Negative and Positive Rights

This was an excellent and thoroughly enjoyable read.

The "balkanization" of America into various groups, as I see it, is an attempt at "divide and conquer", and to be resisted at every turn.

Basically, my rule of thumb is this: if you have to pay for it, it's not a right.

Again, very well done.

The day we don't believe that everyone in the USA must be considered an individual and valuable for his/her unique qualities, we are in serious trouble and face possible destruction.

And the day we can't put aside our differences as individuals and stand together as the USA, we are in serious trouble and face possible destruction.

That was and is the beauty of the US Constitution ("We the people of the United States...").

Thank you.

And you are correct, when we allow ourselves to be divided into groups it is much easier for people to gain undue influence over our decisions. As individuals we are unlikely to buy into ideas we do when we accept the idea that we belong tot his or that group.

I agree, we do need to be individuals and citizens of our nation. However, I view our citizenship as something we adopt as individuals. We support the US because it is beneficial to us as individuals. Even when we lay down our lives to protect our nation we do so because were we to do otherwise, were we to allow it to be destroyed, then life would not be worth living. And so even seemingly selfless acts can often be seen as rational self-interest.

It makes them no less noble in my mind, recognizing that our rational self-interest supports sacrifice. Some amy think otherwise and find things meritorious only if they are purely disinterested acts, btu I disagree.

Well, be that as it may, I simply cannot comprehend those who think we need to view politics in terms of this or that group. We exist as individuals, common sense should tell anyone that. That some argue otherwise tells me how little common sense comes into some arguments.

not because I agree with all of the points, but because the use of self-reflection and logic to address the issues.

I want to zero in on what I see as the focal point. That is the use of reductionism that enables us to say either that the individual is solely responsible for oneself or that the group is solely responsible for one's welfare.

The problem with reductionism is that it asks us to form opinions and make decisions based on partial information. So, for example, if I say that one is solely responsible for one's welfare, I would ask what about those who are not treated fairly because of discrimination? We began to face this issue in the '60. Does the owner of a lunch counter have the right to serve only those of a particular group which they wish to serve? Does an employer have the right to hire those from a particular group which they wish to employ? Does a private hospital have a right to treat only those from the group which they wish to treat? Thus we are working with partial information when we judge how responsible a person is from a discriminated group.

When we are talking about the right to health care, we are talking about the right to something that sustains life. The problem has become that one's economic class determines one's access to those resources that sustain life. If one's economic class depended solely on how responsible one is for providing for themselves, one might make the argument that there is no right to life sustaining resources. But it is obvious that there are a number of factors that determine one's economic resources. For example, if I get the job offered that many wanted, I benefit but others are left out despite their efforts. And since there are a limited number of jobs that offer libvable wages, we see that to say that one is solely responsible for themselves is false. And thus to make the availability of resources that sustain life contingent solely on individual responsibility unjustly threatens the lives of some.

I think you are right when you say that positive rights must be enforced. That is disturbing because it would be our government that enforces those rights. That is disturbing because some want a small government. But here lies a problem. While many traditional Republicans and libertarians make small government the litmus test of good government, we run into problems with democracy.

The problem that small government equals good government has with democracy is that voting in free elections is seen as proof that we are free. But isn't there a contradiction between measuring our freedom by how we choose our government but saying to our representatives that the more limited your influence is, the more free we are?

I don't believe in the mantra that good government equals small government. What if we need government to protect us from the abuse of fellow citizens? Is good government always equal to small government?

The real issue for government of a free people is not how small the government is, it is how well it represents its constituents. Unfortunately, our representatives are more inclined to represent those who pay for the campaigns than the people. And this is partially our fault because we have confused democracy with ratification by defining democracy as voting every n number of years for candidates from only 2 parties. Judging from what goes on in our government we could honestly say that we get what we vote for.

I believe that we should stand as people rather than be subdivided into groups. Unfortunately, those who, for whatever reason, are denied life sustaining resources because of a lack of money are automatically put into the group of have-nots while the rest are put into the group of haves. Our willingness to stand with the have-nots will measure how well we are acting as "we the people of the United States."

Then again, there is a much more important and all inclusive group than American citizens. That group is the group of people regardless of their nationality. That is because each person is made in the image of God. That is a far more important attribute than American citizenship.

Let me address your discrimination comment in several ways.

First of all, let us suppose you dislike someone, for whatever reason. Should you be forced to invite them to parties you throw, maybe even date or marry them, because someone else finds your reasons "unjust"? Well, business relations are of the same nature, so why can we tell others they must do business with those they do not want?

Yes, I also believe racism is incorrect and wrong, but how do you know your belief that racism is wrong is the right one? Are you 100% sure you are right in all things? Then what gives you the right to tell others their beliefs are wrong AND force them to give up their beliefs?

So, I do think people have every right to hold racist beliefs and to act on them, including excluding those they want form their businesses.

I also think the market will generally discourage such behavior. ( http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2009/03/18/planning_for_im perfection.thtml , http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2009/01/29/fairness_and_th e_free_market.thtml ) However, if racists are willing to endure the costs, then they have every right to do so.

Sorry, I know it is an article of faith "ending racism" is a good thing, but I disagree. I believe the right of every individual to hold beliefs and act on them is a good much more important than forcibly ending racism by depriving people of those rights. ( http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/03/15/private_versus_ public_racism.thtml )

Actually, that inspired me a bit to write my next post. The problem is you are engaging in "keyhole thinking". It is akin tot he problem Bastiat described in his "Seen and Unseen" argument. You are looking at a single good, say "fighting discrimination" and arguing violating rights brought this good X, but ignoring the manifold greater harm done in the process.

The left laughed at "destroyed the village to save it", but they engage int he opposite argument many times, "saved the village to destroy the nation" type arguments. Many times the small and visible "good" is held forth and the much greater harm is ignored. Welfare is a perfect example, we are deluged with sob stories of those receiving aid, and the good done by those who were helped, while the manifold greater societal harm is completely brushed under the rug.

So, I suppose it is time to write again. At least I am not lacking for topics lately.

Regarding democracy, you are engaging in a popular misconception about democracy. Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. One could have a free state under a monarchy (as did the UK largely in the 18th and 19th centuries) or even under a dictator. However, non-democratic systems have more chance of producing non-free results, and also have a higher risk of revolution. Democracy is the best system for allowing peaceful changes of government and, when properly constrained, for preventing abuses of freedom.

However, democracy itself has nothing to do with freedom. Freedom is caused by consistent application of laws and respect for rights, which could occur under almost any form of government which protects individual rights.

See http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/12/misunderstandin g_democracy.thtml

However, in practice, it would be unusual for a hereditary monarch, for example, to protect individual rights through several generations, or a dictatorship to write such protections into law. But it could conceivably happen. Making democracy useful but not essential to a free populace.

Having said that, I disagree with your second premise that freedom is not equated to small government. of course it is. Every power the government has is a limit on my freedom. That is simple logic. If the government controls something I do not, so I am less free. So, obviously, the less government the greater freedom.

That one really is a bizarre argument. Almost of the "freedom is slavery" variety. Smaller government obviously equates to more individual freedom. Of course some government is needed to protect rights, so total freedom is impossible, or undesirable, but beyond protecting rights, any additional government is an imposition on individual liberty.

Actually, I can refuter your "how well it represents its people" argument quickly, with your own argument from earlier.

Should George Wallace have been made lord of the south? After all, his segregationist views pretty well represented his constituency, so by your argument we would have been immeasurably more free had Wallace been granted power to control Jim Crow all over the south and thus better represent the people there.

You see, government power is not just about doing "good", but about power, pure and simple. The power you willingly give the state because you agree with their goals today can be turned on you tomorrow. The socialist in 1930 who supported the Nazis because of Strasser's labor unions voted int he unlimited power that later put them in concentration camps. And Trotsky's argument for an unlimited state willing to act anywhere to advance the revolution put an ice axe in his skull. Both should be lessons tot hose who want to create a monster with no constraints. Monsters often turn on their creators.

Only have time to respond to one note right now. Here is the problem with personal discrimination, comparing offering a public service to a private party are not comparable.

Next, do I have to be 100% sure in all things in order to be 100% sure in some things?

Finally, the market doesn't automatically punish wrong behavior. Businesses have profited from wrong behavior before. It is just that there are risks that come with the benefits that some consider worth taking? But why talk about a man-made entity, the market, that is based on personal greed, as an omniscient god?

There is an answer to the last question. It is we Americans tend to pursue systems that allow us to seek personal reward while excusing us from corporate responsibility. Again, the problem is with reductionism. The market doesn't solve all problems and shouldn't be used in some transactions--such as health care. The more we act otherwise, the more blind we are to how our actions negatively affect others. In addition, the inherent problem of reductionism is that requires that we work with less information than is available. In addition, it pushes us to employ what Psychologists call "all or nothing" thinking, a kind of thinking that is, generally speaking, not healthy.

Will respond to the rest later. Thank you.

I would argue a similar point, does a system have to be 100% perfect before we adopt it? I am not saying the market is perfect, just that unlike other systems it pushes us int he proper direction, while regulated systems push us in the wrong direction. Which is why I support it.

No it does not punish all wrong doing, but does any system short of a totalitarian dictator who would be objectionable in so many other ways? It is still the best solution and the system which pushes people int he proper direction as well as providing the greatest satisfaction for the greatest number.

And what is the line drawn between a "private party" and a "public service"? If your friends pitch in for beer is it a public service? How about if some strangers come with them and chip in? At what point does public and private divide? (This is a non-distinction often exploited by after hours clubs, or to get around oppressive liquor laws in some southern states, they claim to be private clubs or parties.) The line between private and public is absurdly hard to draw.

Anyway, would you accept this public/private distinction for other rights? You can say what you want in private but not in public? You can practice your religion freely but only privately? In public you must obey the state religion?

So why is the right of association and contract different? Why does it have limits if you provide a "public service"?

And, yes, before you restrict the right of another person to act on his conscience, you better be 100% right. because if you are only 99% right, then 1 time out of 100 you will force others into error, when they were right all along.

Would it not be preferable to allow each to follow his conscience and allow us to win over others by reason, rather than through the use of force, which is, at root, what government is. By proposing the government stop people from behaving wrongly, eg discrimination, you are saying you have the power to force people to be right at the point of a gun. That has led to nothing but mass murder whenever it has been tried consistently.

No, we have not reached that point, but once you introduce a principle (that the gov't can force people to behave correctly) it is hard to stop the logic from running to its conclusion. Just see all the nanny state laws we have now. It is not far from a point where the government takes it as its duty to ensure we never do the "wrong thing". And, as I said, that leads to nothing but grief for the vast majority of citizens.

Even if it fails to become violent, the fact is the government runs things less well than individuals would on their own. (See http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/20/the_limits_of_s cientific_management.thtml ). As a result, the nanny state tends to leave people less satisfied. So, the end result, in the best case, is a generally less happy populace.

Sorry, should be "caday5". I seem to keep dropping "A"s out of your name.

I think the 100% vs 99% is not the real issue. If we look at countries as a macrocosm of people, even the worst can site sincere intentions and right motives for the worst behavior. Nazi Germany is a prime example. Their pure motives for exterminating Jews, even the children, were that of self-defense from an anticipated attack. In addition, Germans were constantly told how their troops were liberating people and defending the freedom of the German people.

Sorry but having to be 100% correct to do something isn't the issue. What we need is protection from each other. The history of this country is replete with all kinds of abuses such as environmental, employee, consumer and so on. Certainly there are other issues besides protection, but where you have greed as the fuel for the engine, you need protection.

The purpose of government is not to be small but to be representative. If an elected gov't does not represent its own people, then it is of no value. If the protection and other actions needed require gov't to grow, as long as that gov't is representing the people then it has achieved its ends as being a representative gov't. There is a balancing power to the gov't representing its people; that power is the Amendments of the Constitution--though I would add to that Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Again, if the litmus test for our democracy and freedom is voting, then size of the gov't isn't the key measurement of the gov't's worth. It is how much the gov't represents its people.

Will write more later, I have grading to do. Thank you for your responses. I will be behind in mine until my grading is done, which will be the next couple of days

Since I know there will be others. Whether democracy has something to do with freedom depends on what kind freedom people want. There is a freedom to move about in the country, to say what one wishes, to do what one want, and so forth and those kind of freedoms do not require democracy, though I have yet to see any examples of freedom of speech under any kind of totalitarianism.

But the other kind of freedom is that of the people controlling the direction of their country. That can only occur under a democracy.

I think we should not be content with just the personal freedom of movement as mentioned in the first list. We should also demand the freedom to determine the direction of our country.

I have said before that we need two parts to gov't. We need the gov't to represent its people. And we need rules, such as the amendments and international law, that prevents the choices of those people from abusing others

Regarding socialism, you can cite totalitarian examples but that implies nothing. There are democratic examples as well and if we take what was said in the first paragraph, it lays the groundwork for a workable gov't so long as people realize that whatever system is employed, there are tradeoffs.

People are in both sectors so how is one better than the other? For example, if we take your tenet that individuals are better at handling things than gov't then should we depend solely on mercenaries for defense? And what examples of individuals creating roadways can compete with our interstate system. Or consider the administrative costs of single payer systems from other countries and how they are lower than the administrative costs here. Or consider that much of our current economic downfall was due to the relaxing of gov't regulations which allowed individuals to have more power. That worked out well.

It seems that what you are advocating is a lighter form of authoritarianism, a plutocracy if you will. We already have that. Our representatives represent their donors more than us and we can only benefit from the trickle down theory. As a result, this glorious country and its capitalism has the highest incarceration rate of any industrialized country and even higher than totalitarian gov'ts like China. Also the disparity of wealth is greater here than most, if not every, industrialized countries and that disparity is growing at the expense of the masses. Also, as I have said before, with nearly 1/4, and I know you dispute that figure, of our population without adequate health insurance, we have some serious problems.

A more full response is forthcoming, but to address two issues, or maybe three:

First, yes, I doubt even a private venture would have built our interstate system, though anything the government can create, obviously, private ventures could build as well. But I agree private enterprise would probably not put four lanes of blacktop through unpopulated areas to enhance the prestige of a state. Or to force that state to comply with drinking age laws or seatbelt laws. (As our highway funds have also been used.) But again, that is looking at a specific and not seeing what other uses could have been made of the money. Totalitarians build glorious monuments, that does not meant he money would not have been better left to starving peasants.

Second, the mercenary argument is a red herring. I have written repeatedly that government has a role. Just because I don't go to a doctor to fix my car does not mean I don't think he is good at curing disease. The state is our deputy in defense, which means the army, police and courts.

Third, again, you appear to have a very metaphorical understanding of the role of the state. You talk of "protection", but that rubric can be stretched to cover almost anything. Just as the interstate commerce clause was stretched to cover child pornography, white slavers and violence against women, "protection" can be made to cover every good or evil thing the state has ever done. The Holy Office protected heretics by burning those who lapsed back into heresy. (By the way, they didn't normally kill heretics, only relapsed heretics, or, to be accurate, turned relapsed heretics over to the civil authorities for burning or other execution, useless bit of trivia for the day.) Without a clear definition of "protection", that terms is too protean to use.

I will write more shortly, but I think that is a good start.

I would not not dismiss the mercenary argument. Any concentration of power can become autonomous if there is enough power. The role of gov't becomes the question then. That is is gov't subservient to any part of the private sector or is gov't in control?

Finally, as the state represents its people, one of its jobs is to protect. I see no problem with that. I see the twisting of words as proof of its job, not a contradiction. That abuse must be euphemized or otherwise rationalized shows awareness of the state's responsibility to protect.

you fall into mistakes because of the inexact and metaphorical use of words.

"Power" is meaningless without a context. Many confuse or equate economic power with political power, but the two are very different and can't be confused.

For that matter, would you argue the best player of World of Warcraft is in danger of taking over the US? Well, he certainly has "power" within his own little clique, but you don't worry about that "power", yet when you confuse economic and political "power" you worry about that. That is not legitimate.

Similarly, the "protection" but needs to be defined. As I said, you can justify anything as "protection", so you either need to define what "protection" means, or brace yourself for an all powerful state.

Oh, and the mercenary argument is not valid, as protection of citizens is a legitimate government function, and should be carried out by the state. So I don't see what your point is there.

I didn't fall into any error. The consolidation of wealth has led to increased influence for certain parts of the private sector. That increased influence means having the ability to get things done such as having the ability to pass laws more favorable to one's own group at the expense of the rights and welfare of others.

Power is traditionally defined by the ability to influence, change or get things done. Money does that and so we see that Financial power often leads to political power.

Finally, we need to be protected from abuse. That abuse can come from the private as well as public sectors. And the key to that protection is a responsive representative gov't, not a gov't that serves the needs of the few at the expense of the many.

But you do err, you think the way to keep "economic power" form influencing government is to give more power to government. But the only reason those with money can "get laws passed" is because we gave government that power in the first place.

This is where many make a mistake. The only reason business cares about laws, is because government has the ability to control business. Whether it is unscrupulous motives, such as the desire to drive out competitors, of motives of self-defense, such as staving off regulations which will destroy one's industry, the only reason business lobbies, bribes, whatever, is because government has the power to destroy business.

In a truly free market, with a government limited to narrowly defined powers, "economic power" would have NO political power, both because there would be no reason to lobby, since government can';t influence business, and because even if they did lobby, there would be no ability for government to assist them.

...continues....

...continuing...

By giving government more power, you make worse the situation you claim to want to correct. And, more significantly, the only reason wealth can be used to gain any political power is because we have given so much power to government.

Having said all, there still is no inherent political power tied to "economic power". Economic power may bribe officials, but that is due to weak officials, economic power, in and of itself gives no "power? Money alone gives you no additional rights or any control over others. Only if government is too powerful and open to corruption does economic power equal political power.

And don't claim money can "buy elections". Arianna Huffington would be governor if that were the case, and Howard Dean would have been president, as would Ross Perot. There is a limit to advertising. It is not infinitely powerful. If you doubt me, try to move 1 million units of Urine Flavored Coke. Even with infinite advertising it won't work.

So there is a limit to the ability to influence elections, even with infinite wealth.

One of the differences between us is that I don't idolize the free market. It is an imperfect creation made by greedy men. That people use their idealized free market as a way to rationalize selfishness and the neglect of others is beyond me.

We can go to the writings of Smedley Butler or Helen Keller to see business's interest in gov't's overseas policies. That often, businesses want war because it benefits themselves. And if they are willing to send our troops to die for business reasons, then is it safe to assume that they are only looking for fairness at home? This economic collapse has seen how both the relaxing of enforcement and increase in deregulation were used to increase the chances of big gains at the expense of increased system risks. We've seen how companies cheat or move to have environmental regulations undone so as to cut expense. We've seen businesses benefit from sweatshop labor and such treatment of labor has been a long standing problem in our country's history.

Again, the problem with gov't is not size, it is who the gov't represents. Do our gov'tal leaders choose to represent the people or isolated pockets of the private sector who have money. Unfortunately, it is all too apparent that they have chosen to represent the latter group.

That is an absurd statement. I could just as easily say "I don't idolize government".

I do not "idolize" anything. I recognize the free market is the best solution because government has some functions and should not be sued for others.

On the other hand, you seem to ascribe omniscience to imperfect government formed by imperfect man, as you would give it limitless power.

So our positions are this: Given the choice, I would leave the individual maximum freedom, you would give maximum power to imprison and kill to a select group in order to "protect us" from some ill defined threats.

After all, if you are going to paint my position with a broad brush, I figure I should return the favor.

And the claim that business "wants war" is just as absurd. Have you seen defense contractors suffer during peace time? In fact, during war there is usually nationalization and price controls, so it is worse for business. Not to mention the curtailing of trade, which hurts the bottom line.

Look at most wars of the 20th century, who started them? Free markets or controlled economies such as Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany? Communist insurgents in Korea and Vietnam. No, the free market is a force against war.

Trade suffers from war, despite all insane claims about the "military-industrial complex".

Where have you criticized the free market? I don't mean have you criticized its implementation, where have you criticized its idea? Your idealized free market where there is little interaction between gov't and financial institutions gives an indication of your esteem of the free market.

Your idealized free market is a contradiction because the free market is based on greed first. Those praising the free market want to think that at its best state, it allows people to both be concerned solely for their own welfare and seek their prosperity and it certainly allows the latter. But unfortunately, there is no system that can be set where we are only responsible for ourselves and be honorable and that is my point. The free market says that self-survival will move use to act responsibly. The result is that people shed their responsibility for others, follow the market, and if they succeed, they look at themselves as being individually responsible for their success.

The idealized free market with little to no gov't interference is the Gidot that people who play the market say is already here. And the only way people will honestly provide for others as the need presents itself is to tell them that they have a moral responsibility for others that requires sacrifice. The idealized free market does not teach that. Rather, it teaches that if you follow the rules, you can, and will, be responsible when you do what is best for your survival.

I know your reaction is because you are a very honorable person. You are an honorable person who cares very much. Where I disagree is in the idealized free market.

There have been plenty of times where "damn business" wants war. Maybe not the business you are involved in, but they want it because their biggest client becomes the gov't or because democracies from other nations are pulling the plug on their overseas ventures.

Two people who thought that "damn businesses" want war are former Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler and Helen Keller. They cite the doubling or more in sales and the increase in the number of wealthy after wars occur. In fact, if you go to the documentation provided by William Blum, he will even point out contributions made by businesses in support of coups or military actions.

You criticize the free market for being concerned for "greed first". That is like criticizing chefs for caring only about food, or churches for doing too little about auto repairs.

The free market is a system for allocating scarce resources. Of COURSE it is about greed, if you have to use that term. We desire scarce resources to satisfy needs, if we had no greed we would have no need for economics.

As we do have desires, we need to find a way to allocate resources, so any economic system will be about "greed".

The free market is the system best designed to satisfy the most wants, as establishing conditions which will produce the maximum goods desired by the most people. In other words, of the systems which satisfy material desires, the free market does it best, provided your goal is to produce the maximum of satisfaction.

Why is that wrong? Or what should the goal of an economic system be?

You seem to have a strange idea that government should produce goods and the economy provide spiritual solace.

That is akin to using a chainsaw to eat soup and a wrench to brush your teeth. You continually want to use the wrong tool for the job.

By the way, citing individuals who promote something does nothing to convince me. Many famous people have been wrong. That Helen Keller thought business wanted war means little, as she said quite a few daft things, so I am far from impressed. (Sorry, she may have an inspiring personal story, but that does mean she was right.)

Kurt Vonnegut thought people were determined entirely by biology, but I don't buy that. I might take his advice about writing, and about getting published, but that doesn't mean he is right about anything else. As I pointed out several times, Linus Pauling was a brilliant chemist, but he also saddled us with a lot of mistaken "information" about vitamin C that is still "common knowledge" despite being completely wrong.

So even a genius can be wrong. Even in his own field.

And in this case, they are. "Damn business" does not favor war. Look at even the relatively unfree mercantile powers of the 16th and 17th centuries and note how rarely they started wars. Traders don't like war. There may be a mistaken businessman here or there who thinks war helps his bottom line, but he is wrong. War is costly and generally hurts business more than helps. Especially modern war, where government involvement in war economies tends to come int he form of price caps, or even "war socialism", which helps no one.

Trade and war, throughout history, have been opposed. War is the province of princes, militarists and absolute states. Merchants and manufacturers have nothing to gain and everything to lose through war.

The free market is not about allocating resources, it is about grabbing for resources. The market allows for such grabbing. Those who either do not grab or are not effective in how they grab come out with what? Meanwhile, those who are proficient grabbers grab for more.

Certainly some who benefit the most from the free market give back and that is honorable and noble. But it is the free market system that allows for the great disparity between rich and poor that we see today.

Are their good parts to the free market system? There is an emphasis on individualism and hard work that is beneficial when such emphasis are limited. But the free market itself does not prevent individuals from abusing other individuals or from being responsible for those in need. That is my point. Self-survival can lead to great abuse. We are responsible for much more than just ourselves.

Yes, Helen Keller said quite a few things. For example, in 1916 she said that American colonies like the Philippines would be the cause of a war with Japan. And how did the Japanese refer to WWII? They called it the "Great East Asian War" because they saw themselves as liberating East Asia from Western colonialism. So were here statements about American colonies daft? Why not deal with the specifics of she said?