Stuart Chignell wrote:
A society based on negative rights also needs a state because sooner or later some is going to be naughty and some form of governement is going to be needed to provide justice because if justice is left in the hands of individuals things get nasty really quickly. Peoples faith in the state is one of the foundations of a stable society.
Then it's not based on negative rights anymore
That's entirely possible, it really depends on the social/political culture of most of the people. If most people think we need the state, then we will have a state.
Quote:
Australia is so fortunate because its citizens have so much faith in the state. That faith allows us to sleep at night trusting that the state has a monopoly on the employment of violence and any individual or group that infringes on that monopoly will face the power and fury of the state.
Yes, but also the fact that most people prefer to just get along.
In some countries people have so little faith in the state (and its police, which are completely useless) that they hire private security forces for protection, at very reasonable rates too. They have competing agencies that creates not only very reasonable fees, but also good service to the paying customers. Much unlike the state police force.
Quote:
This situation actually arises out of market forces.
I'm not so sure of that. Correlation does not imply causation. I think reason we have such a political system as we do today is because of some combination of an evolution from a monarchy and the evolution of peoples social/political culture.
Quote:
Systems such as markets, economies, ecosystems, societies are more productive when a high degree of specialisation exists compared with comparable systems with low specialistion.
Yes, the action of the free market to give us an ever better quality of life.
Quote:
Way back in the day farmers soon realized that they would be better off if they didn't have to fight their neighbours themselves and this developed a warrior class. Such an institution allowed farmers to concentrate on what they were good at and for the warriors to hone their skills and specialise in what they became good at, warfare. Over all this led to reduced death rates and more stable healthier societies. Since people had to be rewarded handsomely in order to put their lives on the line they got nice houses, clothes and non economic rewards like respect and getting to make rules. As long as the basic contract of "you protect me and I'll pay you to do so and let you have control" was kept by all parties the society ran along quite nicely. When ever the warrior/ruling class forgot that the only reason they were in power was because the farmers/workers had placed them there you sooner of later had a revolution which if successful meant that you had a new group of rulers/governers (ie government) and if it failed the rulers resisted the revolution and then reformed or if they did not would sooner or later be toppled by a successful revolution.
Maybe, maybe not. There have always been those who will do anything to rule over others. Some people are attracted to power and will fight and kill to keep it. These people used to be called warlords, then kings, now politicians. They are just a lot smarter about it now.
Quote:
All that might seem to be an over simplification of human history and it is but that doesn't mean that it is wrong. People crying out against taxes forget that those taxes are used to pay for things for their benefit. The way SV defined a positive right seems very odd to me. I don't think anyone can have such a right and while some bureaucrats may act like they have a right to our money I am sure they would not express it that way. Trying to visualise these societal contracts is difficult in the modern age because we are so divorced from their origins.
People on welfare have that right. Anyone who ever gets a dollar or any other benefit from the government is also considered to have positive rights.
Quote:
Another example. In various periods of history society has become increasing urbanised. Towns sprang up and due to the nature of people these towns citizens got together and elected Mayors and councilors to manage the affairs of the town for the benefit of all its residents. Due to the nature of the period a common project of towns was the construction of a defensive wall. To help pay for this construction all the towns people agreed on a way to fund it and then ongoing charges were levied to maintain and improve it. We would call these charges taxes. People could avoid those charges by simply moving their premises to an area outside of the town wall. Back in the day many people did this and were happy to not have the protection of the wall as long as they didn't have to pay the taxes to maintain it. Mind you life got rather hard when a besieging army came along. As societies developed those governments raised money of labour for other projects like sanitation, roads, etc.
That doesn't mean you can't have the option of choosing your service provider, or a voluntary co-op for certain public services. Just because you are used to it, doesnt mean it always has to be like that
Quote:
Today in Australia we are free to do exactly the same thing. If you don't want to pay the taxes because we are a free society you may leave. Or you may stay and agitate for a different way or degree of levying taxes but make no mistake societies that don't have taxes are not pleasant places to live. There are too many historical and present day examples to allow us to think otherwise.
No. So you are basically saying that if someone became unhappy with say a large tax increase, that they should have to leave their property and move to another country?
I think someone should have the right to be left alone, on their own property as long as they don't bother anyone else.
At what amount of taxes or level of crippling regulations do we suddenly say this isn't right? Just asking the question...
It just seems today that the left is the new black and if you question our great rulers then you suddenly don't care about society. I take the expropriation of other peoples property and liberty very seriously and I think we should all be demanding a very good justification for every dollar taken.
Stuart you said it would be better if people showed responsibility towards those in need instead of everyone having all these "rights" that simply demand property from others.
How do you propose to do this?
I have some ideas but I would like to hear yours.
Backyard Aquaponics
