[paraclete]

I prefer to move on and realise the error in both systems, the one which thought nothing of the suffering of others and the other which inflicted suffering to bring about change. I have seen the way the followers of your system inflicted suffering upon dissenters and I wonder how different the two systems might be, both are corrupt and evil.

[TUT317]

The founders did not distinguish between positive and negative rights ,and President Obama is quoted as thinking that is a weakness in the Constitution.

I tend to agree with Obama in this instance.

The reason the founders did not distinguish between positive and negative rights was because the idea wasn't fully developed at stage. Any idea that Locke was arguing against positive law when it comes to health care or education is a misunderstanding.

As you point out the idea is more fully developed when it comes to Bastiat. Bastiat was not correct when it comes to a contradiction of positive and negative law. In today's society one is dependent on the other. Your rights to property and limited taxation can only be maintained through positive law. As I said before one is played off against the other.

The problem has come about because Locke believed that all humans have certain natural rights prior to the formation of organized society. The problem is that it is hard to imagine how we can have these rights prior to there being an organized society to give us these rights.

Tut

[tomder55]

The problem is in thinking these rights are from the organized society instead of endowed by the creator. What organized society can give ,can also be taken away by the government .

[paraclete]

The problem has come about because Locke believed that all humans have certain natural rights prior to the formation of organized society. The problem is that it is hard to imagine how we can have these rights prior to there being an organized society to give us these rights.

Tut

There Tut you seem to disgaree with the americans who's constitution says all men have inalienable rights, who gave them those rights? The constitution or God and life. The great problem is for the americans to distinguish between those rights that are inalienable and those that confined by a narrow constitution. They forget That if men have inalienable rights then surely the nation exists to provide and protect them.

Therefore we have to understand how life, liberty and happiness are defined and delivered. If life is an inalienable right then the nation must deliver just health care, food and accommodation, there is no mine and yours but ours. If liberty is a right, then slavery in any form is not to be tolerated and therefore a just wage must be delivered and if happiness is a right, then the nation must remove the sources of unhappiness, such as exploitation, crime and repression. Measured against such standards the US has far to go.

[tomder55]

No Clete that is a distortion . There is no guarantee of equality of outcome and results.
It is the role of government as defined in the Declaration of Independence to "secure these rights " .Yes Madison explained in Federalist 10 that without government men are unprotected in the state of nature. So there is a partial giving up of rights so the government can secure those that man cannot do himself. Those limited powers granted to the government are outlined in the Constitution .

What you describe goes beyond all rational role of the government of free men into a realm of absurdity. What you are securing for one person you are taking from another . That is a tyranny.

[paraclete]

No Tom my explanation is completely rational. If you state something to be a fact, an inalienable fact, then everything else must be seen in that context. So you cannot say we see these rights as existing but now we will limit them because we are going to limit government and its response to them. Such inconsistancies must be resolved and they can only be resolved by reference to the original context.

So back to what I said before, and it is not tyanny to ask everyone to contribute to the common good if they all have equal rights to the benefits. What you are trying is justify is a tyranny which says I will benefit from the endevours of everyone but I will not contribute unless I want to, In other words; usary

[TUT317]

The problem is in thinking these rights are from the organized society instead of endowed by the creator. What organized society can give ,can also be taken away by the government .

Hi Tom and Clete

Obviously Locke was very influential in terms of 'rights' when it comes to the Constitution. I am not being critical of the role of the creator.

My criticism was centred on the so call called 'men living in a state of nature'- before the advent of organized society. Locke's argument is that all men are equal in the sense they have rights which existed prior to organized society being formed. These 'natural rights' are carried over to an organized society. On this basis Locke argues these rights cannot be taken away by government. It is hard to defend Locke when he says that certain rights existed in a state of nature. My criticism is directed at Locke's understanding of 'a state of nature'.

In the modern political environment Locke has been interpreted as saying each person has the right to equal treatment when it comes to the law. Positive laws are obviously man made and on this basis they are somewhat fluid. In other words, what the law gives with one hand it can take away with he other at a different time.

My argument is that positive laws are sometimes needed to defend negative rights. In a similar way negative rights can also be used to defend against positive laws. Who is winning the battle at the moment? Yes, there is an argument that your negative rights are being slowly eaten away. However, this is not sufficient evidence to accept Bastiat's contention, I e democracy will eventually topple in the face of so- called contradictory forces.

Tut

[paraclete]

Tut I like to be a little more pragmatic than rely on one commentator's theories. The reality is government has been endeavouring to restrict rights ever since it has been set up and in that we have a tyranny. Today's tyrannies are not as excessive as those of centuries ago, but they are tyrannies nevertheless. Democracy inevietably gives way to tyranny as the weight of law is imposed upon it and bureaucracy takes over

[tomder55]

Hi Tom and Clete

Obviously Locke was very influential in terms of 'rights' when it comes to the Constitution. I am not being critical of the role of the creator.

My criticism was centred on the so call called 'men living in a state of nature'- before the advent of organized society. Locke's argument is that all men are equal in the sense they have rights which existed prior to organized society being formed. These 'natural rights' are carried over to an organized society. On this basis Locke argues these rights cannot be taken away by government. It is hard to defend Locke when he says that certain rights existed in a state of nature. My criticism is directed at Locke's understanding of 'a state of nature'.

In the modern political environment Locke has been interpreted as saying each person has the right to equal treatment when it comes to the law. Positive laws are obviously man made and on this basis they are somewhat fluid. In other words, what the law gives with one hand it can take away with he other at a different time.

My argument is that positive laws are sometimes needed to defend negative rights. In a similar way negative rights can also be used to defend against positive laws. Who is winning the battle at the moment? Yes, there is an argument that your negative rights are being slowly eaten away. However, this is not sufficient evidence to accept Bastiat's contention, i e democracy will eventually topple in the face of so- called contradictory forces.

Tut

I think it's happening a lot faster than some predict. The nanny state model of the PIGS is being propped up by an increasingly reluctant Germany . The Obots think the rich can prop up their bloated budgets. They are wrong. Besides the fact that the rich don't have nearly enough to make up for the near 50% of America that pays no taxes to the Federal Government ;the rich can ,have ,and will move their wealth elsewhere... Galt's Gulch maybe .

[TUT317]

I think it's happening a lot faster than some predict. The nanny state model of the PIGS is being propped up by an increasingly reluctant Germany . The Obots think the rich can prop up their bloated budgets. They are wrong. Besides the fact that the rich don't have nearly enough to make up for the near 50% of America that pays no taxes to the Federal Government ;the rich can ,have ,and will move their wealth elsewhere.... Galt's Gulch maybe .

Hi Tom,

You're the economist, not me. What you say here and in your previous entries relating to statistics and trends is no doubt correct.

What I am rejecting is the idea that Marx, Bastiat, Rand, Smith or anyone one else for that matter can predict what society will be like in the future.

Many years ago Sociology Departments were full of papers and books predicting what life was going to be like in 20,30, 40 years time. As it turned put none of them were worth the paper they were printed on.

We can't apply the methods of science to society and get the same accurate predictions. There is always some factor not taken into account. Take Marx for example. Marx believed he had discovered 'the key element' which would allow him to predict the way society will progress (sounds familiar with all of these commentators doesn't it?)

It seemed obvious to Marx at the time society was heading in a particular direction and nothing was going to stop it. One of many things he didn't take into account in his formulation was the rapid expansion of the middle class. Some people are still waiting for the revolution.

[paraclete]

I think it's happening a lot faster than some predict. The nanny state model of the PIGS is being propped up by an increasingly reluctant Germany . The Obots think the rich can prop up their bloated budgets. They are wrong. Besides the fact that the rich don't have nearly enough to make up for the near 50% of America that pays no taxes to the Federal Government ;the rich can ,have ,and will move their wealth elsewhere.... Galt's Gulch maybe .

Yes and the excesses of the rich in the US are being propped up by China. There is nothing wrong with lower income people paying no tax, it is when the rich pay little tax that the country, any country, is in trouble. The tax rates in the US could be 100% and yet the tax take would be small because of all the allowances and deductions. Why don't you get a real tax system which captures all alike. It's time for a Goods and Services Tax so all the avoiders are contributing.

[tomder55]

No problem with that thought if the "progressive" income tax was abolished.

My bigger point is that so long as the bulk of the country sees the role of government as being 'sugar daddy' the country is doomed no matter how it's paid for.

[paraclete]

no problem with that thought if the "progressive" income tax was abolished.

My bigger point is that so long as the bulk of the country sees the role of government as being 'sugar daddy' the country is doomed no matter how it's paid for.

Well Tom you don't abolish it but you can greatly modify it's operation so it does what it is supposed to do, tax the rich. We once had draconian taxes in this country but slowly the penny dropped that there were better ways to shear the sheep and minimise the bleetting, you also abolish a lot of state taxes in the process, quite revolutionary

[TUT317]

My bigger point is that so long as the bulk of the country sees the role of government as being 'sugar daddy' the country is doomed no matter how it's paid for.

Hi Tom,

That's a bit pessimistic. No one can predict the future, least of all economists. The entire population is dependent on government to some extent. If the progressive taxation system is too much of a burden then perhaps a system where everyone contributes according to their ability to pay. I think it is called equity.


Tut

[NeedKarma]

My bigger point is that so long as the bulk of the country sees the role of government as being 'sugar daddy' the country is doomed no matter how it's paid for.

I have a different take on it: as long as the bulk of the country accepts that your government is a tool of the corporations your country is doomed.

[tomder55]

Hi Tom,

That's a bit pessimistic. No one can predict the future, least of all economists. The entire population is dependent on government to some extent. If the progressive taxation system is too much of a burden then perhaps a system where everyone contributes according to their ability to pay. I think it is called equity.


Tut

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ?
Hmmm where have I heard that before ?

[tomder55]

I have a different take on it: as long as the bulk of the country accepts that your government is a tool of the corporations your country is doomed.

That would be the Dems. You think not ? Why this push for universal health care ? So the corporations no longer have to underwrite their employees health care.

[NeedKarma]

That would be the Dems.

It's both sides. All the politicians are bought by the corporations and they vote for their sponsors' interests. This isn't a partisan issue - it's both sides. You're deluded if you think your party is looking out for *your* interests. Unless that is fixed your ideals will never bear fruit.

[tomder55]

I am not a political party type of guy. When I left the Dems I remained independent .

[NeedKarma]

I am not a political party type of guy.

Really? LOL! Your posts/threads here betray that statement.