What's Wrong with the Democrats Plan. (1 Viewer)

[libertarian_knight]

Here is what's wrong with the democrats plan, the republican plan, the soclaist plan. They are all plan's the choke civilizations to death.

It's an informative, short read.


Excerpt:
"Freedom is not a public-policy option and it is not a plan. It is the end of politics itself. It is time for us to take that next step and call for precisely that. If we believe what Jefferson believed, and I think we should, it is time to speak less like managers of bureaucracies, and more like Moses."

Society Needs No Managers
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

 

[liberal1]

Freedom of people would we nonexistant without government or politics. True, governments are large, bulky, and ineffective but they do provide protection (to some degree at least) for it's citizens. Without government, there would be no order, and no gurantee of rights or protection. To think that everyone has the sense to peacefully live without any kind of government (and therefore no consequences or punishments) is folly.

 

[Mikkel]

Freedom of people would we nonexistant without government or politics. True, governments are large, bulky, and ineffective but they do provide protection (to some degree at least) for it's citizens. Without government, there would be no order, and no gurantee of rights or protection. To think that everyone has the sense to peacefully live without any kind of government (and therefore no consequences or punishments) is folly.

I agree. If you have read any of Isaiah Berlin's work, you'd know about the difference between positive and negative liberty.

Positive Liberty is the freedom to achieve certain ends in your life and in your community; to act, to do, to assemble, to participate in government, etc. (this is the type of freedom mentioned above.)

Negative Liberty is the freedom from oppression. It is to protect you from being subjected to authority of government. It's the reason we have a Bill of Rights.

The article first mentioned holds strong sentiment for negative liberty, but does little to promote positive liberty, or mention anything within government to ensure that our freedoms are safe.
Freedom is great, and the reason we have government is to make sure no one is denied their freedom.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Freedom of people would we nonexistant without government or politics. True, governments are large, bulky, and ineffective but they do provide protection (to some degree at least) for it's citizens. Without government, there would be no order, and no gurantee of rights or protection. To think that everyone has the sense to peacefully live without any kind of government (and therefore no consequences or punishments) is folly.

Without government there would be a DIFFERENT order. A different order, is not the same as "no order." The Sun and Earth move orderly, and no government tells them to do so. Brids fly south for the winter, and no government tells them to do so. People plan trips across baren landscapes and no government tells them to do so. In fact, all too often, governments were so ignorant, that they needed to hire people to figure out what was there.

Is government the ONLY source of conseuqence or punishement? When a man invests $20,000 in a bad business, is he not punished for being stupid by losing his money? If I put my hand on a hot stove, isn't the consequence often a burn?

Government does not make the Sun set or rise. it does not make people, people. It may, from time to time, for short periods, aid the people in fostering civilizations. That changes once governments start controlling EVERYTHING.

You realize, the FIRST law written, the Code of Hamurabi, actually dictated the price of food? This was the first effective act of a real government, and subsequent starvation occured. Happened in Egypt, Rome, China, Russia/USSR, Germany, France, Britian, the US. If governmnet is so necessary, why does it kill so many people as a result of ineptitude and greed?

The arguement is we need government, otherwise people will die, then why do governments kill people so much? It doesn't make sense to use a tool, that doesn't work. It may happen, if you look a few fleeting instances, in isolation of all other factors, that the governments of the world, may have done good. Of course, that's just plain dumb. ALL actions of the state, or all actions of all states, must be looked at.

The arguement is that we need government, because it creates a better order. Prove it. Don't pretend there is any real difference between government either. It's all the same, some just behave a little better than others from time to time. Governmnet is governmnet is government, and you can't have the "benevolant" governments of ______ (i don't really know one, so you can fill in the blank). Without the destructive governments of the USSR, China, Babylon, and Mongolia.

One of the things that the US was MOCKED for, with the establishment of the Consitution, was it damn near made government useless. Remeber what the old order was, the King sets the price of food, the King tells the weavers how to weave, the king deicded the value of a sheckle, a dinar, a pound sterling. Divine right of rule, Kings were decendants of gods, or chosen by God, or gods themselves. Americans were laughed at because we said: "Umm.. no. See liberty, society, order, and coopoerations ALL PREEXIST GOVERNMENT."

Natural LAW.

Let me ask you a question. If government is NECESSARY to create order, how did people become organized enough, to establish governmnets? (Unless you mean to think, there was a government before there were people, which is OBVIOUSLY absurd. How can an institution of men, exit befor emen do?)

Government is a tool for Ignorant, Impatient, Imperfect and Impotent men. PERIOD

 

[libertarian_knight]

I agree. If you have read any of Isaiah Berlin's work, you'd know about the difference between positive and negative liberty.

Positive Liberty is the freedom to achieve certain ends in your life and in your community; to act, to do, to assemble, to participate in government, etc. (this is the type of freedom mentioned above.)

Negative Liberty is the freedom from oppression. It is to protect you from being subjected to authority of government. It's the reason we have a Bill of Rights.

The article first mentioned holds strong sentiment for negative liberty, but does little to promote positive liberty, or mention anything within government to ensure that our freedoms are safe.
Freedom is great, and the reason we have government is to make sure no one is denied their freedom.

You recognize, that government is an oppressor. Thus our founding fathers established a government with limitations. (note, these limitations were promptly IGNORED. There is no limit to government, but that which government sets itself, for itself, at it's discretion. Should a dictator rise to power and command the militay, the Consitution can not stop it, it's merely paper and thought). They further denied this already limited government specific acts that they found particularly abusive with their former government, and created the Bill of Rights.

This Bill does not ESTABLISH RIGHTS. Our founders already stated that rights are establish INDEPENDANT OF GOVERNMENT, by Nature or Nature's God.

There is no such thing as "positive liberty." The right to assemble, is the negative right not to be interfered with assembling peacably. The right to participate in government, is the negative right not to be interfered with in the process. The right "to do" is the negative right not to be interfered with when you do, that which you do. The freedom to achieve certain ends in one life, is the negative right, not to be prevented from achieving ends which means have been satisfied.

A "postive right" is better termed, if anything, a PRIVLEDGE. It is confered upon one person or group, to another person or group. My friend will have the privledge of coming over and making use of my property later tongiht. HE HAS NO RIGHT NOR LIBERTY TO ME OTHER THAN THAT WHICH I CONFER TO HIM AS A PRIVLEDGE.


Let me ask you, if no one interferes with one's quest to "achieve certain ends in your life and in your community; to act, to do, to assemble, to participate in government, etc," [sic] and the person fulfills the means to achieve those ends, what is to stop the person from aquiring those ends?

If I want to build a playground in my community, and I have satisfied the economic means to achieve that end, where is the positive liberty? (mind you you can not answer someone is going to stop me, because as you mention, that would be oppression of negative liberty, and the concern is the myth of "positive liberty"). If I have the tools, time, land and materials to build a safe, public, freely accessable playground, and no one stops me, how do I have any positive liberty? All I really have is a lack of oppression upon my negative liberty.


LIBERTY IS NOT BESTOWED to man from man, it is ONLY PREVENTED.

IF there were NO OTHER POEPLE around, who then confers upon me, my positive liberty? Or where is my positive liberty? What is an example of my positive liberty? If there are no people around ( or those desirous to prevent me) from engaging upon ANY action, what is to stop be from performing that action, short of my own personal ability?

If no one stops a beaver from building a dam, who tells the beaver he can build a dam? If no one stop a termite from building a mound, who tells the termites to build the mound? If no one stops a man from being free, who tells the man he can be free?

In the Lew Rockwell Article that is supposed to be the purpose of the thread, he recalls how Moses said "Let my People go." Permission was denied by the Pharoh (the state). How did the Pharoh confer Liberty to the Israelites? The answer is the Pharoh did not such thing, the ONLY thing the Pharoh could do, was attempt to DENY the liberty of the Israelites.

 

[Mikkel]

But if there is no government there is no one to secure your rights and freedoms. If you say something that causes someone else to come over and break your legs, who's going to stop him? Would the government be infringing upon his rights to say he can't break your legs, or worse, kill you?

"This Bill does not ESTABLISH RIGHTS. Our founders already stated that rights are establish INDEPENDANT OF GOVERNMENT, by Nature or Nature's God."

The founders did state that the rights established in the first 10 amendments were given to us by nature, but that doesn't mean society naturally grants us those rights. It sure wasn't that way when, at the time, we had millions of people in slavery.

The Government's main goal was to ensure that those natural rights were granted to every American citizen. Madison expressed a serious fear throughout the Federalist Papers of a majority faction. Majority tyranny. Our government is established to prevent majorities from tyrannizing minorities and removing their rights and freedoms granted in the Bill of Rights.

"Let me ask you, if no one interferes with one's quest to "achieve certain ends in your life and in your community; to act, to do, to assemble, to participate in government, etc," [sic] and the person fulfills the means to achieve those ends, what is to stop the person from aquiring those ends?"

What if my ends are killing as many people as possible, and I fulfill the means of aquiring a gun to do so? I might ask you what is to stop me from aquiring those ends? Wouldn't you like something there to stop me?

Because it isn't just about all of our individual freedoms independently. It is about finding a balance between our individual freedoms and making rules to ensure that balance. It is why we have the 9th amendment:

('The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.')

If it is my right to be free of oppression, who is securing that right? Who is going to make sure my rights aren't 'denied or disparaged' by others exercising their own freedoms? In the end, it's going to be some kind of government.

By the way, I don't think I explained the difference between positive and negative liberty very clearly, and I apologize for that.

"There is no such thing as "positive liberty." The right to assemble, is the negative right not to be interfered with assembling peacably. The right to participate in government, is the negative right not to be interfered with in the process. The right "to do" is the negative right not to be interfered with when you do, that which you do. The freedom to achieve certain ends in one life, is the negative right, not to be prevented from achieving ends which means have been satisfied."

Unless you want to ignore all political science that has been done in the last 100 years, there is such a thing as positive liberty. It is true that the freedom of action can be construed as negative liberty, but true negative liberty is the liberty we retain, without taking action: Our right to privacy; Our right to not incriminate ourselves; Our right to not be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment, etc.

Without government, you have all the positive liberty you want. You can act, do, say, think, or preach anything you want. But only to sacrifice your negative liberty. If there is no government, there is nothing to prevent others from acting as they wish to infringe upon your negative liberties.

So even though Government does restrict many of our positive liberties in this world, we would lose far more negative ones without it.

 

[libertarian_knight]

But if there is no government there is no one to secure your rights and freedoms. If you say something that causes someone else to come over and break your legs, who's going to stop him? Would the government be infringing upon his rights to say he can't break your legs, or worse, kill you?

The founders did state that the rights established in the first 10 amendments were given to us by nature, but that doesn't mean society naturally grants us those rights. It sure wasn't that way when, at the time, we had millions of people in slavery.

The Government's main goal was to ensure that those natural rights were granted to every American citizen. Madison expressed a serious fear throughout the Federalist Papers of a majority faction. Majority tyranny. Our government is established to prevent majorities from tyrannizing minorities and removing their rights and freedoms granted in the Bill of Rights.

What if my ends are killing as many people as possible, and I fulfill the means of aquiring a gun to do so? I might ask you what is to stop me from aquiring those ends? Wouldn't you like something there to stop me?

Because it isn't just about all of our individual freedoms independently. It is about finding a balance between our individual freedoms and making rules to ensure that balance. It is why we have the 9th amendment:

If it is my right to be free of oppression, who is securing that right? Who is going to make sure my rights aren't 'denied or disparaged' by others exercising their own freedoms? In the end, it's going to be some kind of government.

By the way, I don't think I explained the difference between positive and negative liberty very clearly, and I apologize for that.

Unless you want to ignore all political science that has been done in the last 100 years, there is such a thing as positive liberty. It is true that the freedom of action can be construed as negative liberty, but true negative liberty is the liberty we retain, without taking action: Our right to privacy; Our right to not incriminate ourselves; Our right to not be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment, etc.

Without government, you have all the positive liberty you want. You can act, do, say, think, or preach anything you want. But only to sacrifice your negative liberty. If there is no government, there is nothing to prevent others from acting as they wish to infringe upon your negative liberties.

So even though Government does restrict many of our positive liberties in this world, we would lose far more negative ones without it.

Whew a lot going on here and I think you may have confused yourself, particularly on the last line, but I will get back to that. (ADDED NOTE: because I typed SOO MUCH, I am just reposting your quote, without my quotes in it, and will replost my response below)

 

[libertarian_knight]

Whew a lot going on here and I think you may have confused yourself, particularly on the last line, but I will get back to that.

Anything deemed a "positive right" (or "positive liberty") is again, FAR BETTER characterized by the word PRIVILEGE. Rights are inherent to the individual, devoid of presence or will of other individuals, and are never conferred from man to man. Rights are INALIENABLE, irrevocable, and constant to every person. (This DOES NOT mean to say they are necessarily RESPECTED by other people, and in such case, the disrespect of one's rights, is often termed a "violation" of their rights.)

Mill and Berlin should be resurrected and flogged for the harm they have done to rights. Trying to be lofty and clever, all they did was confuse the issue, probably as they were confused themselves (as the concept of "Positive rights" even confuses most of their adherents). NO PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO DO[/B ]ANYTHING to another person. However, people MAY have the privilege ("positive rights"), through volitional exchange, contract or violence of law. In ALL non-voluntary associations the privilege afforded comes at the expense of rights (negative rights, most often economic rights: property or liberty).

If people would pause to examine the concept of "positive rights" then recognize and call them privileges, the world would simply be better off.

= = =
I know of no government whose duty it is to actually prevent crime. No government, even the US government, has assumed such an impossible responsibility. If fact, US Supreme court has ruled, that it is not the job of the state or police to prevent crime (I don’t recall the particular ruling offhand, else I would cite it). So, if I said something that would cause someone to want to break my legs, the police are not even obligated to stop them, because in most circumstances they can’t even be aware. The role of the police has been to enter the scenario AFTER the crime has been committed, or a course of events initiated that seek to execute a crime (Hiring a hit man, making threats, etc). If the would be leg breaker, said to me “on Tuesday December 20th, 2005 I am going to come to your house, at 7 PM and break your legs.” That would be a threat, viewed as an initial act aimed at completing a crime. Law has view that the start of a crime is a crime.

The founders said our rights do not come from man, but come from being Man. Neither Kings, Governments, society, nor any man confer, give, grant, bestow, endow, award, donate, bequeath, hand down, or will the Rights of Man upon men. (You do realize give and grant are synonyms right? You can’t say “They don’t give us something, they grant it.” The sentence would be the same as “They don’t grant us something, they give it.”)

Tyranny (majority or any form), oppression, bondage, slavery are all things done BY man to other men, in VIOLATION of their rights. Therefore Madison’s concern was that the will of the Majority would violate the rights (negative rights) of other people, particularly the minority and especially a correct minority.

The only thing that can stop you from acquiring a gun is stupidity. Nothing will stop a criminal from committing the crime, except luck (or again, the criminal’s own stupidity). The state MAY stop a criminal from COMPLETING the crime (through luck or criminal stupidity) or they MAY stop the criminal from committing ANOTHER crime (by means of incarceration).

The US government acquired a grant many guns, and killed a great many people, (as did the Soviets, Chinese, Ottomans, Safavids, British, Japanese and Nazis to name a few in particularly heinous fashions) and still do today in Iraq. Will the US government prevent the US government from behaving like government?

Regarding Oppression: if it is the state and society (as you submit) that “grant” rights, if they deny your right to be free from oppression, and then in turn OPPRESS YOU, what moral justification do you have to be upset? Other than, of course, that it is inconvenient for you. If the state or society grants rights, how are they inalienable? Are they then not merely temporal manifestations of will and privilege; revocable, alterable, violable always?

The Murdered man ALWAYS retained his right to Life.
The Enslaved man ALWAYS retains his right to Liberty.
The Robbed man ALWAYS retained his right to Property.

= = =
“… but true negative liberty is the liberty we retain, without taking action …”

True negative liberty is the liberty we retain without being ACTED UPON.

I may walk around my own property at will to the full extent of my liberty (assume I am not interfering with another’s liberty in the process, because it is not part of my liberty to act upon another at my own will). Assume a man, alone, on an island. He may fashion tools and shelter. He may fish, forage, hunt and farm. He may Swim, jump, play, run, skip, hop, dance, since, talk, eat, sleep, s***, throw rocks, skip rocks, break rocks, break dance, break wind, or any other infinite number of actions. And it is obvious, he retained his Negative Liberty. His right not to be acted upon by others.

Governments confer privilege (“positive rights”) to it citizenry, and through various mechanisms, those privileges CAN, and often are altered or revoked. Through new law, amendment, repeal, simply ignoring the law or establishing a new government, governments (or societies) can reduce, expand, amend, revoke or recapture any privilege it has conferred upon its population. Rights (negative rights) are inalienable; Privileges (“positive rights”) are revocable.

Public Education is one example of a privilege conferred upon the citizens of the US by the Federal Government and the several states. Like ALL privileges granted by the state, they ALL come at the expense of rights (negative rights). In order to fund state education, the right of property must be violated. In order to promote Affirmative Action, the employer’s liberty must be violated (there is no need to discuss the merit or detriment of AA further, other than to recognize this fact). In order to protect intellectual pursuits the government confers patents and copyrights. In order to provide public defense attorneys, the state must violate property rights.

ALL privileges are revocable, or may fail. Even if the government collapses, all people always retain their Rights (negative rights).

Regarding the last line: “So even though Government does restrict many of our positive liberties in this world, we would lose far more negative ones without it.”

Better and accurately stated: “Even though Government does violate our rights (negative rights) we may lose many privileges (“positive rights”) without it.

Mill and Berlin BOTH recognized the origin of their so called “positive rights” as being conferred from one person or group, to another person or group, i.e. from the state to one, some or all members of the population.

Also, a nice summation on wikipedia “Berlin distinguished between two forms or concepts of liberty - negative liberty and positive liberty - and argued the latter is politically dangerous because it tempts rulers to curtail people's negative liberties "for their own good." Two Concepts of Liberty

Berlin, thinking he was clever, attempted to establish a duality in Liberty. If he would have simply recognized that “positive liberty” is merely the privilege of birth or association, he would have done far more to benefit mankind.

“But, as Berlin points out, the deceptively phrased "positive liberty " has some nasty consequences. One of them is that since positive liberty is unrelated to freedom as we usually understand it, then being "liberated" (and we often find this usage of the word in current liberation movements) is being forced to do something against our will because someone else thinks it is good.” on Two Concepts of Liberty

Liberty CAN NOT be imposed, it can ONLY be restricted. To be liberated mean to be free from restraint, you can not free a person, and retrain the person, at the same time. You can not put shackles on a slave chained to a post, and call him free.

For Thousands of years Man has been struggling to throw off the yoke of “State granted rights.” Why do you want to put it back on us? We almost became free, and even so close to freedom, but not quite there, look at how great civilization have become when unrestrained. We’ve wiped out some diseases, produced food, so that in the last 20 years or so of my life, I have no went an entire day without eating. We have electricity, TV, internet, books, music, art, movies, MRI machines, X-Rays, the Human Genome mapped, Microscops, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Beethoven, Tool (my favorite band), Vaccines, cars, ambulances and fire trucks, airplanes, telephones, PAPER. All this produced because man was more free than he had ever been. Sure we still have problems, and we are still human. Which means many people are still too hungry, many people too greedy and too violent. Yet, in the last 200 years or so, we have made UNIMAGINABLE STRIDES. I have profound faith humanity, based on the human track record, that when people are free people are extraordinary. Maybe not most people, maybe not even one person all of the time. But enough people enough of the time, when LEFT to study and improve the world, do tremendous things for Mankind.

Let us be free, and the world won’t be perfect, it never will be, but it will be better. Apologize for the oppressors and wastelands are our future.

 

[Mikkel]

I don't feel like continuing this debate much longer because it seems to be going nowhere. While I agree with you that government often has the potential to do a lot of evil, I do think it accomplishes many good things as well. You seem to be fixated on the concept that the only purpose of government is to infringe upon your rights and that it is the only entity possible of doing so.

In your Anarchic society, who is going to hold people accountable for their actions? You say this:

"assume I am not interfering with another’s liberty in the process, because it is not part of my liberty to act upon another at my own will"

What will happen to someone who comes over and interferes with your liberty? You seem to be continually dodging this question. No, our government's job isn't to stop crimes from being commited, but it does hold people accountable for their actions, which is the best we can hope for.

Associations need to exist in some form to create a stable society. We can't all stop paying our taxes and go to Walden Pond and write about how much we hate our government. The way to end governmental oppression isn't to ignore or abolish it, but to band together and create organizations to fight it when government infinges upon our rights.

I am by no means saying that government is anywhere near perfect. But for all of the bad things it does, it does far more good.


"Tyranny (majority or any form), oppression, bondage, slavery are all things done BY man to other men, in VIOLATION of their rights. Therefore Madison’s concern was that the will of the Majority would violate the rights (negative rights) of other people, particularly the minority and especially a correct minority."

And what did Madison suggest to prevent such tyranny? Checks and Balances along with a separation of powers (Federalist 48), Separate state and federaly governments (Federalist 51), and a representative government spread across a large country (Federalist 63). He wants a larger government to fix these problems, not a smaller one!

I understand that 'give' and 'grant' are synonyms. I used them interchangeably, rather than repetitiously, to keep my writing from becoming tedious. If you read what I actually wrote:

"The founders did state that the rights established in the first 10 amendments were given to us by nature, but that doesn't mean society naturally grants us those rights. It sure wasn't that way when, at the time, we had millions of people in slavery."

Notice that I said the liberties in the first 10 amendments were 'given' to us by nature, but that doesn't mean society naturally grants us those rights.
It is true I use the same verb, but the subjects of each of those clauses is very different. Nature is not society. Society doesn't live by the laws of nature.

As and add on, Government is not a synonym for society. A good government keeps society from limiting freedoms, and a government becomes oppresive when it fails to do so, or it becomse a mechanism through which society can oppress a minority. This, however, does not make government a naturally oppresive institution.

As I said earlier, no free governments today are perfect, but they often do more good for their citizens than bad. If we were living in a country where that wasn't true, then I'd probably agree with you, but it's not.