News What Are We Entitled To and Why?

[franznietzsche]

Very well put point Moonbear.

These rights are something that are guarnteed to you at birth. No one can take them away from you. The fact that people have spilled their blood and lost their lives on foreign and domestic soil falls under Freedom has a high price. You don't need to "earn" those rights. They are something that is endowed upon you. What you do with those rights is your business. Many people have made HUGE differences in the world with those rights...Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, JFK, the list is highly extensive. You make sacrifices for those rights all the time without realizing it.

Those rights can be very easily taken away from you, and you are a fool to think otherwise. How many people in the world do not have those rights? They are wnything but unalienable, and are very easily taken away.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ, you are mistaken about Karl Marx having popularized the idea of government as a servant to the public. Marx favored an uprising by the proletariat, an overthrow of existing government and a state based on cooperation. He did not espouse any idea of a contract between the people and the government.

I don't remember exactly who came up with the idea--possibly John Locke--but the basis is that people create government to serve them. Even when the government protects your rights, it _provides_ this protection for you. You agree to be governed by the government in exchange for the government agreeing to provide services for you.

If you think this state of affairs is somehow dysfunctional, check out countries like Finland. They have a huge rate of taxation, which they use to provide things like free health care and free higher education, which enable them to develop highly successful technological economies.

 

[misskitty]

I know. We fight so that we can keep these rights and not have them taken away. There are millions upon millions of people who don't have these rights...but imagine what the world would be like if they did.

 

[russ_watters]

Those rights can be very easily taken away from you, and you are a fool to think otherwise. How many people in the world do not have those rights? They are wnything but unalienable, and are very easily taken away.

I think you misunderstand: the phrase "unalienable rights" doesn't mean they are physically incapable of being taken away, since obviously, they can and have been taken away by everyone from tryannical kings to a guy with a gun who robbed the local liquer store. What it means is that these are rights that shouldn't be taken away. As such, they were built into our Constitution in a way that makes them extremely difficult to revoke.

 

[misskitty]

"Indeed, the U.S. stands today because people fought to secure these "inalienable rights."

Recall the wording of the Declaration of Independence:

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

__________________" -Moonbear


The men that founded this great country were very brillent people. They had a dream and they fought for it so others can enjoy the liberties they had.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, you are mistaken about Karl Marx having popularized the idea of government as a servant to the public. Marx favored an uprising by the proletariat, an overthrow of existing government and a state based on cooperation. He did not espouse any idea of a contract between the people and the government.

Well, this may be another one of those conflicts between Marx's theory and its implimentation. I mean - if there is no such thing as private property, then government must provide you with a place to live. Marx may well have envisioned a utopian anarchy - cooperation but with no actual government.

I don't remember exactly who came up with the idea--possibly John Locke--but the basis is that people create government to serve them. Even when the government protects your rights, it _provides_ this protection for you. You agree to be governed by the government in exchange for the government agreeing to provide services for you.

The "social contract" is, indeed, Locke - I did not mean to imply that Marxism had a "social contract".

If you think this state of affairs is somehow dysfunctional, check out countries like Finland. They have a huge rate of taxation, which they use to provide things like free health care and free higher education, which enable them to develop highly successful technological economies.

Like I said, it works for Europe because they don't have the same "burden" of freedom that we do. Embracing social democracy means abandoning the "American Dream".

 

[franznietzsche]

Its still failing, but so the children who fail still fail. Its just doesn't kill them as badly.

.


But they deserved a zero.

Its a damned handout that they don't deserve.

If you get zero, you get zero. Period.

 

[franznietzsche]

I think you misunderstand: the phrase "unalienable rights" doesn't mean they are physically incapable of being taken away, since obviously, they can and have been taken away by everyone from tryannical kings to a guy with a gun who robbed the local liquer store. What it means is that these are rights that shouldn't be taken away. As such, they were built into our Constitution in a way that makes them extremely difficult to revoke.

Of course they shouldn't be taken away, but the attitude of entitlement implies that they can't, that we're free to sit on our arses and not doo anything, because damn it, we're entitled.

 

[franznietzsche]

If you think this state of affairs is somehow dysfunctional, check out countries like Finland. They have a huge rate of taxation, which they use to provide things like free health care and free higher education, which enable them to develop highly successful technological economies.

I know a guy from sweden who lives back in my home town. KNow why he left sweden? High taxes make it impossible to make any money, personal wealth becomes very difficult. In his words "its a great place to be young, its a great place to be old, but its not a good place to be middle-aged".

 

[misskitty]

.


But they deserved a zero.

Its a damned handout that they don't deserve.

If you get zero, you get zero. Period.

I never said I agreed with the policy...in fact quite the opposite. I too think if they get a zero, then they deserve a zero.

One can not appreciate victory without experiencing defeat.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ, should I take it then that you are diametrically opposed to Bush's "war on terror"?

 

[misskitty]

Is everyone here completely 100% opposed to the war?

 

[Moonbear]

Of course they shouldn't be taken away, but the attitude of entitlement implies that they can't, that we're free to sit on our arses and not doo anything, because damn it, we're entitled.

That's not what entitlement means.
The following definitions all courtesy of http://www.wordreference.com

entitlement

1*right granted by law or contract (especially a right to benefits); "entitlements make up the major part of the federal budget"

entitled:

1 qualified for by right according to law; "we are all entitled to equal protection under the law"

The definition of a right:

1*an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature; "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"; "Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people"- Eleanor Roosevelt; "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away"

For comparison, the meaning of a privilege:

1*a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all

2*a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group (especially a hereditary or official right)

To consider them privileges is to say it is acceptable for some people to be denied access to them. There are indeed privileges that people consider entitlements, which they are not, but the most basic rights "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are entitlements. Note, that doesn't say you need to achieve happiness, just that nobody should stop you from pursuing it. If you want to sit on your butt and remain miserable, you can; nobody needs to do anything to make you happy.

 

[Moonbear]

I think you misunderstand: the phrase "unalienable rights" doesn't mean they are physically incapable of being taken away, since obviously, they can and have been taken away by everyone from tryannical kings to a guy with a gun who robbed the local liquer store. What it means is that these are rights that shouldn't be taken away. As such, they were built into our Constitution in a way that makes them extremely difficult to revoke.

I'm going to quibble a bit of semantics here. "Unalienable" (or "inalienable"; both are used interchangeably with reference to the Declaration of Independence) does mean the right can't be taken away. Even when someone commits an act that infringes upon your right, you still have that right intact. If when someone robbed the local liquor store and shot the clerk that took away their right to life, then there would be no way to hold the robber accountable because the right would no longer exist that made it wrong. Instead, it is because you have and retain that right that action can be taken to hold someone else accountable if they interfere with your rights.

 

[loseyourname]

The "social contract" is, indeed, Locke - I did not mean to imply that Marxism had a "social contract".

It was actually Thomas Hobbes that first clearly articulated the idea of a social contract, though I don't think he used that terminology. I believe the phrase itself is owed to Rousseau.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, should I take it then that you are diametrically opposed to Bush's "war on terror"?

No, why would you think that?

 

[Bartholomew]

I would tend to think that because death to terrorism is incredibly unlikely for any given person, so government cannot be seen to be protecting any of your "fundamental rights" as seen by you by going after terrorists. So according to you the "war on terror" has no reasonable motivation.

Anyway, when you have people in a society together, nearly all damage done to anyone's life, liberty, or property can be seen as a result of other people. i.e., if someone loses his property in the stock market, this is because of the actions of other people in not wanting to buy the stocks the person invested in. Or if someone dies of hunger and exposure on the street, this is because other people built cities where you need money for food and shelter--if the city grounds still were forest, the dead man could have lived as a hunter-gatherer. Or if someone is stuck in a tread-water job in the city because she can't afford to move, her liberty is constrained by economic systems set up by other people. Your rights are constantly infringed upon, by other people; it is crazy idealism to believe that the government could fully protect your basic rights. Social programs are just making up for the damage societal systems have caused to some people.

 

[russ_watters]

I would tend to think that because death to terrorism is incredibly unlikely for any given person, so government cannot be seen to be protecting any of your "fundamental rights" as seen by you by going after terrorists. So according to you the "war on terror" has no reasonable motivation.

Your premise is flawed, and that makes your conclusion flawed. In the US, individual right to life is of utmost importance and national security/integrity follows it (is directly related to it). Therefore, whether its 3,000 deaths or 50 (from the first WTC bombing), the threat of terrorism is not something that can be ignored.

The uitilitarian concept that 3,000 is not a lot of deaths quite simply doesn't apply here.

Anyway, when you have people in a society together, nearly all damage done to anyone's life, liberty, or property can be seen as a result of other people. i.e., if someone loses his property in the stock market, this is because of the actions of other people in not wanting to buy the stocks the person invested in. Or if someone dies of hunger and exposure on the street, this is because other people built cities where you need money for food and shelter--if the city grounds still were forest, the dead man could have lived as a hunter-gatherer. Or if someone is stuck in a tread-water job in the city because she can't afford to move, her liberty is constrained by economic systems set up by other people. Your rights are constantly infringed upon, by other people; it is crazy idealism to believe that the government could fully protect your basic rights. Social programs are just making up for the damage societal systems have caused to some people.

That quite simply is not what rights are or how they work. Nor should/can it be.

 

[Bartholomew]

Why should national security be important when the nature is secure enough so that no particular citizen's life is reasonably endangered, if the only purpose of government is to protect citizens' basic rights?

And, you say that's not what rights are or how they work, but why don't you provide any argument in support of that? What is the essential difference--with respect to RIGHTS--between causing harm to someone by robbing them, and causing financial harm to the same person through, say, a price war?

 

[russ_watters]

It was actually Thomas Hobbes that first clearly articulated the idea of a social contract, though I don't think he used that terminology. I believe the phrase itself is owed to Rousseau.

Well, since I'm interested in the subject and neither of us is quite right, let's just beat it to death: http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/soc-cont.htm

I had forgotten that Hobbes discussed the concept, and it is a concept that goes back much further than those big 3.

The reason I always cite Locke is I think his is what our system is most based on (though it has elements of Rousseau as well). Our "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a paraphrase/modification of Locke's "life, liberty, and property", as is the concept of inalienable rights.

According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one’s interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a state without morality. The State of Nature is pre-political, but it is not pre-moral. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Locke’s view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their "life, health, liberty, or possessions" (par. 6). Because we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another. So, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful.

 

[misskitty]

I think it might be safe to say rights are something that everyone has. What people do with those rights is constricted by the law. Other than that people can live as they please.

 

[russ_watters]

And, you say that's not what rights are or how they work, but why don't you provide any argument in support of that? What is the essential difference--with respect to RIGHTS--between causing harm to someone by robbing them, and causing financial harm to the same person through, say, a price war?

Have you been following this Locke vs Hobbes vs Rousseau bit at all? That's where our theory on rights comes from. That link I just posted (long, yes) is a good start...

Where do you get your ideas on the subject from?

 

[misskitty]

Where do you get your ideas on the subject from?

Some of us get our ideas about our rights from our parents who instill this knowledge. Others have to go research as you suggest, for specific ideas on rights.

 

[Bartholomew]

Others of us think for ourselves.

I'm not planning to read a ton of material that you claim is your point of view (who's to say you even agree with all of it). Argue for yourself.

 

[loseyourname]

Others of us think for ourselves.

I'm not planning to read a ton of material that you claim is your point of view (who's to say you even agree with all of it). Argue for yourself.

He agrees with it. And he's presented his own arguments that come to the same conclusions several hundred times in the past year.

 

[Bartholomew]

Okay, if you've talked to him, would you argue for him? How would he respond to my points about terrorism and constant rights infringement (in my post #49 of this threaad)?

 

[russ_watters]

Others of us think for ourselves.

As a professor of mine once told me, until you get to your doctoral thesis, you're not allowed to have an original thought (that anyone can be compelled to listen to). You have to learn from the experts until you become one. Then you can speak for yourself and people will listen to you because you are an expert. You have to earn that.

I'm not planning to read a ton of material that you claim is your point of view (who's to say you even agree with all of it). Argue for yourself.

Please do not accuse me of lying. I am quite possibly the most direct person on this board: I say exactly what I mean and I give direct answers to direct questions. You got one. And what exactly would be the point of lying about my own beliefs?

In light of this and the above, no offense, but it simply doesn't seem like you know what you are talking about here. You're trying to make this stuff up/figure it out as you go along. For your own good, stop. That's not the way to learn. The way to learn is to read the theories written by the experts. You're wasting your time scratching for knowledge you could gain easily with a few hours reading.

Your tone has deteriorated over the last few posts. I think it may be partly a result of this quote from me:

That quite simply is not what rights are or how they work. Nor should/can it be.

I'm guessing you saw that as arrogance. It isn't. You misunderstand: the first sentence of the quote is, quite simply, historical fact. The framers of the US Constitution wrote a vast quantity of political theory, not the least of which is the Declaration of Independence. They laid out precisely what the theoretical basis for the Constitution was and they based that on the writings of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. I gave specific examples of a few concepts about rights taken directly from Locke. When I say "that's not the way rights work," that means what you are saying goes against the definition laid out in these theories. Again, all of this is historical fact, and its not arrogance to state it.

The second sentence is my personal opinion based on history. Most western nations base their governments on the same principles as the US and the west is the freeest, most peaceful, and most prosperous part of the world. I don't consider that a coincidence. Eastern philosophy takes a view closer to yours: group rights, not individual rights. That is directly responsible for things like Kamakaze, group suicides, and Tienamnen Square. So I consider my opinion pretty well justified.

I hope you see the irony in your tone, Bartholomew. You demanded of me something that not only did I already provide (and have now expanded on), but something which you refuse to provide yourself: a basis for your argument. And no, Bartholomew, "Others of us think for ourselves" is not a basis for an argument. I recommend you not try that in a history or poly sci essay.

 

[russ_watters]

Okay, if you've talked to him, would you argue for him?

loseyourname has read quite a number of posts of mine and understands me quite well. Frankly though, what he said can be gleaned entirely from my posts in this thread anyway. In any case, he's one of two people here who can pretty much speak for me if he wants. The other is BobG, who is a little scary, how far he's inside my head...

How would he respond to my points about terrorism and constant rights infringement (in my post #49 of this threaad)?

What is the essential difference--with respect to RIGHTS--between causing harm to someone by robbing them, and causing financial harm to the same person through, say, a price war?

I'm not sure if you really meant "price war" or "price gouging," or "price fixing," so I'll discuss all three (in any case, the answer is pretty much the same).

Commerce is an interaction between two parties of equal rights. Both decide the terms they are willing to agree to and they either agree and the transaction happens or they disagree and the transaction does not happen. As a result, it takes pretty extreme and unusual market conditions for that interaction to be anything but on a perfectly level playing field:

Price gouging is, afaik, a crime - if not always, certainly in specific instances (ie, laws are passed against it in wartime). Price gouging happens when there is an artificial (not caused by normal market forces) shortage created that is exploited by merchants. It is sometimes difficult to define the particular circumstance, but when proven, it is not right.

Price fixing is like price gouging (and is always a crime), except that it is done through collusion between merchants. Same implications as above.

A price war is when there are too many people in a marketplace selling the same product and merchants cut their prices to compete. If you're referring to how this hurts the merchants, the answer is at the top: commerce is an interaction between two parties of equal rights and both must agree to the terms for it to happen. If the buyer can get a better price somewhere else, he's not trampling on your rights by buying there. The merchants each make individual choices as to how - or even if - they will run their business. Owning a successful business is not a right and if the business fails, the owner has the choice to keep trying or not.

Stealing should be obvious - it is one person taking something from another. There is no mutual agreement like in commerce.

 

[russ_watters]

A little more on this (about me) because there is little that irks me more:

who's to say you even agree with all of it

If you haven't noticed, I'm a conservative in a board full of liberals. I'm ok with that - in fact, I like it that way. Is it because I like to argue? A little. But more than that, I like to be challenged and being outnumbered by a group of people as intelligent (or more) than me is a great challenge to my convictions. But even more than that, it is a core belief of mine that a theory, belief, idea, etc. is only valid if its been heavily and honestly challenged and stood up to the challenge(in my mind). Not only am I unafraid of being challenged, I demand it. I will accept nothing less than the best challenge people can give me because that's how I form my ideas (and I reciprocate the the best challenge I can give them). This is why your lack of basis for your beliefs is so sad to me. To me, that would feel like floating aimlessly on the ocean with no idea where I was going.

So not only do I mean what I say, I also will honestly consider any viewpoint argued rationally, honestly, and civilly(You don't have to believe that if you don't want to - all that is important is that I believe it.). And I have, on occasion, admitted being wrong in an argument and have also (rarely, but it has happened) actually changed opinions based largely on arguments here. It is in other people's strong arguments that I get the strength of my convictions.

 

[Bartholomew]

The business owner's agreements are between him and his customer. He makes no agreements with the other business owner, who is waging price war against him. The other business owner's individual choices are infringing on the first business owner's right to property, by taking business from him.

The only real argument for why price wars are OK is that there is a code of business behavior that exists _through precedent and law_ as being okay to do. It is not an agreement between the two warring business owners; it is just the way things are done. No business owner, when entering business, enters into an agreement with competing business owners saying "I will enter business in this area and we may wage price war against each other." There is no mutual agreement (as you claim) to wage price war; if a business owner decides not to agree to have price war waged against him, it will nevertheless be waged, and the government will not defend him. His right to property is being infringed without his consent.


Why not apply your same reasoning to mugging? When you walk down the street the street you have the same rights to be armed and trained in combat as the mugger does. Just like the first business owner in the preceding example decides how to run his business, you decide how to physically be prepared to defend yourself. It's a perfectly level playing field; the mugger's just better on it. Why should the government regulate that any more than it regulates price wars, if its only reason to regulate things is to protect rights?


Also, how about my point on the war on terrorism. That's a good point too. You got a reply?