[Secretary of State Clinton] offered an innovation: The Obama administration, she said, would “see human rights in a broad context,” in which “oppression of want — want of food, want of health, want of education, and want of equality in law and in fact” — would be addressed alongside the oppression of tyranny and torture. “That is why,” Ms. Clinton said, “the cornerstones of our 21st-century human rights agenda” would be “supporting democracy” and “fostering development.”
This is indeed an important change in U.S. human rights policy — but the idea behind it is pure 20th century. Ms. Clinton’s lumping of economic and social “rights” with political and personal freedom was a standard doctrine of the Soviet Bloc, which used to argue at every East-West conference that human rights in Czechoslovakia were superior to those in the United States, because one provided government health care that the other lacked. In fact, as U.S. diplomats used to tirelessly respond, rights of liberty — for free expression and religion, for example — are unique in that they are both natural and universal; they will exist so long as governments do not suppress them. Health care, shelter and education are desirable social services, but they depend on resources that governments may or may not possess. These are fundamentally different goods, and one cannot substitute for another.
(H/T: David Boaz)
Biographers tell us that Clinton was once an Ayn Rand fan. Perhaps she should read this essay [for its explication of the principle of so-called "negative" rights]–not that one has to be an Ayn Rand admirer [as I'm sure the Post editorialists are not] to be appalled at Clinton’s (and therefore the Obama adminsitration’s) abandonment of longstanding American liberal (in the philosophic sense) tradition in favor of the sort of thing you might see put more succinctly on a graduate student’s bumper sticker in Madison, Wisconsin.
David Bernstein says:
I was thinking, bumper-sticker wise, of “Human Rights, Not Property Rights,” but I’m sure there are other possibilities.
December 28, 2009, 12:58 amJHTRazor says:
This is consistent with the rhetoric we here from the left. What we heard from Obama during the campaign. I don’t have the exact quote, but didn’t he refer to increased taxes (I believe when talking about increasing the capital gains tax) as both neighborly and patriotic, when describing redistribution of wealth.
The left has been making the argument that health care is a right that everyone is entitled to.
These thought processes seem to fall right in line with Hillary Clinton’s comments about human rights.
December 28, 2009, 1:03 amSimple logic says:
A human right can’t contradict or cancel out some other one. You can’t have a right at the expense of another right.
So human rights, like the Post says, “are both natural and universal; they will exist so long as governments do not suppress them.”
This shouldn’t be controversial. When someone talks about some other thing and calls it a human right, they’re just not making sense.
December 28, 2009, 1:25 amArthurKirkland says:
Standing against tyrants and torturers — the Post’s examples of traditional American concerns — shouldn’t be controversial, either. Or difficult. Yet, somehow, it has been both.
I will wait to see how the current administration’s record stacks against those of its predecessors before reaching any conclusion.
December 28, 2009, 1:33 amrpt says:
Nice to see that food and good health rank as merely “desirable” but not “natural or universal” in libertarian land. “Die quickly” indeed.
December 28, 2009, 1:38 amorca says:
A laughable mangling of a speech Clinton made two weeks ago. No doubt it was desperately fished from someone’s recycle bin to fill an empty space. They should have just run another “Buy Gold at its Peak” ad instead.
December 28, 2009, 2:22 amEH says:
This reads as an expansion of Cheney’s one-percent doctrine, only the victims are different.
December 28, 2009, 2:28 amLeo Marvin says:
The implication that there’s something wrong with including economic and social rights in a broad definition of human rights because the Soviet Union included them is baseless and misleading. The problem with the Soviet Union wasn’t that it promised economic and social rights, but that it violently suppressed political and personal freedom, its standard doctrine to the contrary notwithstanding.
December 28, 2009, 2:46 ampireader says:
Professor Bernstein –
Did you actually read Mrs. Clinton’s speech? Or only the Post editorial? Because the editorial is an embarrassment.
Basically, Mrs. Clinton argues that the US government should encourage economic development, since without it democratic institutions won’t endure; and they are the best long-term guarantee of human rights.
Despite the Post’s ranting, that was hardly the “standard doctrine of the Soviet Bloc”.
December 28, 2009, 3:17 amSoronel Haetir says:
At least these are just as unachievable as all the other international law aspirations. We’ll spill a lot of ink about people being killed but won’t actually do anything to stop it. You think we’re going to do more when someone has to eat soy instead of wheat?
People will get together, write up a nice sounding document, pat themselves on the back like they have actually accomplished something and then ignore it just like all the other nice sounding documents that they patted themselves on the back for and attended parties and ate bad food in far off lands.
December 28, 2009, 3:18 amSoronel Haetir says:
And didn’t deliver even on the claimed ‘rights’ they supported.
December 28, 2009, 3:20 amjosh bornstein says:
David,
December 28, 2009, 4:36 amI echo piereader, in asking if you read Mrs. Clinton’s speech. I’m not saying it as an accusation, but just so I can understand your post in the proper context. If you didn’t read it, I think you were a tiny bit lazy in trusting the Post’s editorial, and I suspect that you would demand more due diligence from your students. If you did in fact read her speech before your OP, can you explain how you came away with the impression you did? I read her speech fairly carefully (it’s not short), and my interpretation was along the lines of piereader’s. That does not mean that we are correct and you are wrong, and I’m certainly willing to keep an open mind, if you can specify the points that persuaded you.
Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “Human Rights,” According to the Obama Administration -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Brian Galvin, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: “Human Rights,” According to the Obama Administration: Washington Post editorial: [Secretary of State Clinton] .. http://bit.ly/8X35oJ [...]
December 28, 2009, 5:31 amyankee says:
If I have to choose between the bumper sticker and the Rand essay, I’ll take “human rights, not property rights” over “[a]ltruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights” any day of the week.
December 28, 2009, 6:18 amChris Grainger says:
I would suggest, rather than making cheap attacks by comparison w/ the Soviet blog, and making quite shallow assertions of what human rights should or should not be (I would suggest you look into the problems with monopolizing the definition of a constructed idea), you should actually educate yourself on these issues. Thomas Pogge is a good start. Bill Easterly over at his blog deals with these issues regularly, and makes arguments against this form of ‘human rights’ in a much more informed and coherent manner.
In short, why should certain ‘human rights’ not be contingent upon the ability of human organizations to provide them? Libertarians don’t like this idea because most of them don’t actually adhere to anything resembling libertarianism. Their problem with that is that the state would have to allocate resources away from a bloated and inefficient military, away from protective measures when their businesses go down the toilet, towards the provision of the true basis of libertarianism, and that is a fair and equal starting point for all.
Without that, libertarianism is nothing but corporatism, cronyism, and a veiled way of maintaining economic and social superiority over groups who have been systematically subjugated and marginalised and are entrenched in cycles of poverty.
December 28, 2009, 6:22 amChris Grainger says:
Agreed wholeheartedly. I don’t understand the fascination with Rand. She was, quite frankly, nasty. And a bad writer to boot.
December 28, 2009, 6:35 amRodger Lodger says:
First we’ll end hunger and lack of health care in the world, then we’ll try to do it in our own country. Makes sense to me.
December 28, 2009, 6:47 amdearieme says:
The idea that there are human rights that “are both natural and universal” is just silly rubbish that no grown-up should have any truck with.
December 28, 2009, 6:51 amDavid Bernstein says:
I don’t see how the Post editorial misread Clinton’s speech at all. Sure, her ultimate focus was on democracy. But she said explicitly the following:
She also approvingly cites the positive-rights-laden Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
December 28, 2009, 7:04 amgeokstr says:
Where’s the Right to Happiness? What good is the mere pursuit of it if the government allows some people to have lots of it and others not so much?
December 28, 2009, 8:53 amSammy Finkelman says:
>> But they also must be free from the oppression of want – want of food, want of health, want of education, and want of equality
I think the locus classicus of this idea is Franklin Delano’s Roosevelt State of the Union address delivered on January 6, 1941, where he enunciated the “Four Freedoms”
They were:
Freedom of Speech,
Freedom of Worship,
Freedom From Want
and
Freedom From Fear
He said:
“In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.”
December 28, 2009, 9:02 amJoe says:
What am I supposed to be “appalled” about here?
Among the things listed, e.g., is “education.” Is free public education “appalling” now? You know, even if you include vouchers so people can send their children to a school of their choice? Making sure the government “addresses” rampant starvation and so forth (a serious problem in many nations) also is “appalling” as is some concern for promotion of public health. As with public education, this was some “20th Century” creation?
“they should also be free to seize the opportunities of a full life”
Pursue happiness?
“Human rights have both negative and positive requirements.”
For these purposes governments are formed among men …
“fostering development”
such 20th Century things like public support of canals, railroads and roads?
December 28, 2009, 9:24 amgeokstr says:
So what? Her biographers also tell us she wrote a swooning dissertation on Saul Alinsky while in college. Which explains a lot more than her supposed fondness for Rand.
December 28, 2009, 9:27 amalkali says:
Isn’t the straightforward interpretation of these remarks that the US considers things like state-created famine (e.g., in the Stalin-era Ukraine) or denial of access to education to a group of people (e.g., women in Taliban-era Afghanistan) to have human rights significance? Is this even barely controversial?
December 28, 2009, 9:28 amDavid Bernstein says:
To point out the obvious, commentators are confusing things that are very desirable (education, access to food and shelter, etc.), and that can be provided by markets or by government, with “human rights” that government is obligated to respect.
The Post editorial put it well:
Except that I’d add that it’s not at all clear that the government should provide these goods even if it has the resources to do so, and certainly in the case, e.g., of shelter, not as anything but the last resort. Not to mention that any right to positive goods raises the obvious question of “at whose expense?”
December 28, 2009, 9:48 amrpt says:
I understand the ideology behind this view of the world, but nothing of virtue, merit or good or reflecting a belief in God or anything beyond one’s self-interest. Pretty cold and heartless, but maybe that’s the point.
December 28, 2009, 9:56 amMick says:
Our only “rights” in the Constitution are God Given and Inalienable. It is Natural Law. There is no “right” to shelter or food or healthcare or anything we “want”.
December 28, 2009, 10:07 amneurodoc says:
Your alternative choice (“[a]ltruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights”) is in fact no choice, since it is self-contradictory. True altruism cannot be imposed, mandated, coerced, enforced, or otherwise required of anyone. When some behavior is not wholly voluntary, that is an exercise of individual free will, it cannot be an expression of unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others, that is of altruism.
December 28, 2009, 10:17 amArrowSmith says:
Wow. I guess I’ll just have to throw away everything I believed about human rights. I thought it was about freedom from government oppression. Soon it’s going to mean – “I don’t have an iPhone”.
December 28, 2009, 10:37 amConnecticut Lawyer says:
I suppose it’s not surprising that this Administration manages to confuse charity – the donation by the rich of funds for the suppport of the needy – with human rights – the protection of individuals from the power of the State.
December 28, 2009, 10:39 amArrowSmith says:
Tell me that a starving child has “freedom”. There is no freedom on an empty stomach. Answer me that, liber-tards.
December 28, 2009, 10:40 amIchthyophagous says:
I think Clinton’s expanded Bill of Rights derives from the various declarations of the UN. So She wants the US to become like the UN.
December 28, 2009, 10:41 amDavid Nieporent says:
Due diligence in their blog posts? I doubt it. Why would DB care what his students post on the internet in their private time?
December 28, 2009, 10:48 amDavid Nieporent says:
I guess this is the version of the bumper sticker for grad students in Madison: doesn’t actually say anything more intelligent than the short version, but is much more prolix about it.
December 28, 2009, 10:52 amDavid Nieporent says:
Because then human rights are contingent rather than universal (either that, or in some situations one has a “right” to something which doesn’t actually exist, which is a nonsensical use of the term “right”), and because then they clash with other human rights. None of which makes sense.
Uh, no. You seem to have your own, unique, Chomskyesqe definition of libertarian.
December 28, 2009, 10:55 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Yes, it is amazing to me, how the liberation of Iraq from the tyrant Saddam Hussein is still controversial.
December 28, 2009, 11:04 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
I don’t think you really understand the ideology, rpt. Maybe because you don’t want to.
I could try to understand your ideology thus: “No need to put any real thought or analysis to policy decisions. As long as your heart is in the right place, all outcomes must be good.” Is that about right?
December 28, 2009, 11:06 amthirdeblue says:
I’m still waiting David’s discussion about the organ theft in Israel and whether making a true accusation still amounts to a modern-day blood libel as he put it. It has been over a week now and seeing as how he (1) had the time to write an article on this fluff, (2) wrote extensively about the topic at the time – it is disappointing he has yet to find th time or the words to say.
I’m not religious myself, but I find the following New Testament passage fitting. “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:5
December 28, 2009, 11:10 amSonicfrog says:
How about the right to keep more of what i earn?
December 28, 2009, 11:11 amSonicfrog says:
How about the right to keep more of what I earn???
December 28, 2009, 11:12 amJoe says:
To point out the obvious, commentators are confusing things that are very desirable (education, access to food and shelter, etc.), and that can be provided by markets or by government, with “human rights” that government is obligated to respect.
Where is the confusion? From the editorial:
The Obama administration, she said, would “see human rights in a broad context,” in which “oppression of want — want of food, want of health, want of education, and want of equality in law and in fact” — would be addressed alongside the oppression of tyranny and torture. “That is why,” Ms. Clinton said, “the cornerstones of our 21st-century human rights agenda” would be “supporting democracy” and “fostering development.”
The word is “addressed.” Name a “human right,” and I will tell you that widespread starvation will inhibit it as would “want of health.” In fact, want of health has a tendency to spread, invading the space of others, threatening their rights. Thus, and not just in the 20th Century, public health measures such as sanitation was deemed something the government had to “address” to help their citizens enjoy “human rights.”
Except that I’d add that it’s not at all clear that the government should provide these goods even if it has the resources to do so, and certainly in the case, e.g., of shelter, not as anything but the last resort.
Among those listed is education. Again, public education is not an invention of the 20th Century and few people are “appalled” at the idea, especially if vouchers and such are included. Likewise, in many nations, “the last resort” DOES apply to a vast number of people. So yet again, appalled how?
Two final things. (1) Yes, part of this is the acceptance that something like public sanitation is a “right” humans should expect from their governments, if not an “inalienable” one on the level of freedom of speech. “Right” thus has to be defined somewhat. (2) The real debate here is scope — “Obama” alone doesn’t support things like public education or “addressing” world starvation.
The whole thing is appallingly kneejerk, even for a blog post.
December 28, 2009, 11:20 amBrianMac says:
By this logic, Somalia must be a beacon of religious liberty and free expression.
December 28, 2009, 11:20 amDavid Nieporent says:
“True accusation”? The IDF was accused of killing Palestinians for their organs. That is false. The actual truth was that a single institution was taking organs from dead people — and by “people,” I mean Jews, Palestinians, and other — without their families’ consent for transplants.
But what’s a little facts between friends, right?
December 28, 2009, 11:33 amJoe says:
Our only “rights” in the Constitution are God Given and Inalienable. It is Natural Law. There is no “right” to shelter or food or healthcare or anything we “want”.
The Constitution is not necessarily tied to God. It also has rights, such as certain people or groups voting for specific individuals, that are not “God given” but human creations. Such rights, including running for public office, might be something we cannot achieve (though we might “want”) them. All rights are not inalienable, even if some are. Finally, atheists and others also think “rights” exist for positive things. In fact, God in some people’s eyes requires such rights, and requires governments and others to secure them.
If “right” = “inalienable negative liberty,” we need to say as much. It surely is not the only definition I’m aware of.
December 28, 2009, 11:36 ampot meet kettle says:
we all were. but then we graduated middle school.
December 28, 2009, 11:52 amHarry Schell says:
I see a bright line between “rights” and “wants”. I don’t think Ms. Clinton is helping by blurring this line. While FDR might be a real hero to many, some of his ideas had more in common with dictatorships than they do a free democracy.
Clinton has proclaimed herself a “progressive” more than once, and then turned, as Obama has, to failed ideas of the past for inspiration. Progress implies learning from the past and using the best ideas, not those suitable to personal ambition. Regressives do that.
December 28, 2009, 11:59 amShelbyC says:
You’re right, they will exist so long as governement or others don’t suppress them. And according to the Declaration of Independence, the reason we have governments is to prevent others from suppressing such liberties. But that clearly wasn’t the point, and pointing it out come of to me as a little nit-picky, no?
December 28, 2009, 12:01 pmRPT says:
No, that is not rght.
December 28, 2009, 12:09 pmDavid Nieporent says:
I’d like to see proof of that in your csae.
December 28, 2009, 12:19 pmBrianMac says:
I’m not so sure. It seemed the argument was that “human rights” were somehow natural or inalienable, and threatened (only) by the state. The reality is that they depend to a large extent on the state for enforcement. Does that make theme the same as healthcare? No, but it means that the distinction between positive and negative rights isn’t quite so clear as libertarians tend to argue.
December 28, 2009, 12:23 pmDesiderius says:
Assembled Liberals,
This very much was the argument of the Comintern, and accounts for their widespread influence pre-1990, and thus continuing popularity among those whose worldviews were formed there (i.e. all of us over, say, 35*). It’s straight out of the hard Enlightenment via Plato.
As to why it’s problematic, from an FDR loving liberal, this is essential reading, particularly the essays on Saint-Simon and Rousseau. As for positive rights, this is outstanding, and likely more fruitful than Rand, for those seeking Volokhian common ground between Libertarians and Communitarians. Cliff notes here.
* – check the demographics of those who frequent the Sorosphere
December 28, 2009, 12:24 pmkrs says:
rpt writes:
I also don’t think you understand the ideology. I might start with the idea that there is a distinction between what virtuous people should do and what the government should require them to do. Your reaction to Prof. Bernstein’s comment strongly suggests that you either missed the distinction or view it as insignificant.
December 28, 2009, 12:24 pmpot meet kettle says:
show me your birth certificate and i’ll show you mine.
December 28, 2009, 12:29 pmmonboddo says:
Dave–Are you and Randy having some kind of end-of-the-year contest about who can write the nuttiest/most ideologically blinkered post? Because, while this is pretty good, Randy’s post of a few days ago on the “Unorganized Militia” still has you beat.
(In your favor, though, at least you open comments!)
December 28, 2009, 12:32 pmDesiderius says:
For better or for worse, positive rights are very much here to stay (they’re why it’s illegal to deny care to those showing up at emergency rooms without “insurance”).
The debate going forward will be:
a. whether strong positive rights (i.e. to equality of outcome) are consonant with the negative rights liberal tradition which underlies the Progress of the past half-millenium. Berlin is skeptical at best here, as am I.
b. whether liberals of all persuasions can reconstitute a consensus on the positive right to certain (minimum) living standards (see, for instance, the approach of Habitat for Humanity) with room for non-coercive efforts to improve the standard, to ward off both the levellers above and hard Randianism.
Western Civilization has flourished in times when we have.
December 28, 2009, 12:32 pmneurodoc says:
He didn’t question how old you are; he questioned how far you had gone in school. I expect your response will only confirm him in his doubts.
December 28, 2009, 12:35 pmDesiderius says:
Money quote from Wiki synopsis of Berlin:
“Berlin granted that both concepts of liberty represent valid human ideals, and that both forms of liberty are necessary in any free and civilised society. He also argued that, as a matter of history, the positive concept of liberty has proven particularly susceptible to rhetorical abuse, when, especially from the 18th century onwards, it has either been paternalistically re-drawn from the third-person, or conflated with the concept of negative liberty and thus disguised underlying value-conflicts.
Berlin contended that under the influence of Plato, Aristotle, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel, modern political thinkers often conflated positive liberty with rational action, based upon a rational knowledge to which, it is argued, only a certain elite or social group has access.[6] This rationalist conflation was open to political abuses, which encroached on negative liberty, when such interpretations of positive liberty were, in the nineteenth century, used to defend nationalism, paternalism, social engineering, historicism, and collective rational control over human destiny. Berlin argued that, following this line of thought, demands for freedom paradoxically could become demands for forms of collective control and discipline – those deemed necessary for the “self-mastery” or “self-determination” of nations, classes, democratic communities, and even humanity as a whole. There is thus an elective affinity, for Berlin, between positive liberty, when it is rhetorically conflated with goals imposed from the third-person that the individual is told they “should” rationally desire, and the justifications for political totalitarianism, which contrary to value-pluralism, presupposed that values exist in Pythagorean harmony.”
December 28, 2009, 12:38 pmpot meet kettle says:
i hit submit before i fixed my comment. i’ll show him proof of my grades if he shows me his birth cert.
December 28, 2009, 12:39 pmpot meet kettle says:
you meant “confirm his doubts”, i assume. that’s the usage teach always wanted.
December 28, 2009, 12:41 pmA. Zarkov says:
Hillary’s speech writer presents us with a warmed over version positive and negative rights. It goes as follows. If I have the freedom to travel from SF to LA, but lack the instrumentalities to make that journey, then my freedom to travel is largely meaningless. As such my government needs to provide me with at least a bus ticket if I can’t afford to buy one, otherwise I might just as well be living in a dictatorship because the outcomes are largely the same. This bit of reasoning has a superficial appeal to anyone who has grown up in John Dewey’s system of “progressive education,” which today is almost everyone. Most of our citizens simply don’t have the background to see through this sophistry, which is really a plea for social engineering. However Admiral Ben Moreell having escaped Dewey gave a landmark speech in 1953 on the distinctions between scientific and social engineering, reprinted here. His speech provides the answer to the UN’s sophistry which Hillary’s speech writer so faithfully parrots.
December 28, 2009, 12:44 pmAllan Walstad says:
Chris Grainger:
Because fundamental rights are not “provided;” they are respected. A right to have something at someone else’s coerced expense conflicts with the others’ rights to their own property.
Ah, so libertarians don’t know what libertarianism is (or simply lie), but YOU do?
An ignorant sneer. Specifically…
Utter nonsense.
December 28, 2009, 12:45 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
So you don’t appreciate having your views mischaracterized. Other people don’t like it either.
December 28, 2009, 12:51 pmDesiderius says:
LM,
“The implication that there’s something wrong with including economic and social rights in a broad definition of human rights because the Soviet Union included them is baseless and misleading. The problem with the Soviet Union wasn’t that it promised economic and social rights, but that it violently suppressed political and personal freedom, its standard doctrine to the contrary notwithstanding.”
They did more than include them, and it may be misleading to those not around during those days, but it’s far from baseless. There is also a distinction to be drawn between the Soviet Union (reactionary in practice since Stalin) and the Comintern, which still wielded substantial influence during Clinton’s formative years, especially where her ideals were formed. Through her generation, that influence is very much with us in their habits of thought and the Rawlsian systems they’ve instituted.
December 28, 2009, 12:52 pmAllan Walstad says:
ArrowSmith:
You’re quite free to contribute charitably to the aid of others. Lots of people do it. More people would have more money for that purpose if we weren’t being robbed blind by the government. By the way, I wonder how many American collectivists accept the idea of being robbed to whatever extent is needed to provide for all the wants of all the poor people around the world. Or more accurately, all the wants of all the kleptocratic collectivist pols world-wide who keep their victims poor?
December 28, 2009, 12:53 pmsecond history says:
I think the concern of “human rights” in other countries is overblown and counterproductive. I don’t particularly care if the Iranian government violates the rights of its citizens, it’s an Iranian problem. US intervention would only make it worse. The concern with the human rights of other people is great for political grandstanding, but interferes with the development of rational foreign policies to deal with the threats faced by the US.
The criticism of human rights violations are just talk, and with rare exception never backed by force. And just talking the talk and not walking the walk makes the US look like hypocrites, and are counter productive to US foreign policy interests.
December 28, 2009, 1:00 pmShelbyC says:
Well, one problem was that in attempting to deliver on its promises of economic and social rights, it took food from people who were producing it and gave it to others, destroying the incentive to produce and causing massive starvation.
December 28, 2009, 1:11 pmorca says:
According to the Wall Street Journal, the average middle class white male believes 18% of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid when in reality less than 1% goes to foreign aid (and most of that goes to bribing Israel and Egypt to play nice with each other).
I think this accounts for much of the faulty thinking displayed by Libertarians when they discuss the State Dept.
December 28, 2009, 1:13 pmArrowSmith says:
The Kulaks were evil and deserved their fate!
December 28, 2009, 1:15 pmKirk Parker says:
Actually, rpt, the truly cold and heartless are the ones who would send armed men to take from one set of third parties and give to another set.
December 28, 2009, 1:36 pmKen Arromdee says:
This is off-topic, but yes. it’s still blood libel. There’s a big difference between “Israel did bad things to people” and “Israel did bad things to its enemies”. The accusation was specifically that Israel was taking organs from Palestinians, in a context which implied that non-Israelis were targeted because they were being treated as less than human in contrast to Israelis. (And that the Palestinians were being deliberately killed for this purpose.) This is the key part of the accusation–the part which lets it be used to spread hatred–and is false.
By your reasoning, if there was a serial killer on the loose (who kills regardless of background) and Israel wasn’t doing enough to stop it, the headlines should read “Israel deliberately lets serial killer kill Palestinians”.
December 28, 2009, 1:37 pmsecond history says:
I don’t mind foreign aid that furthers US foreign policy interests, but aid given to bribe governments to treat their people nice is self-defeating.
December 28, 2009, 1:40 pmorca says:
Why?
Bribery has its place.
Saddam Hussein offered to step down for only $1 billion in cash. We would have saved $800 billion+ if we’d taken his offer.
December 28, 2009, 1:49 pmArrowSmith says:
It’s so sad that we are required to help the less fortunate. How evil of us.
December 28, 2009, 1:49 pmHarry Eagar says:
Thank goodness for Sammy Finkelman, though he took a while to show up.
People make fun of FDR for the clumsy form of his statement, but it was — as usual with him — clear and politically effective. Only libertarians would conclude that the goal was to rob them.
Nobody seems to mention the right that our polity was based upon, which is self-determination. Free Kurdistan, free Tibet. I don’t suppose Obama is going to reverse Bush on that.
December 28, 2009, 1:56 pmneurodoc says:
He didn’t ask to see evidence of how well you did in school. He asked to see evidence of how far you went in school, specifically whether you had graduated from middle school.
I believe it correct to say “confirm him in his doubts,” or at least it seems to me I have heard/read that. But maybe it should be “confirm his doubts,” since the evidence goes to support the doubts. Do you have any authority beyond your teacher (middle school?)for saying “confirm him in his doubts” is wrong?
December 28, 2009, 1:58 pmA. Zarkov says:
What has race got to do with beliefs about foreign aid? What does the average adult citizen, irrespective of class or race believe? After all they can all vote. That seems like a funny statistic to quote. In any case Americans provide plenty of foreign aid through private channels, so I’m sure our total foreign aid well exceeds 1%. If we count private aid, do we count the billions Mexicans resident in the US send to their relatives in Mexico?
December 28, 2009, 2:00 pmShelbyC says:
Heh. The less fortunate don’t have any political power, we’re not required to help them. We help the more fortunate under the guise of helping the less fortunate.
December 28, 2009, 2:01 pmShelbyC says:
Well, there’s a big difference between remmittances and foreign aid. The former actually help Mexicans.
December 28, 2009, 2:03 pmptt says:
Zarkov raises an important point. I wonder if I can deduct the Xmas present I sent my sister in Milan as “foreign aid”…
December 28, 2009, 2:04 pmA. Zarkov says:
That’s true and represents a plug for direct person-to-person aid instead of channeling it through a bunch of people both foreign and domestic with sticky fingers.
December 28, 2009, 2:06 pmA. Zarkov says:
While the Marshall Plan certainly counts as foreign aid, how about the war material provided to the UK under Lend-Lease? Or the whole US war effort in WWII? Was that not foreign aid? We spent a lot of money to gain the freedom of Europe from Germany. One can argue that the US got something for that effort, so do it pro-rata. It still amounts to a lot of foreign aid. If military aid does not count, then it doesn’t count for Israel and Egypt either.
December 28, 2009, 2:16 pmorca says:
IIRC, The WSJ sampled white middle class males because they were interested in their supposed “anger.”
The amount of “private” foreign aid is a pittance…not even worth mentioning. Most of it is donated rags sent to the third world to undermine its domestic clothing industries.
December 28, 2009, 2:18 pmptt says:
While everyone squabbles about whether their tax dollars should go to swords or plowshares, I was struck by the following:
December 28, 2009, 2:24 pmA. Zarkov says:
Do you have numbers? Do you exclude remittances?
December 28, 2009, 2:46 pmChris Grainger says:
I always find it amusing when people feel the need to treat others as puerile because they can’t actually engage with the content. I suggest you read Hobbes if you want an example of how human rights can be contingent. ALL human rights are contingent upon a human structure’s ability to enforce them. Nobody takes natural law seriously anymore.
It seems to me that your understanding of ‘right’ is limited. Surely you can understand that natural law and rights are normative, not descriptive, and entirely constructed.
For what it’s worth, I also find it amusing when people above say that ‘human rights should not restrict others’ rights’. Actually, that’s exactly what ‘human rights’ do. The basis for modern natural law theory is exactly that: we have the right to everything and we give some of it up to live in peaceful society. Surely you’ll not criticize Locke?
Pogge is an interesting mediation point, and I would suggest you read his work. One of his arguments is that we need not provide aid, but rather cease doing harm.
I’ll invite you to actually spend some time expanding your horizons. You may find, as well, that a key assumption of classical liberalism (and as such libertarianism) is that ‘all men are created equal’. The problem with this is that there is more to life than human agency. It would be absurd to argue that someone born in Cameroon (where I’ve spent quite a bit of time) has the same opportunities as someone born in America, even if the former is naturally as or more competent.
The popular stance of libertarianism is simply intellectual laziness.
December 28, 2009, 3:08 pmorca says:
I have a hard time including remittances in our foreign aid total, but even if you do, total U.S. foreign aid from all sources only comes to about $120 billion a year ($30 billion government, $30 billion NGOs and $60 billion remittances)…still less than 1% of our GDP.
December 28, 2009, 3:44 pmA. Criminal says:
I don’t want any “free” educatin’ or doctorin’ – do I have the right to avoid paying for or otherwise supporting things I don’t want? But I would like “equality in fact” with, say, Clinton or Obama, because then I’d have more and better stuff – and state.gov would be publishing my long-winded, self-serving yet ghost-written rants.
“Do not speak of what men deserve. For we each of us deserve everything, every luxury that was ever piled in the tombs of the dead Kings, and we each of us deserve nothing, not a mouthful of bread in hunger. Have we not eaten while another starved? Will you punish us for that? Will you reward us for the virtue of starving while others ate? No man earns punishment*, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, of earning, and you will begin to be able to think.” — Odo, The Prison Letters
*excluding people like me!
December 28, 2009, 3:45 pmAllan Walstad says:
You appear to be confusing the rights themselves with their enforcement.
A pure throw-away line.
No, that’s precisely what they don’t do, or at least what they should not do, to the extent possible.
Interesting. First, we go in two paragraphs from “Nobody takes natural law seriously anymore” to assertions about the foundations of “modern natural law theory.” No, we don’t originally have the right to do everything; for example, we don’t have the right to aggress against our neighbors. Locke can be criticized like anyone else, but it’s worth noting that he was fairly specific about the sorts of rights that one gives up, mainly the right to act as judge and jury against those with whom we have disputes.
Another throw-away line of the sort typically associated with intellectual laziness.
December 28, 2009, 3:46 pmyankee says:
So it does. But this constitutes a threat to individual liberty only if you take the view Rand advocates in the essay you so favorably cite: that taxation is slavery per se. For those of us who don’t buy that view, the fact that government-provided social services need to be paid for by taxes does not make them a threat to liberty.
Of course, taxes can be an oppressive threat to liberty. Imagine a 95% tax on donations to disfavored religious groups. A regressive income tax that started at 75% on the first dollar and went down to 0% on the millionth dollar would also be oppressive. But that doesn’t make taxation a threat to per se, as Rand (and apparently you) contend. A high tax on someone’s hundred millionth dollar, if it constitutes a restriction on liberty at all, is a de minimis one. (It might be a bad idea for other reasons, such as reducing economic growth, but that’s another matter.)
So no, the fact that positive rights need to be paid for by taxes is not a refutation of the concept of positive rights.
December 28, 2009, 4:03 pmCJColucci says:
we don’t have the right to aggress against our neighbors
Sez who? What, in the nature of things, forbids taking what our neighbors have if we have the power and skill to do so and it helps us?
December 28, 2009, 4:20 pmMind you, this is probably not a good idea for most of us in the long run. If we can work out some kind of agreement with the neighbors not to aggress, and to punish folks who do, most of us — though not the most hardy, cunning, and daring, who thrive in the state of nature — will probably be better off. So now we’ve invented the “right” to be free from aggression by our neighbors. And we’re doing our level best to coerce those who won’t play nice. All good moves, but nothing “natural” about them.
RPT says:
Although the Iraq war is somewhat off-topic I agree with your position on it.
December 28, 2009, 4:27 pmA. Zarkov says:
What is the source of your numbers? Please provide a link.
I don’t understand why you have trouble with remittances. Do you think foreign aid has to be compelled to qualify? It seems to me that all money and in-kind transfers to foreigners should count as foreign aid.
December 28, 2009, 4:29 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Donated rags represent “most” of private aid? Are you including the efforts of, for instance, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Catholic Charities, World Vision, and Doctors Without Borders?
December 28, 2009, 4:37 pmAllan Walstad says:
It seems you are simply repeating Grainger’s earlier confusion between rights and their enforcement. One recognizes the right of liberty as precisely what rational beings must accord each other in order to live in harmony. Or, one does not–and claims a “right” to engage in robbery, conquest, and murder. That some have successfully pursued such a course does not make it ok. Libertarian advocates of limited government (as opposed to, say, the anarcho-capitalists) see its role mainly as protecting liberty. Of course, there’s always that pesky problem of “who protects us from the protectors?” that many have struggled with, including the US founders.
December 28, 2009, 4:47 pmorca says:
Well, if you include remittances then the billions of dollars Americans spend on foreign supplied drugs each year should be included in our foreign aid total, too.
And considering how much America borrows from the rest of the world lately…we have been a net recipient, not donor country for the past six or seven years.
Link attempt:
December 28, 2009, 4:51 pmhttp://www.america.gov/st/foraid-english/2007/May/20070524165115zjsredna0.2997553.html
ShelbyC says:
Well, you don’t have to phrase it as “slavery per se” but you can’t get around the fact that whoever is providing the positive benefit is being forced to spend their time and resourses providing that benefit instead of doing what they would choose, so yes, it is a restriction on liberty. Now, you may argue it is a justified one, but I don’t see how you can argue that positive rights don’t restrict other people’s liberty.
December 28, 2009, 4:52 pmA. Zarkov says:
Exactly. But does that include “robbery” through using the state as an agent of expropriation? It’s one thing to tax people, even tax them unequally to pay for the functions of government. But direct transfers from one part of society to the other is a different story. Under Kelo, a city can transfer property from one private party to another under the dubious notion there is a public benefit. The earned income tax credit also functions to take money away from some people and give it others not pursuant to any government function. Is this not a form of robbery? Should 51% of the people be able to transfer wealth from the other 49%? Ben Franklin warned us about doing this.
December 28, 2009, 4:59 pmneurodoc says:
Well, there are remittances, and then there are remittances, aren’t there? When someone is living and working in this country legally, then money they may send to family and friends (hopefully not to terrorist organizations) is a private matter. When they are not living and working in this country legally, then there is in effect a misappropriation of opportunity that should be there for someone here legally, whether that opportunity would otherwise have been put to good use or to no use at all. The latter might be seen as a form of “foreign aid,” albeit not intended as such.
December 28, 2009, 5:02 pmChris Grainger says:
I would suggest you read Locke and Hobbes. Your response shows you haven’t.
December 28, 2009, 5:08 pmCJColucci says:
It seems you are simply repeating Grainger’s earlier confusion between rights and their enforcement. One recognizes the right of liberty as precisely what rational beings must accord each other in order to live in harmony. Or, one does not–and claims a “right” to engage in robbery, conquest, and murder. That some have successfully pursued such a course does not make it ok.
No, I’m not confusing “rights” and “enforcement.” I’m not claiming a “right” to rob and murder if it advances my interests. Other people are claiming a “right” not to be robbed and murdered. Where does this “right” come from? The nature of things? Some divine lawgiver?
December 28, 2009, 5:09 pmI don’t disagree that, for the vast majority of us who would not thrive in a world where skill at robbery and murder determines who gets what, it would be a good thing if we could get together and coerce the skillful robbers and murderers. Not being a skillful robber and murderer myself, I endorse the effort, and hope to benefit from the arrangement. Having come to such an arrangment, it may sometimes be convenient — it is certainly conventional — to describe the expected benefit of the arrangement as a “right.” But the bottom line is we make an arrangement for practical reasons and develop expectations. That’s all there is, and it’s enough.
We might just as readily come to an arrangement where we collectively care for those who get sick. As someone who gets sick, I endorse the effort, from which I hope to benefit. It might sometimes be convenient to describe the expected benefit of this arrangement as a “right.” And sometimes, it might not.
Xanthippas says:
Only an authoritarian could get so mad that somebody important might be worried about whether somebody else is getting enough to eat.
December 28, 2009, 5:15 pmA. Zarkov says:
Those remittances are payments for material received; that’s not aid it’s trade. Perhaps “remittance” is the wrong term. I’m saying we should count the money people here send to their relatives abroad. For example Mexicans working in the US send $20 billion per year to their relatives in Mexico, and that’s just one country. This $20 billion is a flow out of the US to a foreign country not in exchange for any material. It seems to me this and other transfers should count as foreign aid.
Thanks for the link. Now your own link says the US sends $95.5 billion from private sources abroad. Is that “rags?” Do you retract your statement?
December 28, 2009, 5:16 pmChris Grainger says:
Surely human rights derive from a state of nature. In a state of nature, unless there is a God, men have a right to all things. It is to leave the state of nature that we covenant to give up certain rights.
This is the problem with so many libertarians — they don’t understand their own intellectual tradition. Of course not all, but certainly this example.
Seriously, natural law requires a God or some extreme mental gymnastics. Leiter wrote an interesting article recently about how Dworkin has created a straw man argument against positive law theories, and he actually falls into line with Hart more than he cares to admit. It’s worth a read.
In any case, I can suggest you some reading if you like.
It seems you are simply repeating Grainger’s earlier confusion between rights and their enforcement.One recognizes the right of liberty as precisely what rational beings must accord each other in order to live in harmony.Or, one does not–and claims a “right” to engage in robbery, conquest, and murder.That some have successfully pursued such a course does not make it ok.Libertarian advocates of limited government (as opposed to, say, the anarcho-capitalists) see its role mainly as protecting liberty.Of course, there’s always that pesky problem of “who protects us from the protectors?” that many have struggled with, including the US founders.
December 28, 2009, 5:17 pmneurodoc says:
orca set “private aid” apart from what is dispensed by NGOs, though a good deal of what NGOs pass along surely comes from private parties.
December 28, 2009, 5:19 pmShelbyC says:
That was a great comic.
December 28, 2009, 5:24 pmLeo Marvin says:
I prefer Rawls to Rand, but in the end I’m not much for philosophical arguments. I’m more concerned with how we avoid letting our priors keep us from dealing effectively with problems we can’t think away, e.g., people in dire need. As you said, positive rights are here to stay, to which I say “thank God,” and for the social safety nets that serve them. That doesn’t mean private outreaches like Habitat aren’t better expressions of our humanity, just that they’re too few and far between. So to anyone who wants charity left to the uncoerced acts of individuals, I say in a world where enough people put their money where their mouths are I agree. But to those who’d object to any erosion of their liberty by a tax to feed the undernourished, I say call me a Rawlsian, but I’ll take the tax. The hard question for me is how to strike the best balance, one that maximizes the private and minimizes the perverse incentives encouraged by the public.
Happy Holidays, Des. Hope you’re well.
December 28, 2009, 5:25 pmLeo Marvin says:
Yes, and like all of Communism’s failures, it’s impossible to separate this one from the deprivation not just of unfettered, absolute autonomy, but of any autonomy whatsoever. It’s some people’s refusal to see the difference between those two that leads them to the ridiculous conflation of social democracy and Bolshevism.
December 28, 2009, 5:33 pmShelbyC says:
Well, it seems that tied to what your saying is a refusal to see the difference between the desirability of helping the less fortunate, and a obligation to help them, rooted in their human rights.
December 28, 2009, 5:40 pmorca says:
No, because I don’t accept the assertion that remittances should count as foreign aid.
And also, too I just donated to a friend who’s heading off to Bolivia to deliver a container full of Bibles to the poor there. Not sure if the poor consider Bibles to be better aid than rags but…
December 28, 2009, 5:51 pmKirk Parker says:
Chris Grainger,
I wish you weren’t so insistent on amusing yourself at our expense.
RPT,
Sorry, it’s your friendly neighborhood SWAT team I’m referring to.
December 28, 2009, 6:14 pmAllan Walstad says:
Chris Grainger:
When you come up with some actual arguments instead of a steady string of empty assertions and ignorant insults, I’ll be interested.
December 28, 2009, 6:16 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I’m not sure why NGOs (non-government organizations, yes?) should be set apart from “private aid”. If I want to donate money for famine relief in Sudan, I send it to World Vision or Catholic Charities, both of which have missions there. How the heck else am I going to do it? Travel there with bags of grain? Not terribly efficient.
December 28, 2009, 6:23 pmLeo Marvin says:
No, I see the difference. I consider it an obligation, but not because the less fortunate have a right to be helped. The demand comes from my own conscience.
December 28, 2009, 6:59 pmArthurKirkland says:
I don’t recall this, and hope it is a joke, because if true it greatly increases the likelihood that those who devised, implemented and supported the invasion of Iraq are destined to try to wash the blood from their hands in any hell that exists.
December 28, 2009, 7:05 pmShelbyC says:
Couldn’t agree more. But when demands that I help people come from other people’s conciences, or political agendas, and are enforced with penalties, that gets a little more problematic.
December 28, 2009, 7:12 pmMatthew Bilinsky says:
If this post isn’t the most egregious attempt at over-reach in trying to equate a desire for social cohesion with tyrannical government then it’s gotta be close. A desire to (foster conditions to) keep people fed and educated is not a “standard doctrine of the Soviet bloc.”
“We’re going to force equal access to resources down your throat while reserving the main share for those crafty and manipulative enough to ascend to powerful positions in the ruling party,” was the “standard doctrine of the Soviet bloc”. But apparently, that’s how Clinton’s words translated to Mr. Bernstein.
I come to the Volokh Conspiracy to hear thoughtful and constructive expressions of conservatism. Please move this speciously reasoned garbage over to the National Review Online. It fits better there.
December 28, 2009, 7:19 pmHarry Eagar says:
ShelbyC sez: ‘whoever is providing the positive benefit is being forced to spend their time and resourses providing that benefit instead of doing what they would choose’
Unless he volunteered.
Let’s say, just as an example, ShelbyC would not choose to educate women. We’re still gonna make him do it.
TS.
December 28, 2009, 7:23 pmLeo Marvin says:
What you consider coercive I consider an exercise of democracy. I sympathize with your feeling coerced, but it’s a valid form of coercion, not a moral equivalent of tyranny. Just like, though I’d hate the result and try to prevent it, I’d support the right of pro-lifers to use the democratic process to prohibit abortion (assuming the Supreme Court opened the door to it).
December 28, 2009, 7:54 pmShelbyC says:
Not sure what this has to do with the point of my comment, though.
December 28, 2009, 7:59 pmA. Zarkov says:
I got the impression you considered all non-government aid to be “rags.” So it’s only the “remittances” that are “rags.” But what about the $20 billion that Mexicans send to their relatives there? Way does that not count as aid? Money is fungible is it not? If I give to Bolivia through the Red Cross, how would that be different from my sending the same amount to a family there directly? In both cases there is a transfer of money from the US economy to the Bolivian economy assuming the family spends the money. Many people in the US send money abroad to both relatives and strangers, I don’t see why you reject that as aid. It looks like you are trying to portray Americans as being cheap when the very opposite is true.
December 28, 2009, 8:05 pmAllan Walstad says:
It can be both, of course. For those of us who find coercion (e.g. robbery) inimical to rights, this is a prime reason why the powers of government need to be strictly limited. Whether it’s you by yourself, or you and ten of your friends, or you and a whole Congress-load of pols coming to rob me doesn’t make it ok.
December 28, 2009, 8:21 pmLeo Marvin says:
When you call the remiters Americans I’ll call what they remit a form of aid.
December 28, 2009, 8:26 pmLeo Marvin says:
Yes, I admit what I said begs the question for anyone who rejects the legitimacy of our government’s right to exercise its constitutional authority, e.g., the 16th Amendment.
December 28, 2009, 8:40 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Actually, if you bothered to read the post carefully, you would have noticed that the quoted language re the Soviet Bloc was from a Washington Post editorial, not from me.
December 28, 2009, 8:59 pmA. Zarkov says:
It’s American money– that’s what counts.
December 28, 2009, 9:01 pmorca says:
The average American believes:
1. 18% of the federal budget goes to foreign aid
2. America spends too much on foreign aid
3. 3% of the federal budget is the right amount that should be spent on foreign aid
Given the fact that less than 1% of the budget goes to foreign aid…we are cheap.
If you insist on including remittances as foreign aid then you must deduct the amount of money Americans working abroad send home.
I’d guess you’d come up with a negative amount. Who do you think makes more money working abroad, Americans or Mexicans?
December 28, 2009, 9:18 pmpot meet kettle says:
your grade sheet usually carries that information. at least mine does, maybe yours doesn’t?
well.. if we’re being pedantic about origin, it’s actually chinese money. so no loss to you.
December 28, 2009, 9:39 pmAllan Walstad says:
[I was on the wrong thread with my previous comment, a couple minutes ago. I asked to have it removed. Perhaps it will be.]
1) 16A gives the feds the authority to collect an income tax. It does not otherwise increase the scope of federal authority. The Constitution limits the feds to a narrow range of enumerated powers, and simply robbing some people for the purpose of supplying the wants of other people is clearly not on that list. (By the way, the Constitution does not speak of the “rights” government, as I recall. Governments have “powers.” People have rights.)
December 28, 2009, 9:41 pm2) To the extent (which need not be inquired into here) that the Constitution does give the feds “authority” to violate people’s rights, of course, people’s rights come first. Again, it does not matter if just you, or you and ten buddies, or you and a Congressful or Constitutional Congressful of pols claim the authority to rob me in order to bestow charity on somebody else. As with laws, so with constitutions: those provisions which violate rights should be repealed.
A. Zarkov says:
You are a moving target. Now you leave out private money that goes through NGOs which your own link puts at $95.5 billion. So lets organize our calculations:
A. Budgeted aid from the US government $25.79 billion
B. Money that goes through NGOs $95.50 billion
C. Direct transfers “remittances” >$20.00 billion
D. Transfers from abroad ?
A+B+C > $141.29 billion. I say “>” because the $20 billion is just money going to Mexico. I’m sure the total is at least another $10 billion
We should not include in “D” money paid by US corporations to their US employees residing abroad because that’s American money. It should include money paid to US citizens residing abroad who earn that money from a foreign source. You want to subtract “D,” fine, do it. You must know the amount because you thinks it’s big. So give me your value for A+B+C-D. That would be the total American aid sent abroad, and I assert it’s not a small amount. Give me your value for D.
A+B+C-D
December 28, 2009, 10:08 pmorca says:
Try again, here is what my link said:
$122.8 billion of foreign aid was provided by Americans
$95.5 billion, or 79 percent, came from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals
More than half of all U.S. assistance to developing countries, $61.7 billion, came in the form of private remittances by individuals living in the United States to their families abroad
December 28, 2009, 10:24 pmneurodoc says:
Who exactly do you count as Americans, everyone in the Western Hemisphere whether from North, Central or South America, or just citizens of the United States of America?
December 28, 2009, 10:26 pmLeo Marvin says:
I’d never have guessed you were one of those “people don’t kill people, guns do” types. Go figure.
December 28, 2009, 10:27 pmLeo Marvin says:
Allan W., I have no doubt you sincerely believe all that. Suffice it to say we have very different notions of the social contract.
December 28, 2009, 10:29 pmLeo Marvin says:
When I say “American” I mean a U.S. citizen (I’m provincial that way), but for purposes of AZ’s answer, I’d accept anyone he’d allow to stay here permanently.
December 28, 2009, 10:40 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
$95.5 billion dollars … damn, that’s a lot of rags.
December 28, 2009, 11:16 pmMatthew Bilinsky says:
Mr. Bernstein, you linked to the post and quoted that line directly from it. The fact that you consider Clinton’s comments “appalling” seems to suggest that you whole-heartedly agree with the Washington Post’s characterization of her comments as invoking the principles of the Soviet bloc. I think anyone who read your post would get the same impression. If I got the incorrect impression then I am more than willing to hear you out on what I got wrong and what your actual views are.
December 29, 2009, 1:33 amjukeboxgrad says:
Leo, I just want to mention that I’m greatly enjoying your sharp mind, as usual. I also enjoyed your recent quip about my squashed TV, although I lost track of which thread that was.
December 29, 2009, 2:12 amjukeboxgrad says:
bilinsky:
As you probably realize, this is just a common form of right-wing hackery, as perhaps best exemplified by Glenn Reynolds. It works as follows: think of something you want to say, but don’t want to be held responsible for saying. Then find someone else who has said it, and quote them approvingly. Then when someone holds you responsible for promoting a hackish statement, pretend that it’s OK because the words weren’t your own.
There should be a word for this, maybe derived from the same root as ‘ventriloquism.’
Bush famous 16 words about yellowcake embodied the same technique. A typical defense of him went like this: he wasn’t really saying that Saddam sought yellowcake. He was only saying that UK said that Saddam sought yellowcake. Therefore his statement was literally true. Never mind that he was endorsing and promoting the UK claim, even though CIA had already determined that the UK claim wasn’t “very credible.”
This technique pops up often. An example of Jim Lindgren using the same technique is discussed here.
December 29, 2009, 2:33 amMatthew Bilinsky says:
Jukeboxgrad, you make a good point and this is a cheap technique. However, I’m willing to give Mr. Bernstein the benefit of the doubt and I’d still like to hear from him on the subject.
So, Mr. Bernstein, do you believe Hillary Clinton was advocating the doctrines of the Soviet bloc? And if not, why did you include that quote in the text that you posted from the WaPo editorial?
December 29, 2009, 3:56 amChris Grainger says:
I do apologize for being too abrasive and harsh. You’re right, I should have left out the insults. However, the assertions are not empty. The other poster has it right as well — Locke recognized that without God, there is no such thing as natural law. Hobbes tried to formulate a natural law without using God, and several scholars now see him as being fundamental to the positive law tradition.
Put simply, natural law, human rights, do not exist without a human social structure to enforce them. That includes the right to free speech, the right to property, etc. One may THINK they exist, but they do not (unless, of course, you believe that they derive from God, but surely you can agree that not everyone on Earth believes in a God or your God, so they cannot be universal). They are, in fact, normative.
Furthermore, in order for there to be ‘human rights’ as an aspect of positive law (as in the American constitution), we must covenant to give up some of our freedom. We give up the freedom to murder and steal in order to protect our right to life and property. This is why Locke (and Hobbes) considered the social contract to be based between the people, not between the people and their government.
So, if sacrificing freedoms in order to maintain rights is integral to positive law ‘human rights’ (because they do not exist without a government), then how does the right to education, for example, differ? We do not have the right to free speech simply because the government stays out of our way, but also because the government actively protects it through policing those who would infringe it. There is no such thing as complete laissez-faire government, and if there was, it would not protect our rights as enumerated in law (I believe someone else mentioned Somalia).
December 29, 2009, 6:01 amChris Grainger says:
Khalid Koser’s Very Short Introduction to International Migration has a good (albeit short) discussion on remittances for you, including direction to further reading.
Some other good readings that will show you (what should be self evident) that remittances and aid are very very different things:
Portes et al, Labor, Class and the International System (New York, 1981). — The chapter on migration and development in particular.
Rao & Takirua, ‘The effects of exports, aid and remittances on output: the case of Kiribati,’ in Applied Economics, March 2008.
Bourdet & Falck, ‘Emigrants’ remittances and Dutch Disease in Cape Verde’, in International Economic Journal 20, issue 3 (2006): 267-284.
De Haas, ‘International migration, remittances and development: myths and facts,’ in Third World Quarterly 26, issue 8 (2005): 1269-1284.
December 29, 2009, 6:23 amChris Grainger says:
I think part of the problem, as well, is that people assume that there is a trade-off. That we must give some of our ‘rights’ in order to maintain other rights that on the surface seem more contingent than the rights that we usually accept.
Thomas Pogge provides a very interesting argument against this. Put very simply (and I do suggest you read him rather than go by my short interpretation) he argues that we are currently infringing on the human rights of others by virtue of the extant international system and the economic structure it has created. I’ve seen this first hand, personally.
This is something that has quite a bit of capital among leading scholars including James Tully: the Breton Woods world system is a form of informal imperialism that subjugates the ‘third world’ through unfair trade and crippling international law (which does not have an equal protection clause: the weaker countries are forced to obey while the richer ones can flout the laws whenever they like).
Pogge (ed), Freedom from Poverty As a Human Right: Who Owes What to the Very Poor?, (Oxford, 2007).
Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights, (Polity, 2008).
Tully, ‘Modern Constitutional Democracy and Imperialism,’ Osgoode Hall Law Journal 46 (2008): 461-493.
December 29, 2009, 6:40 amChris Grainger says:
I couldn’t have (and didn’t) said it better myself.
December 29, 2009, 6:44 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
People (and especially libertarians) expend a lot of effort into giving the rights they want some special status (positive, negative, natural, magical) that other social goods such as public education can’t have. Among many shortcomings of this approach, I have never understood why I am supposed to pay taxes, those hideous enslaving taxes, to support the defense of Libertarian X and his or her property against force and fraud, no matter what my opinion of how X has acquired his or her property, nor whether I think, say, X has too much property or puts it to bad use. This strikes me as, if you will, the Parallel Postulate of Libertarianism, that turns out to be much less self-evident than it appears, and indeed, like the Parallel Postulate, doesn’t model the real physical world after all. What is does illustrate, as if we couldn’t guess, is that the typical Libertarian is well-aware that at the stage of human society where physical brutality counted for a lot more than in does today, he or she would probably have been left exposed on a rock as an infant. So force is something they are afraid of. Education and health care are not problems; mommy and daddy have taken care of them already.
December 29, 2009, 10:22 amPurple Kooaid says:
RPT, are you really so ignorant that you don’t know what libertarianism is?? I suggest you head over to mises.org and buy about 10 of their best sellers and maybe you will comprehend better. You write: Their problem with that is that the state would have to allocate resources away from a bloated and inefficient military, away from protective measures when their businesses go down the toilet, towards the provision of the true basis of libertarianism
What you describe is GWB and BHO, who are certainly NOT libertarians.
December 29, 2009, 11:14 amDesiderius says:
LM,
“Happy Holidays, Des. Hope you’re well.”
Reasonably so. I figured that it wouldn’t hurt to swing by the VC once a day while on XMas break, though I can feel it sucking me in again, so my visit will be a short one.
I remember the last time you asked feeling embarrassed that I hadn’t asked how you are doing, so I’ll ask now. How goes the practice? Perfect yet?
December 29, 2009, 11:25 amDesiderius says:
PK,
“RPT, are you really so ignorant that you don’t know what libertarianism is??”
Pretty much. Everyone is someone’s boogeyman. We’re his.
Perhaps less food for the troll would cut down on his ubiquity.
December 29, 2009, 11:27 amDesiderius says:
Chris Grainger,
“I think part of the problem, as well, is that people assume that there is a trade-off.”
It’s not an assumption, but rather an empirical observation. See the Berlin above.
“Thomas Pogge provides a very interesting argument against this. Put very simply (and I do suggest you read him rather than go by my short interpretation) he argues that we are currently infringing on the human rights of others by virtue of the extant international system and the economic structure it has created. I’ve seen this first hand, personally.”
Is there no useful distinction to be drawn between inevitable imperfections and active oppression? Certainly one should not be satisfied with the status quo; but is the blame game the most effective way forward? Agency, etc…
Good that you saw the, er, unhelpfulness, of the Leiteresque authoritarian air. Perhaps the ease with which you fell into it would suggest that DB’s concerns are not entirely baseless, or maybe each generation needs to burn it’s own hand before recognizing that the stove is, in fact, hot.
December 29, 2009, 11:34 amDesiderius says:
Matthew Blinksky,
“Washington Post’s characterization of her comments as invoking the principles of the Soviet bloc.”
Would you contend that they do not? I think you’re confusing illiberal Red-baiting (which would, wrongly in this case, allege that she invokes those principles because they’re Soviet, hence evidence of actively anti-American allegiances) with a liberal concern that those principles in practice have inevitably led to illiberal consequences, of which the Soviet Union itself is only the foremost example.
The average Soviet nomenklaturian was not some evil blood-sucking ogre, but instead convinced by these very same arguments that they were on the vanguard of progress. That they were not should give those who today advocate said principles at least some pause, less they follow in their footsteps, given the historical record.
December 29, 2009, 11:47 amShelbyC says:
Of course they’re different. Good, effective things things are different than bad, ineffective things.
But the whole discussion strikes me as one of semantics. You can define foreign aid as including remittances or not including remittances, and both definitions can be useful.
December 29, 2009, 11:52 amShelbyC says:
Why? Like most free-market transactions, it’s a non-zero sum game. Both Americans and Mexicans benefit from Americans working in Mexico, and both Mexicans and Americans (except Americans who provide unskilled labor) benefit from Mexicans working in the US.
December 29, 2009, 11:56 amDesiderius says:
LM,
Apologies for the serial posts. When with JBG…
“I’m more concerned with how we avoid letting our priors keep us from dealing effectively with problems we can’t think away, e.g., people in dire need.”
As am I. I’ve dedicated a large chunk of my life to doing just that, directly, and am attempting to counter the work of the philosophes that I’ve seen hindering them with their ivory tower systematizing, as does Berlin in his much more graceful manner.
“That doesn’t mean private outreaches like Habitat aren’t better expressions of our humanity, just that they’re too few and far between. So to anyone who wants charity left to the uncoerced acts of individuals, I say in a world where enough people put their money where their mouths are I agree.”
Ah, you mistake my meaning there. I highlighted HfHI not for it’s privacy (that’s an entirely different question – on which I’d say A. crowding out and B. why is privacy good for NARAL and the ACLU, but bad for everything else? – but I digress), but for it’s “eliminate sub-standard housing” model. It doesn’t build McMansions so that all can be equal, it focuses on decent housing, and, when done well, goes out of its way to maximize agency on the part of the homeowner, to the extent of homeowners themselves taking over some affiliates.
I think we agree on this point. The line of thought Clinton is following above does not necessarily, although I think there is common ground to be found there if the dangers are recognized.
“But to those who’d object to any erosion of their liberty by a tax to feed the undernourished, I say call me a Rawlsian, but I’ll take the tax.”
To acknowledge the erosion is not necessarily to object. The American people, in all our libertarianism, have, after all, voted to expend trillions of dollars on the Rawlsian project over the last half century or so. Rawls won, but all such victories are contingent on their effectiveness. See Union, Soviet.
“The hard question for me is how to strike the best balance, one that maximizes the private and minimizes the perverse incentives encouraged by the public.”
Exactly, with one suggestion. The perverse incentives arise primarily from the equation of state with public. That equation is not inherently liberal, nor even Left, from a historical perspective. Public action through Drucker’s Civil Society would seem a fruitful way forward once the present generation finishes burning their hand on monopolistic state action.
We’ll see.
December 29, 2009, 12:08 pmDavid Nieporent says:
It’s not so much that they need to be “paid for” so much as that they need to be produced.
Health care doesn’t grow on trees; someone (i.e., a doctor) has to provide it, out of his own labor. If someone has a “right” to his labor, then not giving it to that person is a violation of that person’s rights. In other words, the doctor must work for the person whether he wants to or not.
December 29, 2009, 1:38 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Grainger is; he claimed that we “give up the freedom to murder and steal”; to give it up, we had to have it originally. (To be clear, I am not saying he argues that murder and theft are good things; he doesn’t. He argues that these don’t violate rights, however, unless we “construct” rights that way.)
Of course, the problem with the social construction of rights as a notion is that it means that slavery in the south didn’t violate anybody’s rights, at least not until 1865. Sure, eventually we decided it did, but at the time, nope. And if we decide to re-implement it (after appropriate constitutional changes, of course), then you guys have no real argument against it. Sure, you can say you dislike it, but why should anybody care?
December 29, 2009, 1:58 pmCJColucci says:
Of course, the problem with the social construction of rights as a notion is that it means that slavery in the south didn’t violate anybody’s rights, at least not until 1865. Sure, eventually we decided it did, but at the time, nope. And if we decide to re-implement it (after appropriate constitutional changes, of course), then you guys have no real argument against it. Sure, you can say you dislike it, but why should anybody care?
December 29, 2009, 2:46 pmWhat do you mean “we,” paleface? Slavery ended because some of us won the war with others of us, and demanded abolition of slavery as a condition or returning to normal status within the Union. Until that happened, no slave in in Dixie had a “right” not to be a slave. Not that there weren’t, and wouldn’t be in a hard-to-imagine future, good arguments that could be made that it’s a bad thing to be a slave, and that the institution should be abolished. Just as there are decent arguments in favor of coercing robbers and murderers not to rob and murder. We come to the conclusions we come to and tack the name “right” on the result; but the word doesn’t do any real work until we come to agree on what is to be done.
Desiderius says:
CJC,
“but the word doesn’t do any real work until we come to agree on what is to be done.”
The word does it’s work in producing the agreement. Ideas matter.
December 29, 2009, 4:07 pmMatthew Bilinsky says:
Desiderius, the views of the average Soviet citizen are irrelevant since “average” citizens do not define the political doctrines of totalitarian countries. That’s why they’re totalitarian.
By equating Clinton’s words to Soviet doctrine, the WaPo is interpreting the desire to provide a modicum of social welfare in its most virulent, distorted, corrupted, and malignant form. It would be like equating any person who doesn’t like government to Timothy McVeigh. It is, in other words, bullsh*t.
December 29, 2009, 4:37 pmCJColucci says:
The word does it’s work in producing the agreement. Ideas matter.
One of us thinks the word is a result of agreement; the other thinks it is a cause of agreement. How would we go about resolving this?
December 29, 2009, 4:48 pmLeo Marvin says:
jbg, thanks and likewise.
December 29, 2009, 6:06 pmLeo Marvin says:
So I assumed. I hope I didn’t imply otherwise.
I didn’t intend that one either. Just the sloppy semantics of a trade school eduction.
December 29, 2009, 6:09 pmAs for the perfection, hardly. Journey vs. destination, and all that.
Chris Grainger says:
I’m really not — It’s the conundrum of natural law. Of course, people are terrified at the concept that morality isn’t absolute in some way. Unfortunately it’s not. I’m not a fan of moral relativism, but guess what — there’s no way to argue for the existence of natural law (which predicates human rights) that doesn’t include some sort of higher power. Law requires an arbiter.
There are attributes to this issue that are really largely ignored. Unfortunately legal scholarship is usually so insular that they ignore the idea that the universality of human rights imposes a Western conception of ‘rights’. In fact, the very meaning of many Western legal terms have been and are interpreted in different ways by different cultures (though of course there is interesting work on the linguistic interpretation of terms between modern European states as well). I’m doing research at the moment on constitutionalism in India and Japan c.1880-1950 — specifically the interpretation and execution of Western constitutional thought. The idea of constitutionalism has been largely hegemonic since the 40′s and 50′s and projects back. This happens to be around the time when the modern Western conception of human rights began to take hold.
I’d love to hear if someone can solve the dilemma — can you justify human rights (and, as such, natural law) without a higher power? Can you stick to positive law without resorting to moral relativism? Can we argue for anything but moral relativism without resorting to projecting our personal superiority?
If you think you CAN justify human rights, why JUST particular ones? Why is freedom of speech a human right and not education? Why is right to property a human right but not healthcare?
I’m currently at the position that human rights can be nothing but normative, yet that doesn’t reduce their importance. It does, however, take away the monopoly of the definition of such from certain posters above and Mr. Bernstein.
December 29, 2009, 6:22 pmChris Grainger says:
And yet dealing with what I’ve said above, I can’t shake what I feel to be right and wrong. How do we argue that slavery, colonialism, bigotry, etc are wrong? The closest I can get is the ‘golden rule’.
Dunno, at the end of the day. It hasn’t kept/isn’t keeping me from spending my life in the public service.
December 29, 2009, 6:29 pmSG says:
If you think you CAN justify human rights, why JUST particular ones? Why is freedom of speech a human right and not education? Why is right to property a human right but not healthcare?
This isn’t that hard – it’s a right if it’s something you’d possess in the absence of other people. If you were on a deserted island, you’d have sole possession of your property, you could freely express whatever ideas you wanted, etc. But there would be no right to health care because there would be no one to provide it you became sick.
This doesn’t mean that a society can’t choose to provide universal health care, or even proclaim it to be a “right”, but a right that requires someone else’s involvement is qualitatively different. Suppose a society declared health care to be a right, but no one in that society choose to be a doctor and therefore no one could receive health care. In such a scenario, have the people’s rights been violated? If so, who has violated them? What would the appropriate remedy – could people be compelled to become doctors against their will?
December 29, 2009, 7:55 pmChris Grainger says:
If there were no other people I’d have the right to be nude outdoors. Is that a human right? Or are only some of the rights I possess on this island human rights? Which ones? Why do you get to decide?
Do I not have a right to life if there is no food on the island? What do I consider property in the absence of other people? What do I consider property at all? Is it possible I don’t come from a liberal European background? Could I have an attitude towards property and self that isn’t assumed by modern Western values? What is expression without other people?
I feel that other people are necessary for the fulfilment of my life (read Hobbes), does that mean that I have no right to pursue happiness on this island? Do I have the right to a fair and speedy trial?
Humans are social animals who do not exist alone on islands. All rights are contingent and all rights require someone else’s involvement.
December 29, 2009, 8:44 pmDesiderius says:
Chris Grainger,
“I’d love to hear if someone can solve the dilemma — can you justify human rights (and, as such, natural law) without a higher power?”
Well, you’re trying to deny both the cake and the eating. If universals are illusions, then we have to make due with the transversals we have. From my perspective, the higher power works* in that it’s sufficiently transversal in the American context, and has demonstrated enough benefit in the non-American context to satisfy most of those not primarily bent on denying the premise rather than securing human rights, often chasing after the impossible universal ideal.
* – in this case, in a similar manner to which saying “apple” works better than having to link here to convey my meaning whenever I want to refer to that concept – those five letters of course having no inherent connection to the concept itself. Deist religion acts as a symbolic language for our civil discourse.
December 29, 2009, 10:49 pmDesiderius says:
CJ,
“One of us thinks the word is a result of agreement; the other thinks it is a cause of agreement. How would we go about resolving this?”
History?
Did Lincoln see fit to refer to the Declaration? Why?
December 29, 2009, 10:56 pmDesiderius says:
MB,
“Desiderius, the views of the average Soviet citizen are irrelevant since “average” citizens do not define the political doctrines of totalitarian countries. That’s why they’re totalitarian.”
The nomenklatura were not “average citizens.” The state was totalitarian, but the Party’s fortunes hinged on their enthusiastic support for it’s aims; support secured by rhetoric not dissimilar from Clinton’s here. Once it became undeniably clear that those aims were not being realized, the support collapsed, and thus the Party and State. The nomenklatura were citizens in the Roman sense, and this was their creed.
Note that the similarity is due not to Clinton’s non-existent Communist sympathies, but from the shared roots in the hard enlightenment/French Revolution.
“By equating Clinton’s words to Soviet doctrine, the WaPo is interpreting the desire to provide a modicum of social welfare in its most virulent, distorted, corrupted, and malignant form. It would be like equating any person who doesn’t like government to Timothy McVeigh. It is, in other words, bullsh*t.”
The equation is already there, WaPo merely acknowledges it. Red-baiting was effective when there were actually those around with divided loyalties on the question. Now that that is no longer the case, I don’t see what would be gained by engaging in it, so I think the concerns of the editorial lie elsewhere – i.e. the clear historical tension between positive and negative rights of which Clinton is either unaware or attempts to paint over.
December 29, 2009, 11:13 pmDesiderius says:
LM,
“I hope I didn’t imply otherwise.”
Not at all. Acknowledging commonality of approach.
“Just the sloppy semantics of a trade school eduction.”
Same here. In the land of the blind…
“As for the perfection, hardly. Journey vs. destination, and all that.”
Of course. Keep on practicing.
December 29, 2009, 11:20 pmAn atheist on an island says:
If Chris Grainger hit me on the head and said, “Give me your coconut,” I’d have a right to fight back. I’d have a right to the coconut that he wants for himself.
No mention of God in all that. In fact, I’d ask Chris Grainger where he got the idea he had a right that I didn’t have: the right to the coconut, which he’s made me defend.
Did God tell Chris Grainger that it was his right? Apparently not. But Hillary Clinton hears God, and God says, “That coconut is all yours.” What else could explain where her right could come from?
So she drags in a higher power to defend what she’s done. Chris Grainger, on the other hand, doesn’t use that excuse. In either case, the result is the same. I’m hit on the head, and my rights have been trashed.
Chris Grainger doesn’t argue. He just takes it as read that he has a right to steal the things that he likes. He just asserts the word “right” means what he likes. Not quite like Hillary Clinton, but not an advance.
December 30, 2009, 1:56 ampot meet kettle says:
fully agreed. i assume by using the term coconut, a hollow hard shelled object, you mean your head?
December 30, 2009, 8:09 amjukeboxgrad says:
bilinsky:
Thanks. Likewise.
You must be new here.
==============
andrew:
Indeed. Adam Smith pointed out that government tends to protect the interests of the rich. He said those who benefit from “inequality of fortune” depend on the government to protect that inequality.
The libertarian fantasy (at least for some libertarians, apparently) is to get rid of the whole government, except for the department that hires Blackwater to chase the poor people off their lawn.
==============
nieporent:
The same ‘analysis’ applies to the cop who is responsible for hauling away any poor people who pitch a tent in your private forest. That cop must work for you “whether he wants to or not.” What’s the difference between the two scenarios? The only difference (relevant to this discussion) is that one involves a right that you choose to recognize, and the other involves a right that you choose to not recognize.
December 30, 2009, 9:06 amDesiderius says:
“Adam Smith pointed out that government tends to protect the interests of the rich. He said those who benefit from “inequality of fortune” depend on the government to protect that inequality.”
And today they have the chutzpah to call themselves Progressive, and the Progressives too consumed with harassing Libertarian scapegoats to notice.
December 30, 2009, 9:58 amCJColucci says:
Atheist on an Island:
December 30, 2009, 10:55 amOn the island, what makes it “your” coconut? And though Chris G can speak for himself, I don’t think he’d say he has a “right” to take your coconut, or dispute your “right” to resist your taking the coconut he wants for himself. On your two-inhabitant island, there’s just raw natural conflict, and “rights” don’t enter into the question at all — until you both decide otherwise so you can get some sleep at night.
David Nieporent says:
Incorrect; I don’t recognize a “right” to have cops defend you or your property. (A right to equal protection from the government, yes, but not protection per se.)
December 30, 2009, 11:32 amMatthew Bilinsky says:
Desiderius, don’t be a WaPo apologist. If it didn’t want to engage in Red-baiting then it shouldn’t have made the reference. Shoving it in there did nothing but sully the quality of the discourse it was trying to engage in. We already have enough cable news schlock jocks doing that, we don’t need the Washington Post doing it too.
December 30, 2009, 1:55 pmAn atheist on an island says:
I can think of a half dozen ways to get things: trade, work, make, find, or a gift. The sixth is to steal. So Hillary Clinton and Chris Grainger biffed me on the head.
How’d she get her “human right” to do that? And how’d he get the chutzpah, if he won’t call it a right? He thinks he’s entitled to hit me on the head. Call it an “entitlement” instead of a right.
And where is that from? How could it exist? She claims it’s her right to go ahead and steal things. He’s “entitled” to same. But they’re wrong about that, which is where I get the right to resist what they’ve done.
That’s how it works. The warlord in Mogadishu just pretends to a right. His victims have a right to defend their own homes. The slaveowner in Atlanta just pretends to a right. His victims have a right to flee and get out.
There’s no right to censorship. So there’s a right to free speech. There’s no right to rent-seeking. So there’s a right to free trade.
Why do Hillary Clinton and Chris Grainger turn violent to get things? Because they don’t have a right. They have to hit me. They can’t use persuasion. They’re left with brute force.
December 30, 2009, 8:37 pmjukeboxgrad says:
des:
As usual, you are making declarations that are bizarre and unsupported. The rich “call themselves Progressive?” Really? Making that claim is what requires chutzpah. I guess you mean these folks.
======================
nieporent:
It’s a relatively small jump from ‘cop’ to ‘soldier,’ and a relatively small jump from ‘poor person from across the tracks’ to ‘poor person from across the border.’ You don’t claim the right to use my money to finance soldiers who make sure that hungry Mexicans don’t pawn your family jewels? If so, you are a rare creature, and so far from the libertarian norm that your view is interesting but not particularly representative or relevant.
December 31, 2009, 1:16 amChris Grainger says:
Atheist on an island simply isn’t making sense. Why, exactly, would I hit you on the head? Why would I claim a right to ‘your’ coconut? Why do you have a right to said coconut? What makes it YOUR coconut or MY coconut? This has just gotten silly, and I’m more worried about the rumour going round that Hillary Clinton and I have formed a gang of coconut thieves who hit people over the head! ;)
Desiderius, your point about the transversal would be fine if the world was American and Americans are as homogeneous as people like to believe. What your saying explains the choice to enshrine in positive law beliefs about natural law, but it does not explain the natural law itself. I’m of the opinion that human rights SHOULD be included in positive law, but not because they are natural, but rather because they are normative and we should strive towards them. The problem is that that takes away the monopoly of definition, and we’re left with no legitimate measuring stick of what makes a ‘human right’ a ‘right’ and whether or not it is ‘good’.
December 31, 2009, 8:25 amjukeboxgrad says:
“no legitimate measuring stick”
The Golden Rule is probably a good place to start. If there’s something I consider essential to my own survival and welfare, then I should probably believe that other people have a right to that something. Unless I completely reject the concept of human rights.
December 31, 2009, 10:39 amjukeboxgrad says:
nieporent:
If you loan me money, and I refuse to repay you, and you take me to court and then use various government-supported means (garnishment, liens) to get your money back, do you have a “right” to do so? And is it OK for the taxman to confiscate my neighbor’s income to finance this process? And how is this any different, morally, than the taxman confiscating my neighbor’s income to finance cops who haul away the homeless people who decided to pitch a tent in your private forest?
This is aside from the question I asked you about how you differentiate (in this regard) between cops and soldiers.
I’m wondering if there are principles underlying your libertarianism, or if it’s just arbitrary and opportunistic.
December 31, 2009, 1:39 pmChris Grainger says:
Jukeboxgrad: I would have to agree about the ‘golden rule’, but I’m still a bit hesitant in assigning that as a universal measurement for natural law/human rights. It assumes a ‘reasonable man’ as a point of reference, and that’s really problematic (though widely used).
Also, back to earlier (why am I even doing that? Masochism?) — Hobbes and Locke (and Pufendorf for that matter) considered ‘rights’ simply as obligations others have. Interesting, considering that some people on here (who claim to be libertarians, IE the intellectual descendants of Locke) think that a right to free speech does not infringe on the ‘rights’ of others. What is the social contract then?
December 31, 2009, 3:01 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Chris, good points.
December 31, 2009, 6:37 pmAn atheist on an island says:
If you respect someone’s rights, you make a deal with them, you talk, you offer something. The alternative is what slaveowners, warlords, or progressives would do. They use violence instead, to get around the constraints human rights represent.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are real rights we’re born with. Universal and abstract. Not metaphysical. Not an imposition of will. Totally incompatible with the right to steal things. You have to use violence, because it’s not a real right. Your victims have rights. You just have your fists. There are heaps of good ways to get coconuts. But if you don’t respect people’s rights, you take the short cut. You don’t waste your time persuading some guy, or doing what he’s done, or trading something.
The excuses begin. You say, “He’s the bad guy.” But he didn’t use violence. He made a fair trade, or did honest work, or climbed up the tree. Whatever he did, it doesn’t matter. You’re the one hitting him. And saying, all same time, you’re entitled to it, and he’s not.
Dictators do this. They say property is theft, unless it is theft. They make themselves rich at the expense of the rest, and say no one else can own things. “Only governments can.” They say, “Making money is illegal. Taking money is not.” To them, violence sanctifies things. Contracts are tainted, but stealing is just.
As if the right to own property is not a real right, but the right to own property that was transferred to you by fiat, at someone else’s expense, and against their free will, really is.
January 1, 2010, 8:22 pm