The nanny state - Licences and registration

'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.....'

Rights aren't in the same class as privileges. They don't need to be earned, or bought. But I agree that a lot of children confuse the two.

And by the way, once I gave my children something they owned it. I never approved of parents who would threaten to confiscate toys or anything else as a punishment, for example.

 

I think it boils down to the definition of Natural Rights. The concept goes way back before Jefferson... Locke, Aquinas, Grotious, .. In Sopphocles play Antigone, she made the statement, when taken before the king for the "crime" of burying her father- "I didn't know your mortal edicts could nullify the laws of heaven.." IOW, these rights come from God. Others, such as Hugo Grotious, refined the idea, by pointing out that even an atheist could have an idea of Natural Rights. Even the idea of God is not necessary to believe that a person is born with the Natural Right to property (which by definition includes life and liberty). This is a moral construct, and one could argue that morality is not dependant on the concept of a diety. ANYWAy, I personally believe that morality evolves in the same way as eyes, ears or antennae.

I think where we differ is with your idea that "society" grants the "right". This is not consistent with Natural Rigthts, as I see it, unless by "society", you mean humanity as a whole, since The NR idea is universal to most cultures and religions. Governments certainly do not grant "rights" by the NR defintion. At best, governments can attempt to defend the citizens innate Natural Rights, through a system of Justice. (the US blueprint). Many would argue (corrcetly IMO) that the US has lost sight of its "blueprint".

Some reading for those intersted The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard; Vices are not Crimes by Lysander Spooner; THe Law by Frederic Bastiat

 

Interesting. I had written a reference to the Constitution in an earlier draft and edited it out for the sake of brevity.

Rights are slippery little devils. The United States I grew up in was a different country than it is today. I seem to remember having a lot more rights as a child than exist today. Unreasonable search and seizure. Privacy. Warrants. Detention. No need to walk around with documentation. Somehow an infinitesimally small group of nutbars were able to gut wholesale parts of the Constitution and change the country forever.

Worse is the fact that all these rights have been lost through Presidential Executive Orders, congressionally unauthorised "wars" against foggy semantic labels, and perversely labelled legislation like the "Patriot Act". All of these attacks that have destroyed unalienable rights would be opposed by the authors of the Constitution - two of which I am a direct descendent. Now you are a patriot for denying rights and assuming guilt before innocence. Now you can be incarcerated without a jury of your peers.

I thought like you and was a true believer in inalienable rights and equality, but hard evidence displayed during my lifetime has taught me otherwise. I once thought the system of government and principles of United States was the pinnacle of human achievement which the rest of the world envied. The US government is non-functional, polarised and infantile in it's behaviour. The wealthy have corrupted the political process fatally with endless money.

This is not the ideal world I was taught about during the 1960s in rural New England. More than forty years since I last was in an American classroom, I can still recite the Pledge, still sing the Star Spangled Banner. I feel incredibly sad, because I just can't see today's American politicians restoring lost rights, bringing knowledge and jobs back home or ever regaining the respect they once had in the world. You just can't undo a loss of innocence and trust.

Mr. Bush destroyed my country with his Executive Order pen and use of fear. Mr. Obama failed miserably at undoing this destruction. The Supreme Court destroyed my faith and trust in the American election process with Citizen's United. Although I still believe in the vision of the framers of the Constitution, I no longer believe that vision exists today.

Rights are not unalienable, and the Creator doesn't appear interested in renewing his endowment. Since these things are now self-evident, I think people need to re-assess their belief systems and values.

--
CutOnce

 

REgarding rights:--this is an interesting discussion-thought I'd put in my 2 cents worth.Regarding the concept of a right as being "endowed by the creator"--that is, not something that can be granted by a government,and something to be protected from encroachment.-the concept of a "right"(or a" privelige") for that matter is a human construct,they dont exist in a vaccuum.You may say for example that persons have the "right" to life,(as in life,liberty,and the pursuit of etc.),but this is pretty meaningless,without taking into consideration that the exercise of any right always takes place through some sort of negotiation with the world as it pre-exists.When a baby is born ,( or even before,according to some)we like to say it has the right to life,but what we really mean,is that WE think it should be given nourishment,shelter,etc.so that it dont die.The "right "has no meaning outside what we think we should do.Indeed, if endowed by our creator with that right,no futher action on our part would be necessary,the child would just live(presumeably,not very long) ,and then die.Therefore,both the definition of what a right is,and any meaningfull exercise thereof is indelibly linked with the culture.We need to be just as concerned with forcing the government to assist us in exercising our "Rights"(as in healthcare is a right,not a privelege)as we are in protecting our so called "God given rights"

 

You might as well try telling me that life is no longer an unalienable right, because there are murderers out there. I don't buy it. The fact that our rights are being attacked and interfered with doesn't mean they no longer exist; it simply means they're being thwarted.

On the other hand, I don't buy into the 'I hate the evil government, along with all the evil liberals/conservatives/Republicans/Democrats/communists/Nazis/Fascists/socialists/whatever' movements. It's time we started spending less time looking for reasons to hate our fellow Americans, and more time trying to work together to survive a perilous world while interfering with our rights as little as possible.

Consider the latest Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare): it was actually in three parts. One upheld the individual mandate -- which by the way, was originally proposed by the very conservative Heritage Foundation, widely supported by Republicans as an example of encouraging personal responsibility, and originally included in the bill as an attempt to win Republican support.

A second part shot down the use of the Commerce Clause as cover for almost any federal law or regulation conceivable (the first serious slap-down of that tactic for growing federal power since it surfaced in the 1920's). A third part blocked the federal government from punitively withholding all Medicaid funds from any states that didn't broaden Medicaid in accordance with the Act, saying it was unconstitutionally coercive and intruded on states' rights.

By my reckoning, I'd say that made the final score 2 1/2 to 1/2, in favor of conservatives and limited government over liberals and big government. And how did conservatives react? Here's a hint: some of the best-selling items on the internet this week have been tee shirts emblazoned with pictures of Chief Justice John Roberts, with the word 'COWARD' or 'TRAITOR' stamped across his face.

In a rational world folks would be asking, 'what the !@#$ do you people want? Egg in your beer?'

edit: It's hard to maintain the line sometimes, but there's a very real difference between being a realist and being a cynic. I don't despair of this country and this government because it consistently falls short of my expectations. I believe in the long run we're still trying to meet them -- whatever the missteps, detours and delays along the way.

I've seen Lady Liberty in the morning wearing a tattered robe, without her makeup and feeling cranky, and you know what? I love her anyway.

 

Sawmaster, I think that is a great point, but I disagree. I have a right to my property. Most of the world agrees with me. No "negotiation" involved. The right already exists

I believe that you are conflating "rights" with altruism here. Most people have an innate sense of responsibility to help others. In the case of a newborn, however, I belive that the mother instinct goes beyond mere altruism. Though some could argue that altruism is actually an extension of the survival instinct.

It is altruism that saves the helpless and the innocent from the wolves. This does not change a thing as far as rights go. Rights still exist regardless of anything else.

Healthcare is not a right. It is a merely a service performed- no different than a haircut, really. Giving free haircuts to others is a form of altruism, provided that it is done voluntarily. It is to be commended then, IMO. Of course there is nothing voluntary about government. Government is dependant upon force. It wll not work without otherwise. So government provided haircuts are wrong, IMO. They utilize the force of law, backed by guns, to force others (the unwilling taxpayers) to pay for them. They are a violation of their (the unwilling taxpayers) Natural Rights to property.

 

Not all of us outside the USA have ever envied the USA's political system and principles.

We may have respected it, sure - but envy? Nope. And in fact we think some of it is pretty odd, just as you no doubt think the Westminster system is odd (and there's justification both ways!).

 

Just curious, but doesn't that mean that taxes to pay for the military, police, jails, or to pay for the mechanics of the electoral system, or to pay to keep the roof in the White House and the Statue of Liberty on her feet, or free medicine to stop tuberculosis spreading through a crowded city, are also a violation of a Natural Right to property?

If the answer is "yes" then of what use is a "right" that is always violated and has probably been violated in one way or another since the first caveman village chief said "Og, you need to give us that old tree branch from your bed so we can use it for the barricade to keep the sabre tooth tigers out of the cave."???

Human psychology being what it is, could a society work without such a "violation" of rights? If not, how could we have such a "right" since it could be seen to inimical to human existence as we know it?

As my old ethics professor (who grew up in Poland before the Curtain collapsed and was therefore very much against totalitarianism) used to say, if you actually did have inalienable rights you wouldn't have to claim them, because you don't have to claim something that no one can take away... the fact that you claim rights is an indication that they don't exist.

 

When property is taken by force or by the threat of force then it is a violation of the Natural Right to property of the one being robbed. Some people (most) agree with some form of taxation, to pay for some certain things, that they may view as legitimate expenditures. If something is voluntarily given, then some folks argue that this is not really a tax, but more like club "dues" or something. Maybe so. But if it is an involuntary confiscation of property, then it is theft, pure and simple. And That would include such "involuntary" taxes.

Indeed. What "use" for the idea of "right" and "wrong". Let's just **** and pillage and be done with it.

Are you saying that man needs and must have an overseer...a "decider" a Lord, a King, or some kind of an elite person or group to "save mankind from himself", by force if necessary?

Is one persons right less important than the survival of the species?

It is a good question, and I don't have an answer-- only more questions, like "how many lives is one man's "rights" worth? One? two? twenty? 500 million? Where does the utilitarian draw the line on such matters? Oh and what if the "decider" turned out to be wrong?

Well, I would counter that if you do claim them, and are willing to fight for them, then they certainly do exist.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CT249
Just curious, but doesn't that mean that taxes to pay for the military, police, jails, or to pay for the mechanics of the electoral system, or to pay to keep the roof in the White House and the Statue of Liberty on her feet, or free medicine to stop tuberculosis spreading through a crowded city, are also a violation of a Natural Right to property?

Charly wrote:

When property is taken by force or by the threat of force then it is a violation of the Natural Right to property of the one being robbed. Some people (most) agree with some form of taxation, to pay for some certain things, that they may view as legitimate expenditures. If something is voluntarily given, then some folks argue that this is not really a tax, but more like club "dues" or something. Maybe so. But if it is an involuntary confiscation of property, then it is theft, pure and simple. And That would include such "involuntary" taxes.

CT again

So you do agree that anyone could, for example, just refuse to pay for the basic services that are vital to their own freedom, health and safety, such as defence forces, the police and basic services (water, sewerage etc) that they may use?

Hmmm, to me that seems less like self reliance and more like just being a bludger.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CT249

If the answer is "yes" then of what use is a "right" that is always violated and has probably been violated in one way or another since the first caveman village chief said "Og, you need to give us that old tree branch from your bed so we can use it for the barricade to keep the sabre tooth tigers out of the cave."???

Charly wrote:

Indeed. What "use" for the idea of "right" and "wrong". Let's just **** and pillage and be done with it.

CT again

I'm not saying that, of course. There are many other sources of moral concepts apart from Natural Rights.

You can have concepts of "right" and "wrong" that are clear, logical, intelligently constructed but do not include a concept of a natural right than permits someone to say (for example) "I will get the benefit of the levee bank that protects my property from going 10 feet under, which was paid for by the rest of society, but it is my right to not pay for my share."

If people enjoy the protection from epidemics, utter anarchy etc that they do in modern societies, shouldn't they pay their fair share?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CT249

Human psychology being what it is, could a society work without such a "violation" of rights? If not, how could we have such a "right" since it could be seen to inimical to human existence as we know it?

Charly wrote:

Are you saying that man needs and must have an overseer...a "decider" a Lord, a King, or some kind of an elite person or group to "save mankind from himself", by force if necessary?

CT again;

Not at all. I'm saying that if no one could be forced to pay a tax they do not agree with - even when they benefit from the services the money creates - then how would anything get funded sufficiently to operate?

People have very diverse views on what we need. For example and at the most basic level, most city people would probably want to pay only for the roads they use, ignoring the fact that people in the country need roads too, or else the farmers cannot get food out, and those who inspect the dam walls need to get in or else the walls may collapse, sweeping away half the city and leaving other other half without water until they die from typhoid.

Yes, it's a simplistic and extreme case, but there are uncountable realistic issues where people are simply not in a position to know where money has to be spent to keep them alive and healthy - my country has no rabies because we all contribute a tiny amount of tax to maintain a quarantine service. How would such a thing get funded if everyone could simply opt out of paying tax with no penalty, as you appear to be saying? Would Joe Average really remember to pay his 35 cents per year to maintain the quarantine service, and his 5 cents to the fisheries guys to prevent the EEZ from being over-fished, and his 22 cents to the air traffic controlling system that stops jets from dropping on our heads, etc etc ad nauseum, even if they support such matters? How do you fund these things without a compulsory centralised system? How does Joe Average find out how many quarantine inspectors are needed to stop disease entering via an airport 2,000 miles away, so that they can have an intelligent idea of how much they should contribute?

I have no big issues with certain people being deemed "elite" in some respects and therefore being given the right to make decisions. Someone had to work out how to build our power stations, for example, and I just don't know how to, so of course I'm happy to fund people who are "elite" in terms of knowing how to do it.

Charly wrote;
Is one persons right less important than the survival of the species?

It is a good question, and I don't have an answer-- only more questions, like "how many lives is one man's "rights" worth? One? two? twenty? 500 million? Where does the utilitarian draw the line on such matters? Oh and what if the "decider" turned out to be wrong?

CT wrote:

A decision is being made anyway. A line is being drawn anyway.

In one system, the decision is being made that "natural rights" top all else (apparently). That's still a line is being decided by someone; that is, the supporters of the concept.

It's a different line, a different decision, but deciding that there are these natural rights and what they are still involves lines and decisions, so the same questions still apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CT249

As my old ethics professor (who grew up in Poland before the Curtain collapsed and was therefore very much against totalitarianism) used to say, if you actually did have inalienable rights you wouldn't have to claim them, because you don't have to claim something that no one can take away... the fact that you claim rights is an indication that they don't exist. Charly wrote:

Well, I would counter that if you do claim them, and are willing to fight for them, then they certainly do exist.



CT wrote;

So the rights to Lebensraum and to the triumph of communism both existed, because they were claimed and fought for? The rights on both sides of the Civil War existed (although some of them were direct contraditions to each other) because they were claimed and fought for?

To be honest, under that recipe it sounds like you can claim a right to do anything -**** your neighbour's cat, force your neighbour to pay taxes AND join the Tea Party AND listen to your experimental jazz/hip-hop nose trumpet version of Justin Bieber's disco greats - if you claim it and fight for it. So I assume I'm missing something!

Perhaps whether you believe in natural rights depends partly on where you think they, and humans, come from. If you believe that we just developed from other animals (as I do) then it seems that rights would not just have sprung up one summer morn. We may, as evolving beings trying to muddle along within the limitations of our organic brains, have learned that we have better lives if we accord each other certain rights so we can all get along better. Those rights can be vital and worth dying for, but that's perhaps very different from seeing them as some inalienable concepts that have the force of nature.

I have the feeling this is one thing were reasonable people may never agree, and I'm sure you would agree I have the right to my own philosophy!

 

Thanks,CT249-Its as if you took the words right out of my mouth--I was all ready to make some of the same points you so eloquently made but now I find it unnecessary-- You explained my position--perfectly--possibly better than I could have done!

 

Thankfully this debate has been moved off the Sailing sub-forum.

I've found that trying to suppress some people and topics directly or through the "forum management" is pointless and ineffective. I don't give out negative rep points. The best strategy seems to be provoking them sufficiently to cause them to meltdown. Roll a couple threadkilling tear gas grenades into their bunkers and they'll reach critical mass soon enough.

Really, nine pages of whining about taxes, licenses and registration? This had nothing to do with sailing. I hope the folks don't feel they have the nonsensical "Natural Right" to restart their blather in the Sailing sub-forum.

I apologise if anyone took my tear gas grenades seriously. I really do respect a lot of the normal people (Troy, CT rwatson etc.) who tried to argue with the anarchy/Natural Right folks.

--
CutOnce

 

It would be inconsistent with a system based on Natural Rights to believe otherwise, IMO. (assuming that the payments were coerced) And, It really has nothing to do with self reliance or being a bludger. Bludgers and other undesireable types exist regardless. These are separate issues from Natural Rights, which exist anyway. I am making a moral argument here, not a utilitarian one. There are plenty of good economic reasons to oppose tax-funded services on grounds of inefficiency but let's don't get into that here.

Maybe so, but the idea of the Natural Right to property is pretty universal (thou shalt not steal etc) It works for most people.

The Natural Right to property is not a theory of contract. There is no contract. There is no "fair share". Only a right to one's own property.

Great question. The stock "plumb line Libertarian" answer is the free market, which is fundamentally different from a system of coercion, such as a state. Minarchists are a little squishier... one might say- "well... I guess public roads might be OK in some instances". So it goes.

There is no doubt about it IMO, Libertarianism is much easier to defend in a rural environment, and rolling back government is much harder to accomplish in a metropolis. Maybe impossible.

I don't either. As long as I am voluntarily paying for it.

 

Fun chat - thanks to Charly and CO for keeping it all polite!