Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 05:26am PT
|
Thank You DMT.
But as I have said before,this is not about me.
There are plenty of us that feel this campaign is the last chance our Democracy has to work for the true majority.
This is not some populist scheme.
This is about US.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 10:57am PT
|
It is about me. And you. And all of us. Or at least what I think is right for me, and you, and all of us.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 12:28pm PT
|
Or at least what I think is right for me, and you, and all of us.
The issue boiled down to the essentials. I'll make you a deal, I'll let you decide what's right for you, if you let me decide what's right for me?
We good?
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 12:57pm PT
|
Sure. I figured that would get a response ;)
Ultimately we all choose what we want for ourselves, and we also are one of many voices trying to shape the society and environment we would like to live in. You vote your conscience, I'll vote mine, and we'll see what happens.
p.s. Can we at least agree that if you want your vote to not be diluted by corporate interests that may disagree with you, then Bernie is the most likely path (in terms of presidential prospects) to have your individual viewpoint be considered? That is what campaign finance reform and overturning Citizen's United is all about. No presidential candidate is or can be a solution to these problems, but Bernie is by far the best to shine light on the problems and work toward a solution.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 01:09pm PT
|
Spot on, Escopeta!
What the "masterminds" don't seem to get is the core inconsistency in their thinking. They don't want "Christians" telling them what to do and not to do, because "Christian" values are not ones they embrace. Many want the "war on drugs" to go away, because they see what a dismal failure it is to try to impose such values on people that don't share them. On and on.
But when it comes to "social justice," well, they have THAT all figured out, and they certainly DO fully intend to impose THOSE values on everybody. By force.
Guns are bad, but gays are good.
Stopping the endless flow of kids that the parents can't pay for is bad, but abortions are good.
People prioritizing their own spending is bad, but free everything is good (even if it costs a LOT to "some people").
On and on.
For my part, I don't want to government imposing "values" of ANY sort on individuals. It actually has very narrowly defined roles, and it SHOULD do (and mostly doesn't) those things. It has NO business in the business of defining "goods" and "bads" for individuals.
You want an abortion? More power to you.
You're gay, and want to engage in homosexual behaviors? More power to you.
You're "frightened" and want to carry a gun all the time? More power to you.
You have limited money and would rather buy a flat-screen TV or a newer car than buy health-insurance premiums? More power to you.
You'd rather sit around all day smoking dope than to get an education and a good-paying job? More power to you.
On and on.
Unlike the inconsistent "masterminds," I honestly do not care WHAT you value or how you behave, as long as you are not violating my NEGATIVE rights.
ALL I care about is this: Individuals get to enjoy for themselves ALL of the consequences of their value-decisions, both "good" and "bad," and the government has NO business deciding for us what "good" and "bad" even mean, much less "right" and "wrong."
If you don't like people trying to define "right" and "wrong" for you, then try to project your visceral disgust about those that do try upon yourself, you "masterminds."
If you don't like somebody telling you that gay-marriage is wrong, then you should imagine that I don't like somebody telling ME that "everybody having healthcare" is NECESSARILY "right," and so I MUST pay for it. YOU don't know what's "right" any more than do the "Christians" you so decry. So, what gives you the hubris to think that you have the RIGHT to IMPOSE your particular social values on everybody? Yours are just one "set" of values that you happen to believe in (most here, very strongly). But they are just one "set" among MANY.
The point is that it is not the federal government's place to be so involved in our individual lives that it finds itself deciding among competing "sets" of values. It's job is to be value-agnostic and DO the very few things it was actually put in place to do. Not meddle and muck around in our personal value-decisions.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 01:14pm PT
|
You vote your conscience, I'll vote mine, and we'll see what happens.
But, see, there's the fundamental mistake. Why would you even WANT to IMPOSE your "conscience" on others?
How about we all live according to our own consciences and value-systems, while not violating the NEGATIVE rights of others, and quit thinking that the federal government's role is to choose one set of values over another?
You wanna to drugs and engage in unprotected homosexual promiscuity? I honestly don't care. More power to you! You are not violating any of my negative rights with that lifestyle. Just don't expect ME to pay for YOUR consequences.
The conflation of negative and positive rights is the single biggest mistake in the history of political science, and that conflation has infected every detail of "theorizing" about the role of legitimate government.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 02:12pm PT
|
The point is that it is not the federal government's place to be so involved in our individual lives that it finds itself deciding among competing "sets" of values. It's job is to be value-agnostic and DO the very few things it was actually put in place to do. Not meddle and muck around in our personal value-decisions.
And this is the other "side" of the issue boiled down to the essentials.
The reality is that the government is so engaged and entrenched in the average American's life makes it almost a requirement to be a vicious partisan. We have reached the stage that the government actually has more control over our life than we do in many respects. So if you don't fight to make the government do your bidding, you lose.
Hence the vitriol and friendships lost. It will get much worse before it gets better. And the politicians want nothing more than to pit citizens against each other.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 02:20pm PT
|
mb1, I'm unclear as to what "negative rights" are. Can you elaborate with a couple examples?
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 04:55pm PT
|
HFCS....Don't worry he went to Western Union to wire me ( a poor person ) some more money...I love taking rich peoples money...
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 05:08pm PT
|
But, see, there's the fundamental mistake. Why would you even WANT to IMPOSE your "conscience" on others?
Why do you want to impose your belief in the absolute inviolability of mythical negative rights?
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 05:30pm PT
|
Why do you want to impose your belief in the absolute inviolability of mythical negative rights?
I'll respond to the question above by HFCS and this one.
Negative rights are those rights of yours that I fully (and perfectly, which is important) by doing nothing at all.
Positive rights are those rights of yours that I must expend effort and resources to imperfectly (again, important) satisfy.
Examples are countless, and if you please, I can prove from a wide spectrum (including federalist and anti-federalist alike) that our founders thought of rights in the negative rather than positive sense. Some quick examples.
Your right to life was originally thought of as negative. If I simply do NOTHING to you, I do not violate your negative right to life. It is only by DOING something that I can possibly violate your negative right to life. I would have to actively take your life in order to violate that right.
Consider that negative rights are "perfect," because I can PERFECTLY and without conflict or exception satisfy your negative right to life. I have an unlimited capacity to do nothing whatsoever. And there is no conflict in my time/resources to allocated them to nothing.
Let's put that fact together with another example, which will make the "perfect" part of the case more clear.
You have a negative right to property, to ownership. If I simply do nothing whatsoever, I am completely satisfying your negative right to property. I would have to DO something, such as actively heist something of yours, in order to violate your negative right.
Now, WHILE I am doing nothing to threaten your right to life, I can ALSO perfectly do nothing to threaten your right to property. By doing nothing whatsoever, costing me nothing whatsoever in time/resources, I can perfectly satisfy ALL of your negative rights. By my simply leaving you entirely alone, your negative rights are not in any way threatened by me.
By contrast, positive rights ALWAYS require time/resources of mine to satisfy.
If you have a positive right to life, that means that I have a POSITIVE responsibility to ENSURE your life. I must ensure you have food, medicine if needed, water, shelter, and so on.
If you have a positive right to property, that means that I have a POSITIVE responsibility to ENSURE your property. I must ensure that you have some "minimum" amount of "goods" in your possession.
But positive rights are IMPERFECT, as are the associated responsibilities. This is because I MUST expend time/resources to satisfy them, and I have limited amounts of both.
So, while I am ensuring your right to life (in all sorts of various ways), I am expending time/resources that I therefore don't have to devote to your right to property. Conflicts of positive rights emerge immediately, and in fact most of the angst we are feeling in this very discussion is over the fact that we intuitively recognize that we don't have unlimited resources, either personally or as a nation. So, when it's assumed that "we" have a POSITIVE "responsibility" to all these wide-ranging and ever-increasing POSITIVE rights, the IMPERFECTION of positive rights becomes very, very pressing!
This nation was founded NOT on "mythical negative rights" but on the FACT that ONLY the negative sense of rights can possibly be fitting for a government to recognize and protect! The SECOND it starts "recognizing" positive rights, it NECESSARILY must start violating NEGATIVE rights in order to enforce the IMPERFECT "satisfaction" of the ever-increasing positive rights.
While no conflict of negative rights is possible in principle (because they are ALL perfectly satisfied by people just leaving each other alone in the sense of not actively violating those rights), conflicts between positive rights are sweeping and (as we see) ever-increasing!
When I talk about "masterminds," I am talking about people with the insufferable hubris to think that THEY are able to juggle and PROPERLY satisfy the increasing spectrum of positive rights. It CANNOT in principle be done, and ALL government can do as the "masterminds" try is to ensure the violation of negative rights.
|
|
nah000
climber
no/w/here
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 05:57pm PT
|
mb1:
assuming it was as cut and dried at american inception as you claim, could you please explain negative rights within the context of ownership of the surface of the earth, from your perspective.
ie. 1. what philosophical grounding, from your school of thought, gives a person the right to own something [land] that they [individually or collectively] did not create?
2. assuming you believe there is a basis for surface of the earth ownership, do you consider the right of land ownership a positive or negative right? and assuming you consider it the latter, could you please explain that via example for me?
3. finally assuming i am correct in my guesses as to your above beliefs, could you let me know whether or not you have any qualms with extending rights of ownership to air.
in advance and assuming you take the time: thanks!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 06:09pm PT
|
This nation was founded NOT on "mythical negative rights" but on the FACT that ONLY the negative sense of rights can possibly be fitting for a government to recognize and protect! The SECOND it starts "recognizing" positive rights, it NECESSARILY must start violating NEGATIVE rights in order to enforce the IMPERFECT "satisfaction" of the ever-increasing positive rights.
Once again, genuine thanks for the rest of your response, but while you answered HFCS's question, you haven't remotely answered mine.
Your claimed FACT, is still nothing more than your personal belief in the appropriate role of Government, no matter how many dead slaveholders may have agreed with your views. In any case, even if the only role of Government was to protect negative rights, isn't that role a POSITIVE right, and therefore necessarily violates negative rights? Your ideal government would still FORCE me to perform jury duty, FORCE me to join the militia, FORCE me to pay taxes for judges and prison warders, and yet be ineffective at actually protecting me from anything.
TE
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 06:33pm PT
|
F*#K will you ALL please STOP with the LAZY MAN'S capitalized EMPHASIS on WORDS!!!1111
Well Dingus, if only you and I, and most of the others here on ST, were smarter, then the ONE GREAT AND TRUE GENIUS wouldn't have to emphasize some words that way. You see, if only we were smart like him, we'd understand what he was saying. But since we're all stupid losers with opinions but no brains, he has to CAPITALIZE the important words so that we will understand, and then change our OPINIONS to match his FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE.
Rather than being angry, you should be thankful. It must be hard for him to be charged with the task of explaining what is REALLY IMPORTANT to STUPID people like you and me. But I imagine that he is well paid for his efforts, so maybe it's OKAY for him.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 09:05pm PT
|
Your claimed FACT, is still nothing more than your personal belief in the appropriate role of Government, no matter how many dead slaveholders may have agreed with your views.
That's a pretty serious straw-man, TE. In point of fact, slaveholders were in perpetual violation of the negative rights of the slaves. They did not in principle agree that slaves HAD negative rights.
Furthermore, this perspective is not just "my personal belief." It was the belief upon which this nation was founded. That is a fact that can be demonstrated. Perhaps you'll just accept my Ph.D. on the subject and grant that I've studied into this fact (and am aware of the very, very widespread agreement among those that have also studied it at my level). Or perhaps you'll demand "proof," in which case you can't snivel about my "walls of text," as you'll then be basically asking me to "nutshell" about eight years of dedicated study on the subject.
Now, you could argue that it was all "fine and good" to think that "legitimate government" was such and such during the 17th century. But we supposedly "know so much more now," so our constitution should be changed to reflect "the times."
Two responses to that (pretty widely-shared) perspective:
1) Whatever "the constitution" is today is necessarily grounding in the original intent and original meaning of the verbiage our founders used. THEY did not share the now pretty-prevailing view of legitimate government. So, whatever "defend the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic" means, it necessarily means that we SHARE an understanding of what "the constitution" IS that we are supposedly defending.
2) What it IS defines OUR government. This was "political philosophy made flesh." Literally hundreds of years of political philosophy went into determining the nature of legitimate government, and it is pretty shocking to me to see how blithely people today (without even minimal understanding of the philosophical principles) are prepared to pitch the "original intent" out the window in favor of a "better way."
3) If you are committed to some supposedly "better way," then you have constitutional means by which to convert "the constitution" into something you'd prefer. However, you'll always find a fight among the subset of people like me who HAVE studied the political philosophy of legitimate government and who want NO part of the "mastermind" attempts to control every detail of people's choices and even the values that motivate those choices.
In any case, even if the only role of Government was to protect negative rights, isn't that role a POSITIVE right, and therefore necessarily violates negative rights?
Now THAT is some good thinking! I mean that. It shows that you are genuinely processing the implications of the negative/positive distinction, which is more than most people on these threads bother with.
However, we need to be clearer about rights vs. duties. When you talk about the "role" of government in the context of its "POSITIVE right," you seem to be conflating rights and duties.
First, not every "preference" or "desire" is a right. Nobody, not even government can have any form of duty toward people's preferences and desires. Government today has tried to adopt that role, with disastrous consequences. So, MOST of the talk of "rights" today is utterly confused, as most of what people think of as "rights" absolutely are not, negative or positive.
The reason our founders talking in terms of "inalienable rights" is that they saw genuine (negative) rights as being definitive of personhood. (BTW, this is precisely, and cleverly, why the "right to life" anti-abortion folks use the language they do.) The negative rights they acknowledge were very narrow in scope, as only such rights are genuine rights rather than mere preferences or desires. Thus, you see a short list in the Declaration of Independence and other documents.
Negative rights always impose negative duties. If I have a negative right to life, then there is a universal and negative duty upon all other moral-agents to not take my life (or use it for their own ends). Our founders saw the universality of negative rights and crafted a form of government to merely "acknowledge" and "recognize" these rights rather than to "produce" or "establish" them.
Now, what's next is a bit shocking, so bear with me....
If our government was designed to merely acknowledge, rather than "produce" or even "defend" negative rights, then it has a NEGATIVE duty to do so.
But wait. Isn't the government in the business of "protecting" negative rights, such as (minimally) via national defense? And, yes, wouldn't that be a positive duty?
No. Both federalists and anti-federalists alike actively feared an ever-growing, ever-more-powerful federal government that would itself start violating negative rights in its quest for "rationalizations" of all the "good it could do" if only given more POSITIVE power and roles. This is why "rights" (and the scope of legitimate government) were so narrowly defined!
So, here's the subtle and (to many) shocking point: The relationship between "we the people" and the federal government is NOT a rights/duties sort of relationship; it is a merely contractual relationship. The federal government has no "duty" (negative or positive) TO ME to defend the nation, other than the positive duty to hold up its end of a contractual relationship. But that contract does NOT vest the federal government with the positive duty to defend MY life. Its duty to ME is strictly to defend the NATION, qua nation. It has no DIRECT duty to ME other than to leave MY life alone, qua negative right to life.
ALL of the powers vested in the federal government were qua nation, not qua individuals! And our founders deeply feared the federal government usurping powers it had not been granted BY conflating the national/individual distinction.
Thus, the federal government has NO duties to ME, qua individual, other than to abide by the CONTRACT that legitimizes its role. I don't need it to "defend" my right to life. I only need IT to not itself violate it! I don't need it to "defend" my right to property or freedom; I only need IT to not itself violate these rights. So, its relation to ME, qua individual with individual negative rights, is to ITSELF not do anything to violate those rights.
Your ideal government would still FORCE me to perform jury duty, FORCE me to join the militia, FORCE me to pay taxes for judges and prison warders, and yet be ineffective at actually protecting me from anything.
I get what you are saying, but, as I hope I'm scratching the surface of above, what you are describing is NOT my "ideal government," and I don't agree that its proper role is to be actively "protecting" ME, qua individual, from anything.
First, the idea that there's going to be FORCE is not a prima facie violation of rights. The question is not about whether there's force. The question is whether the use of force is legitimate.
When the constitution is thought of as a contract between the governed and the government, then we can "renegotiate" that contract at any time. There are obvious means to do so built into the constitution. Meanwhile, we treat it as an agreement for an exchange of certain (and very limited) personal preferences (I'd prefer to not give up my time on jury duty) for certain services (the government provides a venue in which "disputes" are resolved). Again, this is not strictly a rights/duties sort of exchange.
The problem is that the "services" we want government to perform, and what we agree are legitimate "prices" to pay for such services, can quickly get out of hand! And when such "services" just keep attaching themselves to what were once legitimate and agreed-upon roles, pretty soon "everything is constitutional."
We literally, and I mean literally saw the apex of this thinking during the SCOTUS Obamacare deliberations. We watched as Justice Roberts asked the fateful question: "If government can do this, then what can government NOT do?"
Almost everybody thought something like, "Well, Roberts is a 'conservative' justice, and he's asking the question in such a way that clearly he thinks that there needs to be SOME limitation on federal power. So, he's going to vote it down." But no. Instead, asked and answered, Roberts in effect voted: "Okay, we have crossed the Rubicon, and now there are NO essential limits upon the powers of the federal government."
And clearly that is not what our founders intended. So, we have to ask: How did we get from the founders' clearly-stated intention to establish LIMITED federal government to today, when we clearly have unlimited-power federal government?
Basic confusions about principles of government are the reason. It takes generations, with each generation seeing the power and scope of the feds grow more and more, with each "new normal" seeming "okay." Over time, people no longer even know the right questions to ask, and they don't study the principles of government. So, each "new normal" that seems "okay" is yet further and further from the founding principles.
Eventually you have discussions like on these "politard" threads, in which the rights of GOVERNMENT are presumed, while the negative rights of PEOPLE are questioned!
As I've said, I have no problem with taxation, so that the government can (imperfectly) satisfy its contractual duties. But it MUST do so without violation my negative rights. So, EVERY time the government imagines a "new tax," the question should NOT be anything like: "Is it 'too much,' and is the 'hit' progressively distributed?" NO! The question should always be: "EXACTLY how does this new 'service' fit into the enumerated powers (duties) set for the federal government?"
In effect, we should all be asking EACH time some new "service" (and associated cost) comes down the pike: "Is this cost a violation of a negative right of individuals (if it's a new cost, then the answer is almost certainly "yes")? If so, in WHAT part of the 'contract' did I sign on for this?"
If the "answer" amounts to something like, "Well, when you agreed to let the SCOTUS deal with such things, then you agreed to, well, whatever," that cannot be the correct answer! When the SCOTUS can literally ask and answer the fateful question with: "Now the federal government has no limits upon its power OVER the people," then it and the whole process has totally broken down and UTTERLY broken faith with the clearly-expressed intention of the founders. Thus, the government HAS become illegitimate and tyrannical, despite it (at present) being more or less a "benevolent" tyranny.
If that "answer" works for you, then you HAVE to consider the fact that it does NOT work for many others. So, what will you do then? Does government have the "right" to force people to submit who want to "opt out?"
The irony to me is that we watch movies in which the "rebels" are always the heroes, as they revolt against the "evil empire." But the "evil empire" ALWAYS has a majority of people as adherents! Down through history, the majority of people WILL just submit to tyranny (and even rationalize it in the name of "order" vs. "chaos"). And the "evil empire" never started out as an OBVIOUS tyranny. It "got there" over time and with small steps, generation by generation.
But, let's be clear: When our SCOTUS can literally answer its own question with: "The federal government has no in-principle limitations on its powers," then we HAVE crossed the line, and we MUST consider how we got SO far from what was clearly the intent of our constitution. The "contract" in NO sense gave the feds the "right" to THAT much power over us as individuals. So we need to "deconstruct" how we got here, and that necessarily means going back to the principles of the founding, so that we can see how those got waylaid and distorted over time.
The conflation between negative and positive rights/duties has been arguably the most significant contributor to the "drift" over generations.
|
|
MisterE
Gym climber
Small Town with a Big Back Yard
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 09:53pm PT
|
It was inevitable - thanks for the good run:
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2016 - 09:56pm PT
|
1. what philosophical grounding, from your school of thought, gives a person the right to own something [land] that they [individually or collectively] did not create?
The best model I think anybody's come up with is Locke's, which is a "natural rights" model based upon the "investing of oneself" in a thing. (We don't actually create anything!)
Things "just are." They are "available" to all in the state of nature. However, they are not "useful to all" as they are in the state of nature.
If I stroll along and come across an apple tree in the state of nature, perhaps the apples are in easy reach, and I pick one. The mere existence of the apple doesn't satisfy my hunger. I must "invest myself" (my limited and ever-waning time/resources) into the effort to "get" (possess) the thing to satisfy my hunger.
The apple I "get" is available (but not useful) to all. But my mere act of "investing myself" is what "associates the thing" with me, myself. This is the essence of ownership, the "change of state" of the thing as "available but not useful to all" to the thing being "not available to all, but useful to the one who invested."
This is a VERY surface account. I'm already going to be accused of a "wall of text," but the question is: How much detail do you want?
2. assuming you believe there is a basis for surface of the earth ownership, do you consider the right of land ownership a positive or negative right? and assuming you consider it the latter, could you please explain that via example for me?
I do believe in "surface of the earth" ownership, and the model of it is akin to the apple example above.
Again, we start with a "wide open" world, scarcely populated, the "state of nature," if you will (although that term is really Hobbes' rather than Locke's).
Strolling along, hungry, I find not just an apple tree but several, with a stream that waters them, and some fertile land I can plant some seeds, etc.
I pick an apple, catch a fish, and my hunger is satisfied. I find a nice spot for a shelter and make one. A week goes by like this, then a month. I've planted some seeds, and I'm seeing sprouts.
Then some catastrophe happens. Perhaps a herd of bison stampede through and tear up the crops and break down the apple trees. I realize, "I need to do something to 'cordon off' the area I care about. I "cannot afford" to have these means of my sustenance destroyed this way. Perhaps I don't even think in terms of "ownership" yet, but I DO intuitively sense that I have limited time/resources, that I am indeed "investing myself" into these efforts, and that I MUST protect my investment if I hope to survive. (Locke famously wrote that the right to property just is the right to life.)
I "invest myself" yet more by building a fence around what I am increasingly thinking of as "my property." I've "put down roots" in that plot of land, and I've "invested my very self" in "improving it" to better and better secure my sustenance.
Later, after things are in really good shape (regular crops, regular apples, fishing, etc.), another person strolls along and comes across my property. He finds my fence to be in his way, so he breaks it down. Coming upon my crops, he tramples unthinkingly, as he uproots and eats whatever he pleases. He comes upon my drying racks, where I'm drying apples for the Winter, and he eats his fill.
In mere moments he undoes months of my efforts, leaving me with as uncertain of a Winter has his lifestyle has chosen for him, despite the fact that I "invested myself" in preparation for a "better life." In so doing, he literally stole MY "investment" for his own purposes, leaving me not only not "broken even" but much worse than if I had maintained his same lifestyle. He benefited from MY "investment" without making a corresponding "investment" of his own. He treated MY "investment" as though it (and all of its products/improvements) was still in the "state of nature," despite the fact that it was obvious that the "things" had been "improved" BY the "investment" of another.
The nature of land-ownership is grounded in "improvement" via an "investment of self." Now, two implications immediately emerge from this:
1) I cannot in principle truly "own" more land than I can in principle demonstrate that I am "improving" and "investing" my "self" in. Locke would have decried what we see today, with landowners holding vast swaths of property that they are not "improving" or even "using" in ANY way. I could really go off on a rant about this, but I'll spare you.
2) Today it is VERY difficult to determine the legitimacy of land-ownership. It is presumed that "somebody legitimately got it" and then it was legitimately "transferred" in some way to another "owner." In actual fact, the process is SO murky (and riddled with fraud and theft) that it is difficult to have much practical faith in the legitimacy of ownership, even if YOU or I have done everything in our power to abide by the best possible principles!
3. finally assuming i am correct in my guesses as to your above beliefs, could you let me know whether or not you have any qualms with extending rights of ownership to air.
I hope that, given my above account, it's clear why I don't think that things like air (thought of as just "being there" can be owned.)
It's a stretch to say that I am "investing myself in the effort" to take a breath! I just breath. I have no more control over the necessary fact of that "activity" than my glandular secretions. I'm not "adding value" in any sense to the air by breathing it.
Now, perhaps I perceive an upcoming shortage of air (such as for budding SCUBA divers), and I make a business of providing "air" for them. In this case, I am indeed "adding value" by "investing myself" in "carving out" a portion of air. The effort/expense to filter, bottle, compress, and purify the air, perhaps even certifying that this particular air rises to certain standards, all do indeed "add value," and this is value for which I can legitimately claim ownership. If others agree that the investment of "myself" has value, we can enter into an exchange of "values" for even such a thing as air.
But, notice, the "value" is not inherent in the air itself! The "value" is inherent in my "investment of myself" that makes the air more valuable in its designated context than it could possibly be had I not "added myself" into the product.
Locke's idea is that if I don't own myself, then there is no basis of ownership at all! While it initially seems a bit odd to talk about "owning myself," it's not an intuitive stretch at all. We perpetually use phrases like, "my foot," and so forth. We talk about abortion rights in terms of a "woman's right to her own body." We DO perpetually (and correctly) talk in terms of OWNING our own selves. And, in fact, this is the very basis of all negative rights and their "inalienable" nature.
So, when I chose to "transact" with the world by "investing myself" in the "betterment" of a thing that is in the state of nature, I "take ownership" of that thing BY adding the innate value of myself. Thus, ownership is not about the "thing" qua state of nature. The ownership is an extension of my very self, with the goal being to better meet my own needs by "bettering" the thing compared to its mere existence in the state of nature.
This is, in a small nutshell, why we intuitively think it would be ridiculous to have this sort of conversation:
Me: You wanna buy my beef jerky?
Buyer: Sure! I've heard it's really good, and it keeps forever.
Me: Great. What do you offer for it?
Buyer: There's an apple tree over there. I'll take a pound of your jerky, and you can go over there an pick an apple.
Me: But the tree is on public property. I can go pick the apple whenever I want. So, you are not adding any value to this particular transaction, certainly not commensurate to the value I added to produce this superlative jerky.
Buyer: You capitalist, you! You need an apple, and I need jerky! How much more simple can it be? Just give me a pound of jerky, and you can have the apples without any resistance from me.
Me: Ridiculous. I invested a great deal of myself to produce this jerky, and you are offering nothing of value that I cannot get for myself without any involvement with you at all! This was going to be a TRANSACTION between YOU and ME. Yet YOU bring nothing to that transaction.
So, the point is: If you can identify the "investment of self" in a thing, you can identify the ownership. And this is why most states still recognize "squatter rights" insofar as a landowner can literally lose ownership to a squatter in various contexts, particularly if the squatter can show "improvement" of the land that the land "owner" did not accomplish.
Can this sort of ownership principle apply to things like air? Well, not in general, although in limited circumstances.
If you are headed toward an expression of angst about vast landholdings, vast accretion of property beyond what can find a plausible "ownership path," or that sort of thing, I'm right with you! The more abstract and "distant" is the "investment of self," the less likely I'm going to agree with the ownership claim.
That said, I am a staunch, "capitalistic" property-rights theorist! When it's said that "possession is 9/10 of the law," there is a very principled (and I think correct) basis for such a statement. We have to be so careful to not strip another person of their very "life" in the sense of their "investment of self" in the adding of value to things.
Edit: I realized that I didn't answer the negative/positive aspect of land-ownership. You've certainly ascertained that I consider all property rights to be negative. In my above example, the wanderer would have violated none of my property rights by simply doing nothing (in this sense having nothing to do with me or the things in which I had invested myself).
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 07:23am PT
|
re: negative rights v positive rights
Thanks for the reply, MB1. I'll have to give it some thought today with some examples I can think through.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 07:50am PT
|
I would simply add to MB1s (EDIT: excellent) example of Lockes theory of ownership that he did accommodate the intrinsic (and inevitable) extension beyond one's own LABOR to produce ownership in something.
By exchanging labor (and specifically surplus labor) for goods and services, those goods and services still represent your labor, although they are x times removed from the work of YOUR hands. Money can be used as a replacement of goods and services, again while still maintaining ownership.
I just wanted to make the point so that people don't assume that Locke felt you can only sell, barter or own those things that your own hands actually labored on.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!