It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The "miracle" in question consists in a simple but momentous fact: It was in Europe — and the extensions of Europe, above all, America — that human beings first achieved per capita economic growth over a long period of time. In this way, European society eluded the "Malthusian trap," enabling new tens of millions to survive and the population as a whole to escape the hopeless misery that had been the lot of the great mass of the human race in earlier times. The question is: why Europe?
....
Within this system, it was highly imprudent for any prince to attempt to infringe property rights in the manner customary elsewhere in the world. In constant rivalry with one another, princes found that outright expropriations, confiscatory taxation, and the blocking of trade did not go unpunished. The punishment was to be compelled to witness the relative economic progress of one's rivals, often through the movement of capital, and capitalists, to neighboring realms. The possibility of "exit," facilitated by geographical compactness and, especially, by cultural affinity, acted to transform the state into a "constrained predator" (Anderson 1991, 58).
mises.org...
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Boadicea
Great thread and one of the more hotly debated aspects of both the definition and origin of rights.
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.
A frequently misunderstood explanation of the intended meaning of this passage is the direct result of Jefferson's failure to leave Locke's original phrase alone which read, "life, liberty, and estate".
It is widely presumed (and I agree) that he was intending to include property as well as some other as yet undefined unalienable negative rights.
In 1689, Locke argued in his Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate".[7] In A Letter Concerning Toleration, he wrote that the magistrate's power was limited to preserving a person's "civil interest", which he described as "life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things".[8] He declared in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding that "the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness".[9]
According to those scholars who saw the root of Jefferson's thought in Locke's doctrine, Jefferson replaced "estate" with "the pursuit of happiness", although this does not mean that Jefferson meant the "pursuit of happiness" to refer primarily or exclusively to property. Under such an assumption, the Declaration of Independence would declare that government existed primarily for the reasons Locke gave, and some have extended that line of thinking to support a conception of limited government
I thought that rights were negative rights only. A right is non interference with another person.
Positive rights all seem to be demands and therefore coerce another person into action. Slavery de facto.
None of the positive rights are rights to my way of thinking.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Ralph Raico is a historian and lecturer on youtube and a member of the von Mises community. He has proposed that being able to move from country to country in Christian Europe was essential to the development of personal liberty. The West was essentially one culture and so a person could leave an oppressive government to a new government and still live in accustomed ways. Countries had be reasonable concerning the rights of the average citizen or else their population would migrate away.
No other civilization has ever been as decentralized as the West. No other civilization has had individualism and private property. No other civilization has grown economically per capita. And there is also the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.
The European Miracle.
The "miracle" in question consists in a simple but momentous fact: It was in Europe — and the extensions of Europe, above all, America — that human beings first achieved per capita economic growth over a long period of time. In this way, European society eluded the "Malthusian trap," enabling new tens of millions to survive and the population as a whole to escape the hopeless misery that had been the lot of the great mass of the human race in earlier times. The question is: why Europe?
....
Within this system, it was highly imprudent for any prince to attempt to infringe property rights in the manner customary elsewhere in the world. In constant rivalry with one another, princes found that outright expropriations, confiscatory taxation, and the blocking of trade did not go unpunished. The punishment was to be compelled to witness the relative economic progress of one's rivals, often through the movement of capital, and capitalists, to neighboring realms. The possibility of "exit," facilitated by geographical compactness and, especially, by cultural affinity, acted to transform the state into a "constrained predator" (Anderson 1991, 58).
mises.org...
originally posted by: greencmp
Semicollegiate: "Positive rights all seem to be demands and therefore coerce another person into action. Slavery de facto. None of the positive rights are rights to my way of thinking."
Greencmp: "Yes, I agree and I am prepared to just jump to that conclusion."
It becomes a problem only at the federal level, the obvious one is the right to due process which must have some arguably provisional implications.
States could include a variety of positive rights however unwittingly but, the ability to leave those states remains the final arbiter of such folly.
originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: ketsuko
I am afraid despite a little white wash British government still has the same attitude of dictating to the people it had then, less violently but still the same.
The US faces a different problem in that at least since the 60's your government has been gravitating away from a rule by the majority toward the same tell the majority what to do attitude.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: greencmp
One positive right that has come to mind is the "right to an attorney"
The law should be quite simple, how else can it be obeyed? Do we need law of such complexity that lawyers are mandatory?
originally posted by: Boadicea
originally posted by: greencmp
Semicollegiate: "Positive rights all seem to be demands and therefore coerce another person into action. Slavery de facto. None of the positive rights are rights to my way of thinking."
Greencmp: "Yes, I agree and I am prepared to just jump to that conclusion."
I agree for the most part... at least in terms of our natural rights. In that sense, all are negative.
It becomes a problem only at the federal level, the obvious one is the right to due process which must have some arguably provisional implications.
I agree. At the federal level, if/when they act upon or against us, they do have to take certain actions, such as due process, to guarantee our natural rights.
States could include a variety of positive rights however unwittingly but, the ability to leave those states remains the final arbiter of such folly.
I've been giving this some thought. There is strength in numbers, and it is often more efficient and practical to pool resources for a common goal... such as law enforcement, education, road maintenance, etc. The question is determining which functions are best left to the individual and which are best handled as a whole. So much simpler said than done!
Like Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson and William Penn and so many other founding fathers, I consider public education of the absolute paramount in healthy Republic. An educated public is an educated voting public. Further, education creates an independent, resourceful and self-sustaining people -- in other words, a strong people, who neither want nor need public assistance.
Having said that, the current state of education is a joke. But the premise is sound. We just need to fix it. Others disagree with me, and would like to see public education done away with. I just want to see it wrested from federal interference and control, handled as locally as possible to best serve that communities needs. I would like to see vocational education become more available, and I think we otherwise need to totally reform our educational system.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Quick question: Where does "money" come from when "everything" is privatized?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Quick question: Where does "money" come from when "everything" is privatized?
originally posted by: greencmp
...wealth is created through the natural progression of requirement, vision, effort and reverence.
Money is simply a fungible currency which represents that wealth, easily replaced.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp
Money represents wealth. Check.
... and wealth is created through the natural progression of requirement, vision, effort and reverence. Uh ... check.
What is "wealth" itself then, in your terms [in a society were EVERYTHING has been privatized]?
EDIT FOR CLARITY IN BRACKETS.