Hiding Wrongs by Force of Law

I just read yet another story of people freaking out over what one of the Dr. Pauls (Ron this time, last time it was Rand) said about the Civil Rights Act. In case you're not familiar with it; both Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Rand Paul have come under fire for their thoughts on provisions in the Civil Rights Act. In both cases it has been over the provision which forces property owners to serve all races at businesses; the Pauls argue that the government should not force property owners to serve anyone. This has caused many to accuse them of being racist, or in the least supporting freedom that would cause racism to flourish. I can't speak for their personal views, I hope they aren't racist; but I have to agree with them. Some of you may think I'm racist, but I have come to this conclusion simply by adhering to my philosophy.

As I have mentioned before on this blog, my political philosophy is based entirely on property rights, and that all humans inherently have this right by the fact that own their own body; this same philosophy leads to the conclusion that no man can own another (although philosophically there is the oddity of one person selling them-self willingly to another), so there goes your idea that I support slavery. This philosophy leads me agree with the Pauls on this issue. But there is another social problem that I find in forcing businesses to operate this way, it's harder to tell which business owners ARE racist. Under current law, you may unwittingly be supporting racist business owners. I would much rather know that have the light of day shining on these things so that we as individuals and actors in the market can weed these people out and face the actual issues; and punish those business owners by not supporting their business.

Yes, it would have been a much longer and more painful civil rights movement if we as a society and individuals had faced the actual issues, and not just hid underground. But it happens all the time. Any argument with my father about gay marriage ends the same way, "well, if you let gays get married, then people will want to marry their horses". Never mind this preposterousness leap, but I answer him the same on this issue, "good, because I would much rather know which guys are having sex with their horses so I can stay the hell away from them."

When you hide bad ideas, they're still there. It's only when you confront them that they can be abolished. There were many good things to come out of the Civil Rights Act, there were many laws pertaining to public spaces that were absurd and against the Rights of Man (I would say human rights, but that has been co-opted and corrupted so much it doesn't mean the same thing anymore).

There are many nuances and such which I have not addressed, as this could easily turn into an entire book on the subject, but hopefully I have said enough to get my point across clearly. Perhaps I'll revisit this in more depth at another time, or perhaps not.

More On Rights

Since the early twentieth century there has been a change in political thinking about what rights are and where they come from. The American Declaration of Independence states that people are, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights “. The early liberal view represented by the Declaration of Independence held that rights are natural to humans. This is a stark contrast to when Cass Sunstein (2001) says that early constitutions protected rights without “...creating rights to minimally decent conditions of life. But in the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century, the trend is otherwise, with international documents, and most constitutions, creating rights to food shelter and more” (2001, 222) To be sure, these things are necessities, but they cannot be rights. Many who argue that government can create rights at the same time declare that there are universal human rights. If a government can create rights, then all rights are subjective and there are no universal rights. So in order for there to be universal human rights, they must be inherent in the human condition, and therefore not able to be created by any government.

To call necessities of life a right is to completely misunderstand what rights are. Rights are something a person is born with by the simple fact of being human, irrespective of where in the world that person is located. If it is not something inherent in being a person, then it simply is not a right. Things such as food, water, clothing, healthcare and housing are not something a person is born with, although they are necessities to be sure. When a person is born, no matter where they are in the world, they have one thing: their body. A person born in Ethiopia doesn't have food , a person born in Yemen doesn't have water, and so on.

If a body is the only thing each person naturally has, then it must follow that rights extend from a person owning his or her own body. If one owns his or her own body, they have the ability to communicate (as some people do not have the ability to vocally speak). Given that humans are the only species able to understand the complexities of rights and the consequences of violations of the rights of others, humans are the only species to have rights. So, humans can occupy and improve land that is not inhabited by another human. The improvements of this land can then be traded. To be able to trade, a person must communicate with another his or her willingness to do so, and in doing so enters into a contract. These contracts can then be used to trade for goods which are not provided on the land which the person occupies, i.e.: water, food, etc., since not every parcel of land is equally equitable. For those who are unable to find uninhabited parcels of land, they can use this right of contract to trade labor for these goods, which in turn may be traded for ones own parcel of land.

Necessities do not follow this logical progression from the body, as when a person is born they do not inherently have any of these items. In the case of a child these things are usually traded for by the parents or other caregivers. This is not to say the inhabitants of a country cannot decide to provide these items, but they cannot, and should not call them rights. Rights must be protected by a government, which does bear a cost for the protection; but necessities must be provided by these governments, which costs a great deal more. This presented itself in Hungary, where the Constitution stated, “Citizens of the Republic of Hungary have the right to social security”(Constitution of the Republic of Hungary). Solyom and Brunner (2000) described the difficulties which befell Hungary when its government was unable to provide these benefits due to a severe economic decline. Sajo (1996) points out how the government and the people came to an impasse when the International Monetary Fund (IMF) put restrictions on a loan which would have alleviated some of the governments fiscal problems. The IMF demanded that the Hungarian Government place restrictions on these rights in order the receive aid, an idea which the people rejected (Sajo, 1996). In this case, the Hungarian benefits were permitted to stand for the time as the IMF accepted a slower reform process and granted the loan (Sajo 1996).

After the economic downturn in 2008 and 2009 the cost of such programs has again become a problem for many European countries. In Greece there have been many accounts of riots as the government attempts to reign in the cost of benefits in the wake of a collapse which led to the Greek Government being bailed out by other members of the European Union. More recently, Ireland has fallen into trouble over its spending habits. With each collapse, these governments are losing sovereignty and being forced to acquiesce to the will of other countries.

Countries with extant constitutions which provide for these necessities cannot ignore what is written. A constitution is a promise to the people of what that government can and cannot due. If that promise is broken, then the government loses legitimacy and there is little hope for salvage. Instead what these countries should do is try to amend their constitutions to make these items priorities rather than calling them rights. To call them rights is to say that these things must be provided for the citizens, which is not sustainable. To call them priorities shows a commitment to the practices, but allows the systems to be re-evaluated when there is not enough capital to provide them.

Even if necessities are not rights, it is the right of the citizens to contractually obligate their government to address certain issues through a constitution. These constitutions should allow for breathing room in case of economic downturn. And if these necessities are guaranteed as rights in an extant constitution a government cannot ignore the obligation, but rather should attempt to amend the constitution to set these items as priorities instead of falsely and with great cost calling them rights.

References

Sunstein, Cass. “Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do”

Oxford University Press. 2001.

Solyom, Laszlo and Brunner, Georg. 2000. “Hungarian Benefits Case”

In “Comparative Constitutional Law 2^nd Edition”

Ed. Jackson & Tushnet.

The Foundation Press. New York. 2006

Sajo, Andras. 1996. “How the Rule of Law Killed Hungarian Welfare Reform”

In “Comparative Constitutional Law 2^nd Edition”

Ed. Jackson & Tushnet.

The Foundation Press. New York. 2006

The underlying assumption

For every political argument there must be an underlying assumption. Currently both parties claim that assumption is freedom. But if we take that assumption to it's logical end, neither parties policies make any sense.

If one's underlying assumption is freedom, then ponder this: freedom comes from the right of each to do with their property as they wish. That property starts at their own body and extends to anything earned under contractural labour by them.

If one has a right to their own body, how can anyone deny them the abuse of that right; prostitution, drug use or anything else.

If one owns those things which are property by extension; what right does anyone have to confiscate that property? Most would say none, but are taxes not a confiscation of this property.

By the US constitution, the legitimate use of government power is the protection of rights. So, no matter how much things are needed by others, it is not under the constitutional right of the government to take from one and give to another.

Yes, people need health care; but if the government undermines property rights to give health care, what stops them from undermining property rights for any other reason?

We need a new healthcare system, but allowing the government to steal from people is not the answer; granting the government unconstitutional power never is the answer.

The Nature of rights Part II

I have already shared that logical recourse shows that all other rights are devolved from the right of property. The right of property comes from the fact that we are human beings who can both understand our rights and the consequences of our rights, where animals can not.  Previously I posited the belief that property rights decminate from a person clarified as "a being with a body and brain consistant with that of others of the species".   Others have challenged this belief with the idea of a person being clarified as "a being which contains two strains of human DNA and is living."  This would of course deny the right's of a person to sperm/egg and hair, since sperm/egg contains only half of the human genome and hair, which contains the entire genome, is not actually living.  But then I hear this story on the local news.  And I began to think about laws of mutilation of a corpse and grave robbing; which seem to give prudence to my earlier assumption of the definition of a human only requiring a "human" to be alive; since this clearly shows that we manifest property right to even those whom are not alive.  Therefore; life is not an pre-requisite for human life and thus property right.  Which leaves us with the second half of the argument; to be human consists of only human DNA.  If that is the case, then we must treat every strand of fallen hair with the same rights as a human.  Since we clearly do not make that distinction, then the premise must be false; the qualification for being human does not involve either life or human DNA. Rather it is a more defined explanation; Abody which has a brain and a human-like body.  

    However; the opposite assertion that a child has no rights simply because it is dependant on the body of the mother is also illogical.  If this were true, then we would condone the killing of conjoined twins who depend on the body of thier twin.  Clearly we do not do this.  What we do is give give them a choice. They can remove the dependant twin and; but the medical proffesionals must give the dependant twin every chance to survive.  Why is this not true of abortion? Techniques which intentionally kill the child are murder.  The mother has the right to remove the child, but has no right to condone it's murder.

   When we take the logical steps to define a "person", both sides become clear.  Personally I think abortion is immoral; but politically I cannot find any logical reason why a fetus has rights before it has reached a definition of human.  What we can debate, and I encourage, is debate on what constitutes a human.  This will remain a problem until we can reach a logical conclusion on this issue.  It morally pains me to say that I must accept the political idea of abortion before a fetus has become "human"; but my belief that property right is the right from which all other right deceminates will not allow me at this point to object to such an argument.

Jon

The Nature of Rights

So where do rights come from?  You may feel in your gut or have learned that each person has certain rights, but where do they come from?  Are they granted by Gods?  Are they granted by governments?  In my logical analysis; although God may have created nature, nature is the thing grants us rights; not God directly.  This is to say, the position of God on rights is vague, it all depends to whom you speak.  Where as nature has made it clear; in a state of nature each person has the right to their own body and the fruits of their labour.  In other words, property rights extending from the right of self ownership.

Then where does the right to free speech come from?  Well; your vocal chords are part of your body, therefore you can say what you want.

Then where does the right to free press come from?  Well; as long as you own the press or have permission to use it, that is an extension of your voice.

Then where does the right to religion come from? It is your mind and your body, do with it as you wish.

Then why is (stealing, murdering, beating...) wrong; because you have a right to your body, since it is property, and those whom harm your property are can be persecuted.

So why don't animals have this same right?  The key to human ability to have rights is based on the fact that humans as a species can understand rights.  If anyone can prove that another species understands t not only the benefit, but also the consequence of rights; then I will gladly grant that species rights.

Marxy Marx

I thought this would be a good time to take another look at Karl Marx's ten steps to make a capitalist country into a socialist country, lets check off the ones already completed.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Getting there; although we still may own our land, it isn't really ours, what with the abuse of emminant domain going on and all the regulations and zoning requirements put on the land.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Check

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Getting there; with the "Death Tax"

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Well; we don't really have emmigrant issues or rebels, yet.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Check

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Getting there; the government now contorls the big three automakers, Amtrak and is giving money away to telecommunications in the new recovery act.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Well; with the state buying up everything, this could be happening, I'm not quite sure.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

It seems more like they don't want people to work at this stage, so as to get them on their side; this one probably isn't far off.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

Check

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Check

The Government and Race

I am of the opinion that the government has no business knowing what race a person is.  It should not matter whether a person is white, black, asian, Native American or any other race, it is no business of the government.  Yes; 40 or more years ago the government needed to step in to to stop such inane laws as the Jim Crow laws in the south, but what business is it of theirs anymore?  In my experience; government preference of one race over another has only worked to strain the burgening relationships.  I grew up and still live in an area with with many Native Americans; many of whom were my best friends, but what made me feel any ill will towards them what so ever was the fact that they got special treatment fromt the government that I as a white child was not afforded.   The same goes for African Americans; I have many friends and even relatives whom are African American, and I feel no ill will towards them(in fact I have gone to fistacuffs over people using derogatory frasing towards them), but the government pushing obsurd tolerance laws and constantly telling me how racist I am by the fact that I am white is the only cause I have to feel ill will towards them.  I think if the government just kept thier noses out of our business there would be no problems.  Not to mention the government mishandles everything and then blames thier mishandling on racism.  See for instance the Beurou of Indain Affairs in this John Stossel clip:

From dictionary.com:

Marx·ism /ˈmɑrksɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mahrk-siz-uhm] –noun the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

com·mu·nism /ˈkɒmyəˌnɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kom-yuh-niz-uhm] –noun

1.	a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2.	(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

3.	(initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

4.	communalism.

so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] –noun

1.	a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2.	procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.	(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

If the government owns a stake in our businesses what does that mean? That is socialism. Is socialism simply a regulation of our business', no, it is the government having stake in our business'. Deregulation is simply the government allowing business to do business, allowing milk producers to sell milk at the price they demand, allowing a company to offer health care at the price they demand, allowing companies to pay what they demand, but the government must demand that the company does not infringe upon your rights, mainly, once they own a stake in it, it is theirs. They can't enforce upon you anything you did not permit them to enforce. But didn't that cause our current economic problems? No, wrong, regulations did, regulations demanding that banks loan money to people whom the banks did not feel were suitable. Both parties were responsible for this. I said this four years ago when the presidential candidates were saying that everyone should own a home, no, everyone who can afford it should own a home, if they want. Deregulation does not mean that there should not be limits placed on companies, when they violate a persons rights they should be held responsible, But deregulation holds the key of competition, competition is responsible for every advance in human evolution.

Deregulation, does that mean no regulation? No, if someone has impeded one of your rights, of course you have a right to recourse, but does regulation hold the key? Regulation is the government telling the market what it should do, when in fact it should be the other way around, the market should tell the government what to do. Is it any coincidence that we passed the 16th amendment, allowing for the government to take income tax, then 13 years later we had the great depression? I'm not a conspiracy monger mind you, but I do not think those who run for office are usually qualified to run a company, so why should we let them run our companies?

But why is deregulation bad? It's not. The government should be there to protect us for our defense and stopping people from stealing our property. But bad regulations are bad. If they are there to stop them from stealing your property, then they are there to enforce the law. What more does one need? To keep themselves from being stupid? Well, that will never work, because no matter how hard one tries, there will always be stupid people.

Think the Right are the ones who abuse people, look at the left, they abuse eminent domain to increase the revenue base; the government takes (they pay them, but it is not a choice to not accept their offer) the land of a property owner to sell or give it to a business which will pay more in taxes. These laws are there for building roads and other necessities, but as of late they have been used to increase revenue bases for the government and for environmental protection.

Constitutional Rights?

I'm getting fed up with the term "Constitutional Rights". Why? Because the term implies the Constitution gives you these rights, it doesn't. You have these rights by nature, the constitution simply says the government can't take them away. If they were granted by the constitution then by extension they are granted by the government. If they are granted by the government, then the government can take them away. They are not granted by anyone or anything, they implicit in human life; by right of being alive you have these rights. So please, don't say "It's my Constitutional Right", say, "It's My Right." No one can take your rights away unless you let them; so don't even let them think they can.

Addendum: The only entity granted anything by the constitution is the government, it is granted the power to mediate between us, not to rule over us.