Rights vs Obligations

[cwjerome]

I would slightly revise your premise. The relationship between individuals and other individuals is fundamentally different than that between individuals and government. In the former, mutual benefit, compromise, or coercion might be used to resolve conflict. In principle, government's job is to take coercion out of the picture to level the playing field. It achieves this by using another form of coercion (i.e. the force of law) but (theoretically) applies this with justice.
government can compel you to do things.

The concept of hierarchical communities arises naturally from our inability to negotiate terms with every person we come across. A group of people agree to terms and that binds their community. Communities then negotiate with each other and so on until we arrive at the level of national governments, regional organizations (EU), and eventually the UN.

I find Locke's concept of property rights fundamentally at odds with the idea of the right to life or property in general. Locke's view considers each of the intrinsic rights as solitary with no interaction. I see them as necessarily related: we invest part of our life (i.e. time) to earn property. Thus, if someone takes my property, they have infringed my right to life. The balance I choose between life and property is governed by my right to freedom. People are free to work themselves to the bone to earn property just as they are free to live a life of leisure and not earn anything; most choose something in the middle. Government or individuals with the ability to take my property then overthrow my rights to life, liberty, or property. Very few people would invest in an education if they did not have the right to keep the improved wages they expect to earn. Relatively little would get done if person A could earn more by busting his ass only to have person B come and take it. Locke merely proposed a theory - he did not arrive at the only logical conclusion. His conclusion is akin to a linear model which neglects interaction effects between the rights.

You are right, the relationship between people is different, it's a promise (or as Hobbes would describe, a covenant), while the relationship with government is a social compact. But it is interesting you find Locke's thoughts on life, liberty, and property at odds with those ideas because he pretty much invented it... and brought them together in a pretty spectacular fashion. In fact, he viewed property largely as a person's labor (which as Adam Smith showed pretty convincingly, all property is basically labor traded), and Locke addressed the interaction between life and labor. Because the reality is, they are all basically the same- a person's labor is his life, his life is his liberty, hist liberty is his labor, and so on. It's only really split for reasoning purposes.

Just remember you do not have an absolute right to life, liberty, and property... unless you live in a state of nature where no government exists. And if that's the case, what good is it if it can't be protected and appreciated? That's why the Founders designed a government that would maximize those natural rights through a legitimate constitutional order. Don't kid yourself, our system was designed not for you, but for everyone. Everyone gives up a little, the "right" to act on their absolute liberty, for the benefit of all. That's our contract in a nutshell. Each side gives a little for mutual gain, with a promise not to deviate from or abuse it. The bold is what we need to focus on, not some imaginary notion of unlimited liberty. The Constitution is supposed to be a restraint on government power in that contract, but that power needs to be continually debated and checked.

 

[Moonbeam]

I love doing things for my fellow citizens. My neighbor is a fellow citizen. Some guy a town over, not quite so much. Some guy in another state? Even less so.

The top down bureaucracy we're moving to will eventually collapse under it's own weight. Consent of the governed falls apart the further it gets away from the people it's supposed to represent. See: Prohibition, Iraq war, War on Drugs, War on Terror, DOMA, Copyrights, Patents, Taxes, and any of the thousands of forms of federal pork that people despise paying for.

I want to take care of you, however, even if you are far away and I win. The problems you mention are mostly caused by fear and by the government belonging to the wealthy. A 99% tax rate on over a million and pills could take care of a lot of that.

 

[dank69]

Exactly, Bober, you don't give a shit about your countrymen.

 

[lopri]

Quick two suggestions to guide your query:

1. Life and liberty on one hand and property on the other. Have you given a thought where the right to property comes from? Life and liberty seem pretty an easy answer to our freedom. But where does the property come from and how does it relate to freedom exactly? No one comes to this world with deed to a house (an example of property). Moreover, it is unclear, at first impression, what exactly my home has to do with my freedom. Try to explain this to yourself in your own terms. (without borrowing someone else's known ideas) And see if you can make sense out of it and explain your conclusion to others. There may be a key to a lot of other questions.

2. Equal protection, while not in the same sentence with "life, liberty, and property," is a powerful tool to those positive rights problem (pillaging and violating others for governing class' privileges) you are concerned with.

The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally.

RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, INC. V. NEW YORK

 

[CycloWizard]

You are right, the relationship between people is different, it's a promise (or as Hobbes would describe, a covenant), while the relationship with government is a social compact. But it is interesting you find Locke's thoughts on life, liberty, and property at odds with those ideas because he pretty much invented it... and brought them together in a pretty spectacular fashion. In fact, he viewed property largely as a person's labor (which as Adam Smith showed pretty convincingly, all property is basically labor traded), and Locke addressed the interaction between life and labor. Because the reality is, they are all basically the same- a person's labor is his life, his life is his liberty, hist liberty is his labor, and so on. It's only really split for reasoning purposes.

Just remember you do not have an absolute right to life, liberty, and property... unless you live in a state of nature where no government exists. And if that's the case, what good is it if it can't be protected and appreciated? That's why the Founders designed a government that would maximize those natural rights through a legitimate constitutional order. Don't kid yourself, our system was designed not for you, but for everyone. Everyone gives up a little, the "right" to act on their absolute liberty, for the benefit of all. That's our contract in a nutshell. Each side gives a little for mutual gain, with a promise not to deviate from or abuse it. The bold is what we need to focus on, not some imaginary notion of unlimited liberty. The Constitution is supposed to be a restraint on government power in that contract, but that power needs to be continually debated and checked.

I think Locke's view is fine to a point and perhaps I misinterpreted what you said regarding his view of property. I agree that our rights end when they would otherwise conflict with the rights of another person - that's logically necessary for rights to exist at all. Indeed, the opposite of this is moral relativism which is (ironically) most often championed by those who want "fairness" and such to be the law of the land.

 

[CycloWizard]

Quick two suggestions to guide your query:

1. Life and liberty on one hand and property on the other. Have you given a thought where the right to property comes from? Life and liberty seem pretty an easy answer to our freedom. But where does the property come from and how does it relate to freedom exactly? No one comes to this world with deed to a house (an example of property). Moreover, it is unclear, at first impression, what exactly my home has to do with my freedom. Try to explain this to yourself in your own terms. (without borrowing someone else's known ideas) And see if you can make sense out of it and explain your conclusion to others. There may be a key to a lot of other questions.

I've explained my concept of these things in my own terms in these threads. I've never studied any political philosophy/science so anything I've posted are my own musings.

2. Equal protection, while not in the same sentence with "life, liberty, and property," is a powerful tool to those positive rights problem (pillaging and violating others for governing class' privileges) you are concerned with.

This is the underpinning of justice: if the rules of the game are not uniform across the board, then the game itself is inherently unjust. Now we've gone well beyond the realm of justice and impose imbalances through the force of law. Common topics now are Affirmative Action, a Millionaire's Tax, and the dreaded Evil One Percent that must be brought down to everyone else's level. These things are the opposite of equal protection and justice.

 

[1prophet]

Hooray for comparing 18th century struggles against an Imperialist power with our modern world.

The more advanced your civilization, the bigger your government will be. That is the way it has been since the Romans conquered and brought roads and running water to everyone 2000 years ago.

Just be glad that today you partipate in a Democracy where you have some small part in the decision making process. however small that part is.

And as the mighty Roman empire went so shall the great American empire go, weakened and divided from within while the Barbarians patiently wait at the gate to pick apart what is left.

 

[BoberFett]

Exactly, Bober, you don't give a shit about your countrymen.

Comprehension fail. Typical Democrat, you don't understand simple concepts.

If you claim to care about the trailer trash hick in Mississippi as much as you do your next door neighbor, you're a liar.

 

[Moonbeam]

Comprehension fail. Typical Democrat, you don't understand simple concepts.

If you claim to care about the trailer trash hick in Mississippi as much as you do your next door neighbor, you're a liar.

Don't be stupid. I have an personal relationship with my next door neighbor and not with the hick in Mississippi, and I understand that. That, however, does not mean I don't give a fuck about the guy in the South. He is just as human and as my neighbor and if I'm not taking care of my neighbor I will want to help him if he is in need. And because I am so far away, I want the government to give that help for me via my taxes.

 

[Greenman]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Another fucking dimwit.

Damn but you're an annoying ass. This is what comes of not knowing how to interact with people. You've spent your entire life looking at pony porn, now you're a creepy freak with no social skills. Get a boyfriend and some help.

 

[BoberFett]

Don't be stupid. I have an personal relationship with my next door neighbor and not with the hick in Mississippi, and I understand that. That, however, does not mean I don't give a fuck about the guy in the South. He is just as human and as my neighbor and if I'm not taking care of my neighbor I will want to help him if he is in need. And because I am so far away, I want the government to give that help for me via my taxes.

Then you support massive tax increases on every American at every income level to support the poor in every impoverished nation on Earth, right? We have roughly 30% of the world GDP but only 4% of the population. An 85% rate on every American should just about cover it, and even things out.