What Are We Entitled To and Why?

[misskitty]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression this thread was about the rights of individuals and not an economic discussion on the valididty of price wars. This isn't a contest on who is right or wrong. Bartholomew, just supply a well founded argument to reinforce your thoughts, that way there is no room for interpretation on what it is exactly you mean.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

No, Bartholomew, that is not correct. Each individual business owner makes a choice on whether or not to even be in the market in the first place. Making that choice means the business owner has consented to operating within the law and within the market.

There is no mutual agreement (as you claim) to wage price war...

Reread: that isn't what I said. In fact, in this case it is entirely the choice of the individual business owner.

Why not apply your same reasoning to mugging?

I did.

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.

Again, that simply isn't how it works. Now you're arguing against political theory and economics. The field isn't level because the rules you have just defined are not the real rules. The rules are as I have defined them. The rules say that you do not need to actively defend yourself. The rules say that the robber does not have the right to such a confrontation. If you don't like it, take it up with your Senator or run for office.

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

I replied to it already and no, it was not a good point. Again, you're pulling this stuff out of the air. Making it up as you go along. Just because it sounds good in your head does not make it true. I'm not going to entertain any more of this rediculousness. If you can't frame your arguments within the constraints of reality, it is useless to discuss any of this with you.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression this thread was about the rights of individuals and not an economic discussion on the valididty of price wars. This isn't a contest on who is right or wrong. Bartholomew, just supply a well founded argument to reinforce your thoughts, that way there is no room for interpretation on what it is exactly you mean.

I agree. Let's stop with this nonsense and get back to the point.

edit: perhaps we're not so far from it as you may think (yeah, I did do a little bit of an economics lesson there, but it has moral implications). Bartholomew's entire source for his arguments is the entitlement trap we've been discussing. I think his view is an insight into the problem. People don't make an effort to learn about these things and when they try to figure them out on their own, human nature gets in the way. Human nature is, first and foremost, selfishness. Its not that far of a leap from 'I should be a successful businessman' to 'I'm entitled to be a successful businessman'.

The thing that scares me most in politics is how easy it is to bribe people with handouts. I feel that that is the main reason the deomcratic party is even able to remain in existence today. The democrats get upwards of 90% of "the black vote," for example, because "the black vote" is about poverty (no, it isn't a racial issue). For someone who has a tight budget, regardless of why, it is easy to see why the prospect of a little charity would sway them. We're seeing the same thing with Social Security. As a result, the democratic party play's up the victim mentality and convinces their constituents that they are entitled to handouts.

The reality is that entitlements are supposed to be for those who truly need them. First and foremost, that means children (But children don't vote, so it really doesn't pay to give them money). Children are entitled to a high-quality education.

I am less sympathetic of adults because by the time someone gets to 25 or 30, their lives are much more in their own hands. If a person is poor because they have 3 kids and not a good enough job, for example, they shouldn't have had 3 kids. If someone works at McDonalds' because they didn't finish high school and can't get a better job, they are not entitled to a government handout.

Entitlements are meant to pay for things not within your control. If you could have reasonably avoided a problem, you are not entitled to having someone bail you out.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Fair enough - I need to reaquaint myself with the term "infringe".

 

[misskitty]

This is going to sound ignorant. However, I feel it is relevant. Everyone has a pretty good idea of their basic rights and how they work. What about the rights you may not even be aware of? For example, I was watching the news and they did a story on contracts and the things the fine print says...hence always a great idea to read the fine print on anything. Anyway, apparently when you sign documents, purchasing a car or a new appliance, the manufacturers have a way of wording the contracts so that if something goes wrong, they can not be held responcible.

What I want to know is how does that work. It didn't amke any sense to me when I first saw it. How can a manufacturer take away your right to sue like that? Especially if it was their fault, faulty equipment or something. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Moonbear]

What I want to know is how does that work. It didn't amke any sense to me when I first saw it. How can a manufacturer take away your right to sue like that? Especially if it was their fault, faulty equipment or something. It doesn't make sense.

Okay, so in this situation, you're talking about rights granted by law or government (as opposed to previous discussion, which has been about rights granted by "god" or "nature" or whatever you want to call it...the unalienable rights). In the case of a contract, or any other right granted by a law, these are not unalienable. You can choose to waive that right (the unalienable rights you can't waive; so even if in a contract you signed off that it's okay if they come and kill you if you don't pay your loans, they still aren't allowed to kill you; that term of the contract would be deemed illegal and invalidated).

The idea with a contract is that you have the choice to not sign it. If you sign it and agree to the terms, then you have forfeited protection against that. Items are often purchased "as-is" which means you agree upon purchase that if it doesn't work, you're not going to hold the seller responsible, where if that agreement wasn't there, you would be protected from being sold defective merchandise.

There are ways out of such contracts. There are some laws that make certain types of contracts, or certain types of clauses, illegal. In those cases, even if you agree to it, the contract can be invalidated if it contains one of those illegal clauses (most examples I've heard of for this pertain to contracts signed between an employer and an employee as condition of employment, where something in the contract violates labor laws). The other, more extreme situation, is if you were forced to sign the contract under duress. This can be hard to prove, but if someone was threatening your life or blackmailing you at the time you signed it, that would invalidate the contract.

As for waiving your right to sue, this isn't all that uncommon in contracts. Because the courts are overburdened to deal with all the contract disputes,and because court costs are expensive, many contracts stipulate that disputes will be settled by binding arbitration. You still have your case heard by someone who is a neutral third party and have the opportunity to have damages remedied or have the contract dissolved, but you do it with an arbiter instead of a judge.

Contract terms are always negotiable. I've been in situations where I received a contract and it contained unacceptable clauses, at which time I send it back and ask they be removed before I sign it. If there are unacceptable terms in the contract and the person with whom you are dealing will not negotiate those terms, you always have the choice to walk away and not sign.

 

[Moonbear]

Everyone has a pretty good idea of their basic rights and how they work. What about the rights you may not even be aware of? For example, I was watching the news and they did a story on contracts...

My answer was going to get too long to reply to both parts of your question in one post.

I already addressed the contractual part. In terms of not being aware of your rights, it is your responsibility to educate yourself on your rights. Now, the unalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), you can't waive, and even if you don't know you have them, they won't disappear on you. Though, these rights are important enough that we teach them in schools so everyone knows these rights.

As for all the other rights granted by law, that is why we have lawyers. If someone is not well-versed in the law and their rights, they really shouldn't be signing a contract without having a lawyer to assist them in understanding what they are agreeing to. When you're engaging in a transaction such as that, you know it's something important and that what you are signing is binding. So if you don't understand it, it is your responsibility to get assistance from someone who does (if a lawyer is wrong, you also have legal recourses...you can sue them for malpractice if they don't correct your damages if it was based on faulty advice from them). As for other situations, if you are unsure, again, you can always consult with a lawyer (often initial consultations are free so you can find out if there's a case to be made or not before hiring the lawyer to take on the case).

I think this is a good place to re-introduce the thread topic of entitlement. Except if you are charged with a crime, you are not entitled to having a lawyer provided for you, but you are entitled to the opportunity to seek the advice of a lawyer if you wish to do so. In other words, if you wish to consult a lawyer first, nobody can stop you from doing that, but it's not anyone else's responsibility to make you do that or to provide one for you.

 

[Zantra]

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.

See, that's where you're wrong. To be free is something that was fought for and was achieved. I believe we ARE entitled to it, and I would fight and die rather than accept the alternative. You seem to want to give entitlement the connotation that it means we just expect to receive it without effort, without thought to the path that lead to these freedoms, and that just isn't the case. No one will take my rights from me as long as I'm alive. Our government exists to serve the people, and if it didn't, the people would fight for one that did. That's America, God bless us

 

[misskitty]

Ok, that makes sense. That was a lengthy reply, but it does answer my question. Basically, understand what it is you are signing and if you don't then consult your lawyer. If you don't have one, get one.

I agree with with you that the rights you are born with you are entitled to and no one can infringe upon them or shouldn't be taken away from you. It does make sense that the rights provided and protected by the law are priviledges that can be taken away from you.

 

[Moonbear]

I agree with with you that the rights you are born with you are entitled to and no one can infringe upon them or shouldn't be taken away from you. It does make sense that the rights provided and protected by the law are priviledges that can be taken away from you.

Technically, no, rights, even those provided by law, are rights not privileges. They can't be taken away (well, they can if the law changes, but I don't think that's what you meant), but you can waive them or give them up (the ones provided by law, not the ones everyone is born with). Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make? I'm not sure if I've been clear about that.

 

[russ_watters]

This is going to sound ignorant. However, I feel it is relevant...

Actually, its a good question and Moonbear's answer even makes some parts of the earlier discussion relevant: commerce is based on contracts. Every time you buy something, you enter a verbal contract, which then becomes a written contract when you get the receipt.

Contract terms are always negotiable. I've been in situations where I received a contract and it contained unacceptable clauses, at which time I send it back and ask they be removed before I sign it. If there are unacceptable terms in the contract and the person with whom you are dealing will not negotiate those terms, you always have the choice to walk away and not sign.

As I'm sure you can imagine, this is a big issue for me. We have a certain architect who wants our contract with him to be contingent upon him getting paid by his client. So if he doesn't get paid, we don't get paid and we can't go back to the client for the money. Not going to happen.

 

[Moonbear]

You seem to want to give entitlement the connotation that it means we just expect to receive it without effort, without thought to the path that lead to these freedoms, and that just isn't the case.

I think (or hope) the confusion has arisen because of improper use of the word "entitlement." This is why I provided some definitions earlier in the thread, to help clarify this point.

It is common to hear people griping (usually the older generations about the younger generations) about others having this "sense of entitlement." Usually, the statement is left incomplete and vague as to what one feels they are entitled, and has an accusatory or negative connotation that a group wants to be given hand-outs, or receive something for which they have not worked. I think this is blurring the meaning of what an entitlement is.

It is true, there are people who think they are entitled to things for which they are not. I've had students who thought or felt they were entitled to an A on an exam without putting effort into obtaining it, at which time I had to explain they need to earn the A, I don't just give them out. While it would make me very unpopular, and I'd probably get a lot of pressure from the administration, I am not required to give out any As to my students, as long as I've made it clear what it takes to get an A and no student met that requirement. There are also many who believe they are entitled to a college education, which again is not true; it is a privilege for those who have performed well enough in high school to qualify for the opportunity to receive a college education, and the students' responsibility to seize that opportunity and obtain that education. On the other hand, it is a right of every child to have the opportunity and means (i.e., no barriers such as tuition fees) to receive a secondary school education, but still their (and their parents', to some extent) responsibility to seize the opportunity and make the most of it and ensure they actually learn something.

In summary, being entitled to something and thinking you are entitled to something to which you are not are two different things.

 

[russ_watters]

Technically, no, rights, even those provided by law, are rights not privileges. They can't be taken away (well, they can if the law changes, but I don't think that's what you meant), but you can waive them or give them up (the ones provided by law, not the ones everyone is born with). Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make? I'm not sure if I've been clear about that.

Where this gets sticky is crime/criminals. If rights are contractual, how is it that the rights of criminals can be involuntarily revoked? The answer is that they aren't involuntarily revoked: by living in this country, you implicitly agree to live under its laws. That's a contract. If you break the terms of the contract (break the law), the punishment is provided for in the contract...

 

[Bartholomew]

Okay, Russ, this is what I now construe to be your view:
The purpose of government is to lay out a set of rules for competition. These rules may infringe on people's rights to property or liberty, and (occasionally) on their rights to life. In other words, people have rights to property, libery, and life, except where these rights conflict with the accepted rules.

Is that an accurate representation of your view?

 

[Bartholomew]

By the way, there is absolutely no point in discussing if the only ideas you have are those from other people... you might as well just toss a bunch of books in a room and go to lunch. Nobody ever accepts any idea except on the authority of their own reason.

 

[Moonbear]

By the way, there is absolutely no point in discussing if the only ideas you have are those from other people... you might as well just toss a bunch of books in a room and go to lunch. Nobody ever accepts any idea except on the authority of their own reason.

Are you even reading the thread? And, actually, if someone has already presented an argument with which one agrees, and done it more thoroughly than one could within the maximum character limits of a post here, why shouldn't they refer to the prior work? I would find it more troublesome if someone did not acknowledge that an idea has been previously presented and instead claimed those ideas to be original when they are not. I don't see you presenting any counter-arguments, just a lost of posts that are equivalent to, "I don't agree with you, so I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and not listening."

You are entitled to your opinion, but an opinion doesn't count for much in the way of convincing others to share it if it can't be backed up by evidence in support of it.

 

[misskitty]

By the way, there is absolutely no point in discussing if the only ideas you have are those from other people... you might as well just toss a bunch of books in a room and go to lunch. Nobody ever accepts any idea except on the authority of their own reason.

Thats an awefully pessimistic view on the subject. By quoting other people, we are only trying to convey that we are not the only people who have these opinions, but that they are shared between mulitple people.

 

[misskitty]

By the way, Moonbear. I do understand what you meant. It wa a good thorough responce. Thanks.

 

[misskitty]

See, that's where you're wrong. To be free is something that was fought for and was achieved. I believe we ARE entitled to it, and I would fight and die rather than accept the alternative. You seem to want to give entitlement the connotation that it means we just expect to receive it without effort, without thought to the path that lead to these freedoms, and that just isn't the case. No one will take my rights from me as long as I'm alive. Our government exists to serve the people, and if it didn't, the people would fight for one that did. That's America, God bless us

I completely agree with you, Zantra. It has never been the character of an American to not fight for what they believe in. People fight for what they believe is right and not let others trounce on what they believe. It doesn't matter what it was; the right to a fair trial, or the right to be treated equally no matter what you look, sound, dress or practice, or the right to practice their religion just as anyone else would.

People fought and died on this land so they could have these rights and pass them on to future generations of their families. As well as other people seeking for the same liberties. Why do you think people immigrate here?

Because they want a chance at a better life for them, their children, their grandchildren or whom ever. They want to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Where ever they came from, that need was probably not being met.

Without these basic rights, you wouldn't be able to argue this point openly to other people. Or the right to protest the war. Or whatever. You are exercising these rights right now without even giving it a second thought. As are the rest of us.

 

[Bartholomew]

Moonbear and misskitty, you have misunderstood my point. You certainly can refer to other people's ideas, but ultimately the judge of what you believe is you. You, alone, decide what ideas to accept or reject, and you do it based on what seems reasonable to you--or perhaps for less objective reasons.

If someone has posted an argument you agree with, then you may link to it... but on the other hand, you have to consider how appropriate that argument actually is to arguing your specific side in the specific discussion you are involved in. If you don't want to use your own words to frame the bulk of your argument, you still must generally use your own words to explain how that other person's essay applies to the current topic. Linking to an entire book without explanation is simply unacceptable.

 

[Bartholomew]

I just have to specifically reply to this sentence of Russ':

There is no mutual agreement (as you claim) to wage price war...

Reread: that isn't what I said. In fact, in this case it is entirely the choice of the individual business owner.

I was quoting you when I said "mutual agreement." You shouldn't change your opinions so quickly (while denying it) that you don't even remember what you said. Here's where you said "mutual agreement" (context included):

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

 

[Moonbear]

Bart, I don't see any contradiction in those statements you've quoted. There can't be because you're attempting to compare apples and oranges. One quote is talking about theft. The other quote is talking about the choice to go into and stay in business knowing that other businesses selling similar products or services will compete with you, along with how far one will go to keep up with the competition and when it is time to close up shop.

By the way, it doesn't make a good argument to quote your own misinterpretation of Russ' earlier statement and then hold that up to another of his statements and try to argue HE is the one who is being inconsistent.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ said, "there is no mutual agreement like in commerce." Since the commerce he had just finished talking about before saying that was the commerce of price wars, he was referring back to what he had just said. Contrasting a new idea against a previously described idea--a good expository technique. His meaning was quite clear: "commerce" referred particularly to price war (as well as the more general sense), and "mutual agreement like in commerce" referred particularly to mutual agreement in price war (as well as the more general sense).

 

[Moonbear]

If you don't want to use your own words to frame the bulk of your argument, you still must generally use your own words to explain how that other person's essay applies to the current topic. Linking to an entire book without explanation is simply unacceptable.

There was an explanation, and then further explanation when you asked for more. The wording and ideas presented in the Declaration of Independence are largely borrowed from the people whose works Russ cited. The argument being presented is that there are "unalienable" rights described in the Declaration of Independence as "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This is only a slight modification of Locke's words, describing life, liberty and property as unalienable rights. Thus, Locke has already made the complete argument in explaining what makes these rights unalienable. Russ, and others (myself included) are deferring to the original source of argument that these are unalienable rights as we agree with that argument. The question is "To what are we entitled." And our answer has been consistently throughout this thread, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (With the exception of a handful of recent posts in the thread that have digressed from the unalienable rights to those rights conferred by law, which relate to business relationships).

 

[loseyourname]

Russ said, "there is no mutual agreement like in commerce." Since the commerce he had just finished talking about before saying that was the commerce of price wars, he was referring back to what he had just said. Contrasting a new idea against a previously described idea--a good expository technique. His meaning was quite clear: "commerce" referred particularly to price war (as well as the more general sense), and "mutual agreement like in commerce" referred particularly to mutual agreement in price war (as well as the more general sense).

There is mutual agreement amongst business owners to play by the rules of the game, whether these be market rules or regulations enforced by statute law. Price wars are part of the game, and every business owner buys in with this knowledge in hand, agreeing in principle to whatever circumstances the market should hold for him.

 

[loseyourname]

How exactly would you change this anyway, Bart? Are you suggesting that it is wrong for businesses to compete with one another? With no competition, there are no winners, and you've eliminated whatever enticement there was to go into business in the first place. No one is going to put up with the long hours and lack of security without the possibility of great reward, when they could simply work for wages and make the same amount. Competition is good for the consumer in that it both lowers prices and encourages innovation. If we eliminated competition, we'd be eliminating everything that is good about capitalism. Where's the preacher (Aquamarine) when you need him?

 

[Bartholomew]

Moonbear, I'm talking about slightly different things with Russ than you are. I'm aware of the basic rights of life, liberty, and property, and just what the basic rights are is not the main thing I'm talking about.

Well, loseyourname, in your first post as you stated it, you described my basic understanding of Russ' position.

Okay, Russ, this is what I now construe to be your view:
The purpose of government is to lay out a set of rules for competition. These rules may infringe on people's rights to property or liberty, and (occasionally) on their rights to life. In other words, people have rights to property, libery, and life, except where these rights conflict with the accepted rules.

That's how the system works, and there is a separate element from the "three rights" that government is protecting here: namely, the accepted rules.

So my point is that government exists to do more than protect the "three rights," and that additionally it is not practical or fair for the government always to protect the "three rights." This is all part of my original point, pages back, that the government's duty is to ensure the well-being of its citizens; that this is the essential contract the citizens have with the government. The people agree to be governed, and the government agrees to promote their well-being. It doesn't always work so amicably, but that's the ideal.

 

[Moonbear]

Russ said, "there is no mutual agreement like in commerce." Since the commerce he had just finished talking about before saying that was the commerce of price wars, he was referring back to what he had just said. Contrasting a new idea against a previously described idea--a good expository technique. His meaning was quite clear: "commerce" referred particularly to price war (as well as the more general sense), and "mutual agreement like in commerce" referred particularly to mutual agreement in price war (as well as the more general sense).

You asked him to explain the difference between price wars and robbing someone. So, the stealing comment, in context, is as follows:

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?

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.

I've underlined the relevant definition of commerce, as Russ provided. As you can see, in context, it is referring to the mutual agreement between buyer and seller, not between two sellers. When referring to the agreement between two sellers (merchants) , as Russ put in boldface type the first time around, those are individual choices, thus are not being made by mutual agreement, nor do they require mutual agreement. Stealing refers to the buyer/seller relationship.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear, I'm talking about slightly different things with Russ than you are. I'm aware of the basic rights of life, liberty, and property, and just what the basic rights are is not the main thing I'm talking about.

We've all been having one discussion here, and have pulled together different facets of it. We've gone on to further address that aside from unalienable rights, there are indeed additional rights conferred by law (read my exchange with miss kitty regarding this), which Russ has further tied in with your previous discussion as it was straying from the topic of entitlement.

So my point is that government exists to do more than protect the "three rights," and that additionally it is not practical or fair for the government always to protect the "three rights."

Actually, it's not government's job to protect those rights at all, because everyone has those rights irrespective of whether a government exists or not. Instead, government must strive to not infringe upon those rights, and to form a contract with its citizens to address the consequences of when one citizen infringes upon those rights of another citizen (Russ' comment about criminality addresses this point). Indeed, if you read the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution carefully, you'll notice it does not say that the government needs to do anything to actively protect these rights, but rather explicitly states each right a person has that the government shall not infringe upon, make any law against, or deny to any person.

 

[Bartholomew]

I guess you're right, moonbear. I misinterpreted him. I don't know why he's mentioning an agreement between buyer and seller though, when the question is conflict between seller and seller. Anyway, a mugger can have an agreement with a crime lord to give him his share of the cut, so street crime is not necessarily without agreements. But anyway... I think arguing over that is rendered moot because I believe I understand what he's getting at (what I "construe to be his view" as I quoted in my last post).