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.
Coins and other value markers were almost always issued by some sort of centralized political power which took steps to standardize their weight and composition
we would have competing vendors minting coins probably of differing materials and all claiming, of course, that their coinage is "the most pure, the most fair" etc.
So ... how does money get coined fairly, evaluated honestly, measured consistently ... in the absence of a centralized political power?
I would like to be able to say authoritatively that all rights afforded in the constitution and the bill of rights are exclusively negative rights.
a reply to: LABTECH767 Ok so one man that ran from a different religion and religious persecution had some faith. That does not dispute that the founding father of the documents of this country tried to leave out religion. In fact is was because of people like that they did it without religion. They fled from religious persecution and intolerance. So they enacted a gov that would not profess a religion and would not restrict it either. All religious references were added later by tyrants. Religion belongs no where i gov. Makes me sick when i see congress have a preacher there with prayer before they start. They can pray at home if they want, not on my dime. It should be gone unless they want Muslim prayer too, satanist ect.. Where is the equality it that? It does not belong there and they are a disgrace to the country. With their tyranny. Leave your fantasy world at home, not everyone believes. Our forefathers knew that.
OK I am British but watched a TBN documentary that astounded me, it was about the NATIONAL MONUMENT OF THE FOREFATHERS, this is also proof that though a Secular nation the US was founded as a Christian nation with all the freedom's that intended and was meant to be ruled from the people to the government and not the government to the people
originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
Read the whole thread before commenting.
I would like to be able to say authoritatively that all rights afforded in the constitution and the bill of rights are exclusively negative rights.
Edit to add: A reply to Greencmp. Poor tagging/quoting on my part.
No they [per the constitution and bill or rights] are all unalienable, meaning NOT being able to be sold or transferred PEROID. In my opinion the negative v. positive right argument is flawed. First and foremost, one must remember that In Law ALL rights ARE property; anything that conveys rights is property; contracts are property; franchises are property. This can be ANY type of right, constitutional [unalienable] or civil [privileged/contractual/franchise rights/inalienable rights]. However, the legal difference between an 'unalienable' [page 1523] right and an 'inalienable right' [Page 759] is one simple facet [Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed]... "without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Such that, even with consent an 'unalienable' right cannot be sold or transferred, where an inalienable right may be [temporarily transferred or suspended], like for receipt of a [federal] benefit, or to meet the terms of a contract or franchise.
This is a great thread, and I will add more as I reread and comprehend all the avenues presented here.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp
So, the answer to my question is that individuals will mint their own coins under the new system?
Okay, we've made some progress.
How do I know how much gold (purity) is in your coins during our transaction in the village market? How about the weight? Does everyone carry a balance scale with them, everywhere they go? How much does that process slow down even the most basic transactions?
originally posted by: Logarock
Its been many years and years I have never seen where the education system taught the philosophy behind our revolution as they taught the rest of it.
The closest I ever saw, in college, we had a liberal professor came in one day and challenged the idea, wanted it removed from documents, the idea of rights granted by God and/or nature even. What have you.
And yes the flow of things toward a philosophy that rights are granted by government is a major departure.
originally posted by: greencmp
Simpatico. I say get rid of all public sector unions and then rebuild whatever necessary management is necessary locally. The department of education (being only about 40 years old and having failed) among others are to be disassembled, the experiment can be continued at the state and local levels.
Pretty much all of these debatable topics are ultimately funded through local property taxes anyway so there is no down side to any particular community to be released from bondage. The only obstacle is the teacher's and other public sector unions, perhaps the greatest threat this country has ever faced as it threatens to devour its master, us.
originally posted by: links234
Maybe I'm missing your point but, why can't we have both, equally? We have our natural rights that are equal to our civil rights.
Is there anything specifically preventing the government, as an extension of the people, from declaring additional rights that are outside the purview of 'natural' rights?' I was under the impression that this was declared in the 10th amendment.
Finally, we are a democracy.
You clearly understand that we elect our representatives democratically which is the definition of a democracy. Power vested to the people who rule through freely elected representatives.
We, the people, furthered that through the 17th amendment. We don't have national votes on individual laws because we give that specific power to our representatives. But this nation is a democracy nonetheless.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
I feel like I'm distracting from the topic ... as we're into Rothbardian libertarianism ... and the topic is more closely related to Lockean natural philosophy.
Thanks all who answered my questions, beg pardon for the distractions.
originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Boadicea
Its been many years and years I have never seen where the education system taught the philosophy behind our revolution as they taught the rest of it.
The closest I ever saw, in college, we had a liberal professor came in one day and challenged the idea, wanted it removed from documents, the idea of rights granted by God and/or nature even. What have you.
And yes the flow of things toward a philosophy that rights are granted by government is a major departure.
originally posted by: roth1
That does not dispute that the founding father of the documents of this country tried to leave out religion. In fact is was because of people like that they did it without religion. They fled from religious persecution and intolerance. So they enacted a gov that would not profess a religion and would not restrict it either.
originally posted by: greencmp
My understanding is that unalienable and inalienable are synonymous and simply mean that which cannot be given or taken away. I have never heard anyone claim a meaningful difference between them, Black's Law Dictionary aside.
You are correct, property is the root of all rights.
That is why constitutional republicans are constantly on the defensive against the socialist argument which wishes to dispel with the right of property for the purposes of confiscatory redistributive "social justice" (something other than justice).
I was under the impression that the negative vs positive rights debate was a major component of this discussion.
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
My understanding is that unalienable and inalienable are synonymous and simply mean that which cannot be given or taken away. I have never heard anyone claim a meaningful difference between them, Black's Law Dictionary aside.
You are correct, property is the root of all rights. That is why constitutional republicans are constantly on the defensive against the socialist argument which wishes to dispel with the right of property for the purposes of confiscatory redistributive "social justice" (something other than justice).
I was under the impression that the negative vs positive rights debate was a major component of this discussion.
originally posted by: Boadicea
originally posted by: greencmp
My understanding is that unalienable and inalienable are synonymous and simply mean that which cannot be given or taken away. I have never heard anyone claim a meaningful difference between them, Black's Law Dictionary aside.
I have seen such arguments made; I don't get it. However, someone decided to make a legal distinction, but I have never found the argument for doing so. Given my distrust of lawyers in general, I suspect the distinction was made as a way to violate absolute rights under color of law.
You are correct, property is the root of all rights.
Depending on how one defines "property," I disagree, unless it includes intangible property -- such as thoughts, faith, love, etc.
That is why constitutional republicans are constantly on the defensive against the socialist argument which wishes to dispel with the right of property for the purposes of confiscatory redistributive "social justice" (something other than justice).
If we had true property rights, no one would be homeless, and no one could have their home/land taken for any reason -- not for mortgage defaults, HOA fines/penalties, tax arrears, etc. Nor would we have such a thing as "nonjudicial foreclosures" in which a home can be taken without ever proving a damn thing against the homeowner, and homeowners have no opportunity to challenge their "accuser." The property rights demanded by "constitutional republicans" have no resemblance to -- or respect for -- natural rights.
In terms of natural rights, we're here, we have a right to live somewhere... and no one has the right to hoard land, especially when others have no where to lay their head... and especially now when the feds own the vast majority of mortgage notes and empty homes. I don't pretend to know the best way to achieve this, but it has to change. The natural right to have somewhere to live comes before and above anyone's right to profit off real property.
I was under the impression that the negative vs positive rights debate was a major component of this discussion.
It is.
originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
My understanding is that unalienable and inalienable are synonymous and simply mean that which cannot be given or taken away. I have never heard anyone claim a meaningful difference between them, Black's Law Dictionary aside.
You are correct, property is the root of all rights. That is why constitutional republicans are constantly on the defensive against the socialist argument which wishes to dispel with the right of property for the purposes of confiscatory redistributive "social justice" (something other than justice).
I was under the impression that the negative vs positive rights debate was a major component of this discussion.
The smallest of legal distinctions matter. IN or UN matter. AND or OR matter. INCLUDES or INCLUDING matters. These small, seemingly synonymous words purport the 'inclusive' or 'expansive' manner of law and should not be disregarded.
Yes, that particular philosophy is part of the discussion and I made the asseveration that negative v. positive rights was flawed. I also said that I would continue to add to the discussion after I reread and comprehended ALL avenues presented.
In regards to the philosophy of negative v. positive rights I have found it only deals with civil and political rights while falling short in its incorporation of natural rights. Civil and political rights are not synonymous, but they are both ‘Public‘ rights whereas natural rights are ‘Private‘ rights.
A civil right appertains to a person by virtue of ‘citizenship’ in a state or a [political] community. Likewise, a ‘citizen’ IS a member of a political community, and has consented to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and for protection of their individual [private] and collective [public] rights. Ref: Herriott v. City of Seattle.
A political right can simply be thought of in terms of participation, either directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government. Direct example being the right to hold public office or the right to vote, and an indirect example being the right to public education, or right to social security.
It is interesting to note, that someone can choose to have no civil and political rights by virtue of the natural right of ‘liberty’ and in this sense the right to not to associate [freedom of association] with government, and also through a right to declare or establish once civil status.
As established, all rights are property. I find this particular philosophy does not take into account why governments were established in the first place: to PROTECT exclusively private property, and to PREVENT the unlawful conversion of private property to public property. Instead, it focuses on negative and positive duties associated with the exercise of STRICTLY public [Civil and political] rights. I understand the context of these duties to revolve around the premise that ‘duty’ means an obligation as recognized by law, to conform to a certain standard for the protection of others against unreasonable risks. ‘Duty’ Ref: Samson v. Saginaw Professional Bldg., Inc. In contrast, one can argue that ‘duty’ under natural law means an obligation to conform to a [legal] standard of reasonable conduct in light of apparent risks. Ref: Karrar v. Barry County Road Com’n. Please enlighten me if I am mistaken.
As a result, I find that the negative v. private rights philosophy presumes there is no private property and everything is in essence, public.
But, we know this [presumption] to not be the case because; “Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his labor, is generally admitted; and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will…” [The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 10 Wheat 66, 6 L.Ed, 268(1825)] And, “the right to exclude is one of the most essential [natural] sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.” [Nollan v. California Coastal Comm‘n (1987)].
Good Stuff.
originally posted by: greencmp
Property includes your person itself, it means that no one may take your body or your stuff.
"Government has no other end, but the preservation of property."
-John Locke
For that very reason, wealth tends to reinvest rather than sit idle which manifests as growth.
Private local charity and voluntarism was better than what happens today.
But no, there is no right to property in the sense that an entitlement is awarded. Only that among those unalienable negative rights, one is that your body and estate cannot be confiscated.
In a truly free market the threat of being perceived as a hoarder would compel everyone to be extra nice to everyone else...
There is nothing stopping your town or state from doing any of that though so, maybe California should try it out and let us know how it works out.