Inequality

[onoway]

It would seem to me that it matters a whole lot and is the crux of what we like to think of as freedom. We might give the government (through the police for example) some controlled access to our houses but object strenuously if they ignore the rules and march in to do whatever they want/however they want.

[Winstonm]

What Mikeh is suggesting is not that rights are given, but that they are taken. Perhaps by a "committee of the whole", perhaps by a "power elite", perhaps by both. In either case, "rights" are not about "rights" per se, but about the distribution of power.

 

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -- Attributed to George Washington.

 

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- unknown, attributed to various sources

 

I think what MikeH is suggesting is that "power" and "rights" are not synonymous. When a people are dominated, it does not mean they have had rights "taken". It means the winning few gained the power to temporarily ignore the wishes of the many. The "rights" were not lost; only the ability to act upon those "rights" was lost.

[onoway]

I think what MikeH is suggesting is that "power" and "rights" are not synonymous. When a people are dominated, it does not mean they have had rights "taken". It means the winning few gained the power to temporarily ignore the wishes of the many. The "rights" were not lost; only the ability to act upon those "rights" was lost.

If you cannot access them then the possibility that they exist seems a trivial point. If they are abided by or if you have redress if they are violated then you have them, otherwise it's just "sound and fury signifying nothing." Telling a starving man that there is food means zip if he hasn't got access to any of it, and is in reality untrue for that man, although it might be true for others.

 

I think that that's one of the scary things that's happening, we are so conditioned to thinking of ourselves as being "free" that we don't bother maintaining any vigilance to maintaining that, waltzing off to wars in the name of freedom notwithstanding.

 

An acquaintance had a consultant over from Austria to help work out what he wanted to do with his property. Several times the guy commented that he couldn't believe how many restrictions there were to work around..not safety issues, just regulations. Trivial little things, like many communities having bylaws forbidding anyone to have an outdoor clothes line. "For want of a nail a shoe was lost..(etc)... a kingdom was lost and all for the want of a horseshoe nail".

[Winstonm]

If you cannot access them then the possibility that they exist seems a trivial point.

 

How about that? We are right back to Richard's post about practical considerations.

[kenberg]

From a purely practical perspective, does this distinction matter?

(Semantic arguments are oh so tiresome)

 

I do find much of the discussion to be an argument about semantis and I share your frustration with it. But there are some fundamentals, and probably we largely agree:

 

From a well-know source:

 

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.

[/Quote]

 

A lot of conflict involves differing interpretations of what this all means. From context, both of the Declaration and general historical context, I suppose mostly Jefferson meant that the son of a King has no intrinsic right to grow up to be King. Even that much may not really be self-evident, but he is stating it as a fact that he is not willing to compromise on. It gets rickier as we move on to deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Do I get to withhold my consent? Again, n context, they are telling the King to go to hell, but beyond that it gets a little uncertain. Of course the Constitution was the practical manifestation. I guess it's the standard view that the main body sets out how democracy is to work, the first ten amendments sets out limitation on what a government can do, even if the government has the backing of a majority. A nice practical approach that doesn't mention unalienable rights endowed by a Creator.

 

All in all, government is created by Man, meaning mankind,

 

A bit about government powers. It is very possible for government to be intrusive. I, just as a factual matter, have not found this to be a problem but then I like getting government services including roads, governemnt funded research, police protection and so on, and I accept that this will happen only if I pay taxes. But no doubt government employees sometimes get swelled heads. Yes we (I at least) like government services, yes I like to be left free to make my own choices. This requires balance, and getting it right requires judgment.

 

inequality, the title of this thread requires lots of judgment to contend with. I very much favor opportunity and giving a helping hand to those in need. Good for them, but really it's good for the rest of us as well. I also realize that some people exercise ghastly judgment, and no program can really prevent them from making a complete mess of their lives, and quite possibly some programs make the problem worse by disguising the need to make changes in their manner of living. An open mind can be useful in deciding which way to go on some of this.

 

 

Anyway, responding to your post, semantics indeed can be very off-putting but sometimes there are actual issues of substance behind them.

[y66]

I read those same lines while kibbing the USBC last night. I like that distinction between rights, however unalienable they may be, and rights secured by a government that derives its powers from the consent of the governed vs the consent of lobbyists funded by the super rich. In fact, the FFs seem to be saying it is our right and our duty to soak the rich so they can't do this.

[kenberg]

I read those same lines while kibbing the USBC last night. I like that distinction between rights, however unalienable they may be, and rights secured by a government that derives its powers from the consent of the governed vs the consent of lobbyists funded by the super rich. In fact, the FFs seem to be saying it is our right and our duty to soak the rich so they can't do this.

 

It took me a moment to figure out who the FFs were. They were no doubt impressive and far-sighted but probably even they did not envision the current complexity. Anyway, whatever they may have thought, every generation confronts issues and I agree that a big one for us is to prevent the super-rich from using their megabucks to totally dominate political choices. Money talks and all that, but the rest of us need a voice as well.

[mikeh]

What Mikeh is suggesting is not that rights are given, but that they are taken. Perhaps by a "committee of the whole", perhaps by a "power elite", perhaps by both. In either case, "rights" are not about "rights" per se, but about the distribution of power.

 

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -- Attributed to George Washington.

 

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- unknown, attributed to various sources

Wrong.

 

Try reading what I wrote. Try just for a moment to understand that a 'right' is not a real object. The drafters of the US constitutional documents chose language suggesting that rights did exist and were inalienable, but that was in the context of trying to justify a rebellion, and the rejection of what was at that time the prevailing societal model: a hereditary monarchy, albeit in the case of the UK a modified, constitutional monarchy.

 

The fact that the FF used such language doesn't make it true!

 

Rights are emergent properties that arise from complex human interactions. They evolve over time. Individuals and groups of individuals can drive this evolution to some degree, but I suspect that the mechanisms by which societies move are too complex to be readily perceived let alone understood.

[hrothgar]

An acquaintance had a consultant over from Austria to help work out what he wanted to do with his property. Several times the guy commented that he couldn't believe how many restrictions there were to work around..not safety issues, just regulations. Trivial little things, like many communities having bylaws forbidding anyone to have an outdoor clothes line. "For want of a nail a shoe was lost..(etc)... a kingdom was lost and all for the want of a horseshoe nail".

 

Here's a useful (and true) example

 

I live in condo with a condo association, a board, etc.

 

Recently, I wanted to install a bee hive out on my balcony.

The condo board blocked me from doing so.

I'm not particularly happy about it, but its not worth moving.

I've made a conscious decision that the benefits of living at this location outweigh the limitations.

 

What I don't do is spend my time bitching about the evil collectivist condo board which is abridging my god given rights to raise an urban bee colony. (Especially since the same condo board did a nice job dealing with the drunk down the hall)

[blackshoe]

I guess it's the standard view that the main body sets out how democracy is to work, the first ten amendments sets out limitation on what a government can do, even if the government has the backing of a majority.

Speaking of semantics, the US Constitution is not about a (pure) democracy, it's about a representative one.

 

A bit about government powers. It is very possible for government to be intrusive. I, just as a factual matter, have not found this to be a problem but then I like getting government services including roads, governemnt funded research, police protection and so on, and I accept that this will happen only if I pay taxes. But no doubt government employees sometimes get swelled heads. Yes we (I at least) like government services, yes I like to be left free to make my own choices. This requires balance, and getting it right requires judgment.

The problem is that the more you let government do at the start, the more it grows and tries to do even more. While you may not find the government to be intrusive now (neither do I, personally, but I see the camel's nose peeking into the tent) but it's certainly growing more likely that will be a problem.

 

It may be a good idea for government to fund some things, but there's an awful lot that government funds today that need not be funded by that route. Pick any of the services you mentioned, at least, and if government did not fund it, the private sector would almost certainly find a way to do so. The result would be more choice for the citizenry, and less chance of… shall we call them "errors" on the part of government employees.

 

Governments are set up by men - men with the power to make their plan stick. The US Constitution was itself a coup, of sorts - the committee was tasked to find a way to modify the Articles of Confederation to avoid future problems of the kind they had - specifically that the States reneged on their share of the debt incurred by the Continental Congress in prosecuting the war. Instead the Committee tossed the Articles out the window, and came up with a completely different form of government.

[kenberg]

Blackie,

 

I at least partly share your distrust of government, but I am far less trustful of the alternatives. Perhaps I could put it:

 

Some have faith in government, some in a free market, some in God. I am skeptical of the first two, and totally reject the third. People are always going to push other people around, it's in our genetic code. I don't mean that I am a cynic, I don't think I am. I like people, most of them, most of the time. but care is needed. We need a Constitution backed by good sense to keep us free, we need a government backed by good sense to keep the wolves at bay. Getting it right isn't easy but I have no faith at all that if government would, except for a short list of the most essential functions, disappear then we would all be better off. I doubt it very much.

 

I am not so sure anyone can convince anyone else of their own views on these matters, we can only try to express them for others to consider.

[Winstonm]

Speaking of semantics, the US Constitution is not about a (pure) democracy, it's about a representative one.

 

 

The problem is that the more you let government do at the start, the more it grows and tries to do even more. While you may not find the government to be intrusive now (neither do I, personally, but I see the camel's nose peeking into the tent) but it's certainly growing more likely that will be a problem.

 

It may be a good idea for government to fund some things, but there's an awful lot that government funds today that need not be funded by that route. Pick any of the services you mentioned, at least, and if government did not fund it, the private sector would almost certainly find a way to do so. The result would be more choice for the citizenry, and less chance of… shall we call them "errors" on the part of government employees.

 

Governments are set up by men - men with the power to make their plan stick. The US Constitution was itself a coup, of sorts - the committee was tasked to find a way to modify the Articles of Confederation to avoid future problems of the kind they had - specifically that the States reneged on their share of the debt incurred by the Continental Congress in prosecuting the war. Instead the Committee tossed the Articles out the window, and came up with a completely different form of government.

 

(emphasis added)

 

This is straight from the Ronald Reagan playbook, and the problem with the idea is that it does not work in practice. The involvement of the government grew as the country's size grew and its interactions with the world became more complex. IMO it is simply idealistic wishful thinking to assume that at this point in the nation's life that a smaller central government would somehow improve our way of life. Perhaps, for a privileged few it would. Most, IMO, would suffer.

 

It is those who care little about the the weak that I mistrust more than government.

[blackshoe]

Getting it right isn't easy but I have no faith at all that if government would, except for a short list of the most essential functions, disappear then we would all be better off. I doubt it very much.

You may be right. Certainly there would be transition problems if we tried such a switch today. How long those would last, or how bad they would be, no one can know.

[y66]

You may be right. Certainly there would be transition problems if we tried such a switch today. How long those would last, or how bad they would be, no one can know.

Well, we're 5+ years into the transition back to 2008 employment levels (ok, ratios) after that cute little switch to Greenspan style "flexibility" by the previous 2 administrations. So, pretty bad and pretty long, is my guess.

 

Employment-population ratio, ages 25-54

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/01/opinion/060113krugman3/060113krugman3-blog480.png

 

 

Moving forward, I trust that we have learned durable lessons about the benefits of fostering and preserving a flexible economy. That flexibility has been the product of the economic dynamism of our workers and firms that was unleashed, in part, by the efforts of policymakers to remove rigidities and promote competition. -- Alan Greenspan, October 12, 2005.

[mike777]

Risk-Averse Culture Infects U.S. Workers, Entrepreneurs

 

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/risk-averse-culture-infects-u-030200403.html;_ylt=A2KJ2UZuK61RsF0AZDrQtDMD

 

---

 

 

here is a rebuttal article:

 

The headline alone raises the question of whether the Journal knows anything about real entrepreneurship, as opposed to fantasy version noisily promoted by management gurus and other folks in the fee-extraction business. While any class as large as “entrepreneurs” or small business founders is going to have a great deal of variability within it, studies have repeatedly found that business founders aren’t gamblers or risk seekers. They typically think hard about the downside of launching a venture and take steps to limit it, such as syndicating risks (like getting suppliers to supply financing or materials, as Steve Jobs did by taking his first purchase order for Apple and persuading vendors to give him parts against it). And the “infects” in the headline suggests that the former wild-man thrill-seeking new business types have been afflicted with a mad cow disease variant

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/06/wsj-bemoans-rise-in-rationality-um-alleged-decline-in-risk-taking.html#zyhxRIABpzDa2eB5.99

 

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/06/wsj-bemoans-rise-in-rationality-um-alleged-decline-in-risk-taking.html

[nige1]

You may believe rights are God-given but otherwise it's hard to argue their abstract existence. Anyway, in practical terms, no right is inalienable. Those in power endow themselves with "rights". They may vouchsafe "rights" to those whom they rule. Such rights can be exercised only while upheld by authority. Hence, in practice, "rights" are labile -- as legislation like the Patriot Act shows.

[blackshoe]

In practice, then, you're saying there's no such thing as "rights", there are only privileges to be granted or taken away, or simply ignored, by those in power.

 

Hell of a world we live in. :ph34r:

[PassedOut]

In practice, then, you're saying there's no such thing as "rights", there are only privileges to be granted or taken away, or simply ignored, by those in power.

To say that rights evolve over time -- which surely they have -- does not mean that there's no such thing as rights. People have evolved over time too, and there's certainly people. Rights are what we the people define them to be, and we the people enforce those rights through the governments we choose.

[dwar0123]

In practice, then, you're saying there's no such thing as "rights", there are only privileges to be granted or taken away, or simply ignored, by those in power.

 

Hell of a world we live in. :ph34r:

That's an odd way of putting things.

 

There is no such thing as bread, it is only something made out of flour.

 

Where does this idea come from that because something is emergent it no longer exists?

 

Anyway, that is what power means, those in power have the right as a practical result of being in power.

 

Hence the idea of trying to found a country where the power is vested in the people. All the people, not just the people who agree with you.

[nige1]

In practice, then, you're saying there's no such thing as "rights", there are only privileges to be granted or taken away, or simply ignored, by those in power. Hell of a world we live in. :ph34r:

IMO you can believe in "rights" -- even when they're denied you -- just as you can believe in God.

[mikeh]

In practice, then, you're saying there's no such thing as "rights", there are only privileges to be granted or taken away, or simply ignored, by those in power.

 

Hell of a world we live in. :ph34r:

Those in 'power' have no inherent monopoly on the invention of those societal conventions that we call 'rights'. Revolutions come about at least in part from the belief in those who revolt that they ought to be able to exercise 'rights' that those in power refuse to recognize. Any theory of 'rights' must account for how such beliefs, in 'rights' can arise.

[helene_t]

You may believe rights are God-given but otherwise it's hard to argue their abstract existence.

Yeah. I believe it would be good if everybody had access to clean water and didn't have to fear FGM. Some might disagree and then we can argue about it. Or about which other goods would be worth sacrificing in order to achieve those aims. Some arguments on either side may be illuminating. Just stating that clean water is a "right" isn't very illuminating, though. It would just amount to a reiteration of my opinion.

[Winstonm]

I am one of those who happen to believe that society should deem basic healthcare a right of all - what good is the information gained since the enlightenment if not used to aid all - and provide it. I have difficulty understanding why this causes consternation with those whom oppose the idea.

[nige1]

Those in 'power' have no inherent monopoly on the invention of those societal conventions that we call 'rights'. Revolutions come about at least in part from the belief in those who revolt that they ought to be able to exercise 'rights' that those in power refuse to recognize. Any theory of 'rights' must account for how such beliefs, in 'rights' can arise.

Just my opinion FWIW: Wrongs (like killing, theft and so on) came first. Individuals, instinctively and selfishly jealous of their own life, freedom, family, and property formed societies that protected these as rights, on a tit-for-tat basis, by outlawing corresponding wrongs. Initially, rights were deemed to be God-given. Minority rights came later, when individuals realised that each of us belongs to some minorities. In any case, rights are unprovable hypotheses, like the existence of flying spaghetti monsters. although, arguably, with a more direct effect on us. Nevertheless, we can choose to believe in rights and can use them to guide behaviour.

[PassedOut]

I am one of those who happen to believe that society should deem basic healthcare a right of all - what good is the information gained since the enlightenment if not used to aid all - and provide it. I have difficulty understanding why this causes consternation with those who oppose the idea.

I agree that we should define this as a right, and am pleased to see movement in that direction, albeit too slow.