state?

ok so the 'few people' in certain occupations that brought the world to its knees are forgotten then?? lets just blame Brown for being alive then! people got greedy for fame, popularity and money! thats why we are all in this mess

Leo: Thats brilliant! Well done!