Marvin theMartian: ALL rights exist only because of the structures of law and custom that have built up over time. Every single right you or I have, whether it’s one you like or one you don’t like, is a right only because it is defined as such in law.
I agree, but it is not a universally held view on the nature of rights. There are those who regard some rights as natural rights an individual possesses by virtue of being human, and are not, therefore, cultural in origin. Additionally, there are those, after Aquinas, who believe in natural law that can be ascertained through the exercise of right reason.
Marvin theMartian: ALL rights exist only because of the structures of law and custom that have built up over time. Every single right you or I have, whether it’s one you like or one you don’t like, is a right only because it is defined as such in law.
I agree, but it is not a universally held view on the nature of rights. There are those who regard some rights as natural rights an individual possesses by virtue of being human, and are not, therefore, cultural in origin. Additionally, there are those, after Aquinas, who believe in natural law that can be ascertained through the exercise of right reason.
Similarly those on the right who believe the laws reflect a 'natural order'.
tbf, I think for any acceptable definition of right, having recourse in law to uphold that right is a prerequisite of it actually being a right, rather than a lofty ideal.
Property 'rights' are, as @Arethosemyfeet opined, simply a nature of the laws we use to define them. We're at liberty to collectively change them. If we want to vote on breaking up the big estates, with or without compensation, then it's up to someone in the legislature to propose it and gather sufficient support to see that it's carried.
having recourse in law to uphold that right is a prerequisite of it actually being a right
Do you really believe that Doc ?
Someone (Godwin forgive me) once said something like
Jewish 'rights' are simply a nature of the laws we use to define them. We're at liberty to collectively change them. If we want to vote on confiscating Jewish property, with or without compensation, then it's up to someone in the legislature to propose it and gather sufficient support to see that it's carried.
Seems to me that a meaningful discussion of the relationship between the individual and the state has to acknowledge that each can do wrong to the other, and that therefore each has rights and duties in respect of the other.
But some prefer a socialist fantasy in which acts of a socialist government are Us-acting-collectively (and considerations of moral legitimacy place no limit on such acts). Whereas acts of a non-socialist government are frequently wrongful and oppressive, and are Them (the puppets of the uber-wealthy) imposing on Us (the real people).
Nothing you have said negates anything I have said.
Rights don't meaningfully exist outside of our collective ability to enforce them. It's a fundamental lesson of history, as is the need to collectively fight for them against an overbearing state.
But, we're in the middle of a national emergency, a global pandemic, and it's entirely appropriate that our political leaders make sure that we're all kept informed about what the government is doing...
Part of the problem with the current "emergency" is that there is no endpoint. No clear condition that has to be met for it to be cease to be an emergency and just be an ordinary disease that lots of people get and occasionally someone dies from.
The notion that extraordinary circumstances require a level of totalitarianism that most of us would normally consider a Bad Thing is perfectly reasonable.
Defence from external threats is part of the legitimate role of government.
I read this and thought, how would you have coped with either of the World Wars? They went on for a lot longer than this.
I can't remember which cop drama I'd caught a bit of recently. The scene was the cop interrogating a car thief when a body is discovered ... the car thief is left handcuffed and declares "you can't just leave me here, I have rights". The cop's response was "what about the rights of the Mercedes owner?" Car thief: "He don't need rights, he's got a Mercedes".
The most important rights in law are those that protect the interests of the powerless, for they are the people who will have their interests trampled on otherwise. The rich (including the relative rich like me) don't need to have our rights protected as much because we're not going to get trampled into the dust in the same way as the poor are.
As for all this taking property business, can we start by accepting that taxation is not a form of taking property?
The law certainly doesn't regard taxation as taking property.** At which point, one can be merrily socialist by taxing wealthy people heavily without getting into that particular issue.
**Otherwise certain provisions of the Australian Constitution that were written over 120 years ago and based on UK legal principles completely collapse.
Well, it's not the socialists you need to convince on this...
Quite. Equating taxation with taking property and therefore designating it as conflicting with property rights is a sort of cornerstone of Right-Libertarianism and the sort of position Russ appears to hold which is deeply indebted to it.
Well, it's not the socialists you need to convince on this...
No, but I'm deliberately appealing to law because of the audience. If the complaint about "taking property" is based on taxation, then the complaint is simply wrong as far as a thoroughly property-loving and property-supporting legal tradition over centuries is concerned.
Right-wing government don't have a problem with taxation, they just have different views as to where the money goes. And the level of taxation is a policy question, not a legal one.
Well, it's not the socialists you need to convince on this...
No, but I'm deliberately appealing to law because of the audience. If the complaint about "taking property" is based on taxation, then the complaint is simply wrong as far as a thoroughly property-loving and property-supporting legal tradition over centuries is concerned.
I don't think the audience in this cares so much about what the law is as what in his view it ought to be.
having recourse in law to uphold that right is a prerequisite of it actually being a right
Do you really believe that Doc ?
Someone (Godwin forgive me) once said something like
Jewish 'rights' are simply a nature of the laws we use to define them. We're at liberty to collectively change them. If we want to vote on confiscating Jewish property, with or without compensation, then it's up to someone in the legislature to propose it and gather sufficient support to see that it's carried.
Seems to me that a meaningful discussion of the relationship between the individual and the state has to acknowledge that each can do wrong to the other, and that therefore each has rights and duties in respect of the other.
That's all fine and I suspect you would get universal agreement so far from Shipmates. Godwin would forgive you I suspect and I definitely will because any discussion of rights should involve the concept of inalienable rights and what happens in a society that declares that some people have none.
So far, so good. But here's where you go completely off the rails and revert to a Strawman. (If you can forgive the horrible mixing of metaphors herein):
But some prefer a socialist fantasy in which acts of a socialist government are Us-acting-collectively (and considerations of moral legitimacy place no limit on such acts). Whereas acts of a non-socialist government are frequently wrongful and oppressive, and are Them (the puppets of the uber-wealthy) imposing on Us (the real people).
Firstly, it should give you pause that the people you are arguing with are proponents of the Human Rights Act and Universal Human Rights in general. I think this side-bar is particularly pertinent as the HRA is a unique piece of law* in that it only applies to the state and to agents of the state. The whole point of it is to recognise, outlaw, prevent and where necessary provide a remedy to, injury to individuals by the state.
Given that the supporters/defenders of human rights are predominantly democratic socialists, you have quite a job to do to argue that socialism = authoritarianism. Simply declaring it doesn't really get us anywhere.
The other key point here is that in a democratic society, we the people and the state are not completely separate entities. As the brilliant Toby Zeigler put it, Government is a place where people come together...
No one here is denying the dangers of state power. But that is neither the only kind of power nor the only danger. Moreover, it is not the only characteristic of governments. Governments can be a force for good; that's arguably the reason we have democracy. Feudalism is always possible. The problem with much of modern capitalism is that it undermines democracy and looks a lot like feudalism. And the state is often coopted to serve limited private interests.
AFZ
*IANAL. I would not be offended if someone needed to correct me on this.
Well, it's not the socialists you need to convince on this...
No, but I'm deliberately appealing to law because of the audience. If the complaint about "taking property" is based on taxation, then the complaint is simply wrong as far as a thoroughly property-loving and property-supporting legal tradition over centuries is concerned.
I don't think the audience in this cares so much about what the law is as what in his view it ought to be.
Possibly. But if he does turn out to have a view that is so thoroughly idiosyncratic then I will feel safe to ignore it rather than address it further.
To put it shortly, believing that taxation is inherently 'socialist' would be stupid.
No one here is denying the dangers of state power. But that is neither the only kind of power nor the only danger. Moreover, it is not the only characteristic of governments. Governments can be a force for good; that's arguably the reason we have democracy. Feudalism is always possible. The problem with much of modern capitalism is that it undermines democracy and looks a lot like feudalism. And the state is often coopted to serve limited private interests.
To my mind (and experience), one of the chief functions of the state should be to protect communities from powerful individuals, who believe they can operate outside of the law - be they powerful politicians, rich landowners or crime bosses. That the state fails to do so (or worse, enables them to rewrite the law) is a failing of the state, not of the ideal.
The right to enjoy your personal property and have a peaceful life is less intruded on by the state than it is by bad actors within and without your community.
No one here is denying the dangers of state power. But that is neither the only kind of power nor the only danger. Moreover, it is not the only characteristic of governments. Governments can be a force for good; that's arguably the reason we have democracy. Feudalism is always possible. The problem with much of modern capitalism is that it undermines democracy and looks a lot like feudalism. And the state is often coopted to serve limited private interests.
To my mind (and experience), one of the chief functions of the state should be to protect communities from powerful individuals, who believe they can operate outside of the law - be they powerful politicians, rich landowners or crime bosses. That the state fails to do so (or worse, enables them to rewrite the law) is a failing of the state, not of the ideal.
The right to enjoy your personal property and have a peaceful life is less intruded on by the state than it is by bad actors within and without your community.
To put it shortly, believing that taxation is inherently 'socialist' would be stupid.
States need money to function. So it seems to me that the choices are either that your state owns lots of income-generating assets, and funds itself that way, or your state is funded by its citizens via some sort of equitable distribution of costs. (Or some combination, obviously).
To my mind (and experience), one of the chief functions of the state should be to protect communities from powerful individuals, who believe they can operate outside of the law -
And, of course, to protect individuals from powerful communities who believe they can operate outside of the law.
To my mind (and experience), one of the chief functions of the state should be to protect communities from powerful individuals, who believe they can operate outside of the law - be they powerful politicians, rich landowners or crime bosses. That the state fails to do so (or worse, enables them to rewrite the law) is a failing of the state, not of the ideal.
That the law is written and rewritten by powerful politicians is a feature, not a bug. That's what a powerful politician is.
No-one is arguing against the idea that defending citizens from crime bosses is part of the role of the state. Whether it's meaningful to talk of the role of the state or whether the state should be able to do whatever the hell it wants is however part of the issue.
And lumping rich landowners in with crime bosses is just your socialist prejudice showing. If I were to go around talking of "felons, perverts and socialists" you wouldn't be impressed...
Which is why it is vitally important that those powerful communities are democratically elected and accountable.
That those in power can be held accountable for the wrongs they commit is indeed vitally important. That they gain power by being voted in is rather less so.
The right to enjoy your personal property and have a peaceful life is less intruded on by the state than it is by bad actors within and without your community.
I think that is not true within all states, and that it is largely because we live in a democratic state with socialist tendencies that you think states are generally not a threat to personal property and peaceful life. Benevolent capitalist dictatorships for instance tend to be more intrusive. You are at the very least substantially downplaying the ability of bad actors to capture the apparatus of the state, and one doesn't have to be a Marxist to think that control by bad actors is the original raison d'etre of the state.
That the UK state is still generally benevolent and preferable to the other actors on the scene is the result of the struggles of liberals, democrats, and socialists.
That the UK state is still generally benevolent and preferable to the other actors on the scene is the result of the struggles of liberals, democrats, and socialists.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I understand that. I also understand that all the good things we enjoy have been wrested from the hands of the rich and powerful, sometimes at the point of a gun. So I'm very aware that the millionaire front bench of the Tory government represents at least the partial capture of the state by bad actors. Personally, I wouldn't have put them there, and I echo @KarlLB 's call for everyone who exercises power to be both accountable and elected - the Benn test, if you will.
And I reject @Russ 's suggestion that being accountable is somehow different from being voted into office. I wouldn't want to have a revolution every time I wanted to change a government: that shit can get messy very quickly.
The right to enjoy your personal property and have a peaceful life is less intruded on by the state than it is by bad actors within and without your community.
As long as you don’t have too much personal property, of course.
I can't remember if I have already made an allusion on this thread to G.K.Chesterton's remark that justifying the Duke of Westminster's personal holdings by the principle of property rights is like justifying the Sultan's harem by the sacredness of marriage.
The right to enjoy your personal property and have a peaceful life is less intruded on by the state than it is by bad actors within and without your community.
As long as you don’t have too much personal property, of course.
This isn't the first time you've deliberately confused personal property and private property, and I expect it won't be the last.
I can't remember if I have already made an allusion on this thread to G.K.Chesterton's remark that justifying the Duke of Westminster's personal holdings by the principle of property rights is like justifying the Sultan's harem by the sacredness of marriage.
You did, and I was very taken by the idea, and looked it up: p. 235 of this
I can't remember if I have already made an allusion on this thread to G.K.Chesterton's remark that justifying the Duke of Westminster's personal holdings by the principle of property rights is like justifying the Sultan's harem by the sacredness of marriage.
Have to admire GKC's mastery of the English language. But behind the soundbite ?
Isn't the basic question here whether or not it's anyone else's business how much property the Duke has or how many wives the Sultan has ?
If the latest wife has been coerced or the latest property acquired dishonestly, then yes - a crime is just as much a crime (no more, no less) when committed by someone with wealth and power.
What basis is there for the notion that other people have some sort of right to know how many wives, and to act to reduce that number if they don't think it "justified" ?
The right to enjoy your personal property and have a peaceful life is less intruded on by the state than it is by bad actors within and without your community.
As long as you don’t have too much personal property, of course.
This isn't the first time you've deliberately confused personal property and private property, and I expect it won't be the last.
So you see no upper limit on how much personal property (defined however you like) someone should have?
You know there's a definition of personal property that's outwith my keeping. You can throw as much chaff as you like, but it won't help bolster your argument.
Isn't the point about 'powerful communities' that they make the law so they don't have to operate outside it?
Which is why it is vitally important that those powerful communities are democratically elected and accountable.
(Pedant alert: Communities don't get elected but individuals from those communities do).
I'm concerned that people with wealth and power may use such advantages to help them get elected unfairly. How many UK MPs came from ordinary family backgrounds, went to state schools and spent years earning a wage or salary? I don't know but I'd like to.
Doc:Tor If you can pick it up and move it, it's personal property.
It's a bit more complicated than that isn't it? I note, Doc, from the useful reference you offer us: "In political/economic theory, notably socialist, Marxist, and most anarchist philosophies, the distinction between private and personal property is extremely important. Which items of property constitute which is open to debate. In some economic systems, such as capitalism, private and personal property are considered to be exactly equivalent."
Doc:Tor If you can pick it up and move it, it's personal property.
It's a bit more complicated than that isn't it? I note, Doc, from the useful reference you offer us: "In political/economic theory, notably socialist, Marxist, and most anarchist philosophies, the distinction between private and personal property is extremely important. Which items of property constitute which is open to debate. In some economic systems, such as capitalism, private and personal property are considered to be exactly equivalent."
Yes, it's a bit more complicated. But, as mentioned, the working definition of personal property (vs real property) is something that's widely acknowledged and understood. We can go from there if you want, but I'm offering to accept that so we don't get bogged down in yet another pointless definition war, and get to talk about the principles instead.
Though, a separation of "personal property" from "private property" is a more socialist concept that those coming from a capitalist perspective may not recognise.
I think everyone would be OK with, say, I have a car which is my own personal property for my own exclusive use - and if someone else drives that car without my permission that's theft. No one would question the right to choose which shirt to wear (no matter how unstylish that may be).
But, things get a lot murkier with, say, someone owns a factory so it belongs to them but is also a place where other people come to work ... to what extent does the owner have rights over that private property that conflict with the rights of the people that use that property (in this case, workers), does the private ownership mean that rights to a safe working environment don't apply? or the right to earn a living wage? to what extent would rights to "do with my property as I want" extend to sacking everyone and letting the building stand empty? or running processes that produce toxic effluent that are just left lying around the without being properly secured or disposed off, risking pollution of property beyond what is owned by that person?
If what was owned was, say, a large expanse of moorland to what extent is that "private property" and no one else has a say in the management of that land? Or, does the fact that it's a rainwater catchment and the water flowing off it is used by the local communities for drinking or watering crops impact the ability of the owner to do what they want? Such areas of land have an amenity value beyond the landowner; the aforementioned water, a scenic landscape to attract tourists, etc.
At one extreme of capitalist thought would be that the only person who has any say would be the owner; amenity values such as local employment and environment would have no relevance. This is "private property" and the owner enjoys the same rights over it as "personal property", if the owner decides to put up "keep out signs" and stops hikers crossing the land with armed wardens that's no more anyone else's business than if he decided to put on the blue check shirt rather than the yellow silk. At the other extreme Communist thought, anything with amenity value beyond the owner should be public property held by the people for the people. Almost everyone is somewhere in between those extremes. We accept that everyone has some personal property which is theirs, and over which no one else has any rights (some, of course, have a lot more than others) and no one should be taking that property from them. We accept that some people (and I'm going to expand that to include corporations and the like which are owned by people just because I'm writing this and I can simplify things that way) own property that has amenity value to others (a place to live, something giving employment, a source of common resources, recreational value etc) and that ownership carries some social responsibilities (if you own a home someone else is living in then you need to maintain it at some basic minimum standard ...). The question is, where is the balance point between personal gain from private property and the social responsibilities that accrue to owning private property? And, especially for socialists, at what point does the amenity value of a particular property cross the threshold that maintaining this is best done by a different model of ownership than keeping that as private property (eg: state ownership, community ownership, breaking the property into smaller privately owned units with owners working in cooperation ...)
It's the movable bit that puzzles me. Setting asides the possession of precious stones, does it include the possession of stocks and shares, Bit Coins, and property that exists in cyberspace and accessible from my computer?
It's the movable bit that puzzles me. Setting asides the possession of precious stones, does it include the possession of stocks and shares, Bit Coins, and property that exists in cyberspace and accessible from my computer?
Shares are not a thing in themselves, they are a share in something. The very fact that it is shared tends to take it beyond personal property. Bitcoin is no different from other currencies in existing primarily on computer. It just has a vastly fluctuating exchange rate, in part because there is no central bank with the power buffer it and in part because there is no economy primarily priced in it to which its value is anchored.
Though, a separation of "personal property" from "private property" is a more socialist concept that those coming from a capitalist perspective may not recognise.
No, they may not want to recognise it, but the concept is well established outside of socialism.
But, things get a lot murkier with, say, someone owns a factory so it belongs to them but is also a place where other people come to work
No, it doesn't get murkier. The situation here is perfectly clear. Can you pick up a factory? No. Then it's real property, and is considered private property.
If what was owned was, say, a large expanse of moorland to what extent is that "private property"
Real property. Again, perfectly clear.
At one extreme of capitalist thought would be that the only person who has any say would be the owner; amenity values such as local employment and environment would have no relevance. This is "private property" and the owner enjoys the same rights over it as "personal property", if the owner decides to put up "keep out signs" and stops hikers crossing the land with armed wardens that's no more anyone else's business than if he decided to put on the blue check shirt rather than the yellow silk.
You mean, where we are, the status quo.
At the other extreme Communist thought, anything with amenity value beyond the owner should be public property held by the people for the people.
I'm not sure why you're characterising this as an extreme position. You're literally talking about the Commons.
Almost everyone is somewhere in between those extremes.
No, almost everyone is in favour of expanding the Commons. Only a very few people are in favour of the status quo - unfortunately, they're the ones who've made the laws that keep the status quo intact, and by disseminating scare stories about how the socialists are after your toothbrush.
The rest of your comment is simply the usual liberal social democratic tweak to make capitalism just a bit less shit without ever having to address the structural inequalities inherent in the system.
As the Wiki reference indicates the distinction between personal and private property is a question for socialist rather than capitalist society because in a society where most property is held in common there remains the residual question as to what items the state might wish to leave in private hands, which would not include things of any significant value.
At the other extreme Communist thought, anything with amenity value beyond the owner should be public property held by the people for the people.
I'm not sure why you're characterising this as an extreme position. You're literally talking about the Commons.
I've not come across the Commons as describing everything being public property, but maybe that's a version that's common in others experience. IME, the Commons usually is applied to land, services (schools, health, buses etc), and sometimes particular large employers (especially those where the local community is entirely dependent on a single business). Does the concept of the Commons apply to all housing? Every business from behemoths like Amazon to the guy with a bucket and a small van who cleans windows?
Nothing at all, which is why I deliberately characterised the position of everything being public property as an extreme (and, one I described as Communist rather than Socialist) that no one here (and very few anywhere) would consider.
Indeed. If I have an apple tree in a pot, I can pick it up and move it. If it's planted in the garden, I can't. Why should planting my tree give anyone else any rights in it ? Not seeing the logic...
At one extreme of capitalist thought would be that the only person who has any say would be the owner; amenity values such as local employment and environment would have no relevance. This is "private property" and the owner enjoys the same rights over it as "personal property"
You're talking here Alan about three different reasons why others may have rights in your private property.
One to do with environment - if your car pollutes the atmosphere (which is part of the commons) then you may have duties to limit that impact.
One to do with amenity - if your car is something that people like looking at then they would suffer a loss of utility if you were to decide to scrap it (or conversely if it's an eyesore they might very much want you to do so).
One to do with employment - if you pay someone else to drive your car for you then you seem to think this gives him some rights over it.
I'd fully accept the environment argument. But the other two seem highly questionable.
Nothing at all, which is why I deliberately characterised the position of everything being public property as an extreme (and, one I described as Communist rather than Socialist) that no one here (and very few anywhere) would consider.
That's mischaracterising what public ownership is. I've no interest in having say in Thames Water, because I'd rather have a say in Northumbria Water. Likewise, I've no interest in having a co-operative with HarperCollins, because I don't write for them.
Public ownership doesn't mean ownership by the whole public. Just by the stakeholders. The government may be a stakeholder, it might not. And under communism, there'd be no government anyway.
Doc Tor: Public ownership doesn't mean ownership by the whole public. Just by the stakeholders. The government may be a stakeholder, it might not. And under communism, there'd be no government anyway.
Well, there are different understandings of "public ownership", which can mean ownership by the whole public via the state.
As for "stakeholders" it's a posh word for "interested parties". I would have thought that in a socialist state everyone is an interested party in just about everything.
Under communism there would be no state, but there would need to be a government to organise "the administration of things" - a bit like Amazon, I guess!
Comments
I agree, but it is not a universally held view on the nature of rights. There are those who regard some rights as natural rights an individual possesses by virtue of being human, and are not, therefore, cultural in origin. Additionally, there are those, after Aquinas, who believe in natural law that can be ascertained through the exercise of right reason.
Similarly those on the right who believe the laws reflect a 'natural order'.
Property 'rights' are, as @Arethosemyfeet opined, simply a nature of the laws we use to define them. We're at liberty to collectively change them. If we want to vote on breaking up the big estates, with or without compensation, then it's up to someone in the legislature to propose it and gather sufficient support to see that it's carried.
Those stages are heavily rooted in societal and cultural norms, which doesn’t in any way invalidate anything I said.
Do you really believe that Doc ?
Someone (Godwin forgive me) once said something like
Seems to me that a meaningful discussion of the relationship between the individual and the state has to acknowledge that each can do wrong to the other, and that therefore each has rights and duties in respect of the other.
But some prefer a socialist fantasy in which acts of a socialist government are Us-acting-collectively (and considerations of moral legitimacy place no limit on such acts). Whereas acts of a non-socialist government are frequently wrongful and oppressive, and are Them (the puppets of the uber-wealthy) imposing on Us (the real people).
Rights don't meaningfully exist outside of our collective ability to enforce them. It's a fundamental lesson of history, as is the need to collectively fight for them against an overbearing state.
And that, children, is how baby rights are made.
I read this and thought, how would you have coped with either of the World Wars? They went on for a lot longer than this.
The most important rights in law are those that protect the interests of the powerless, for they are the people who will have their interests trampled on otherwise. The rich (including the relative rich like me) don't need to have our rights protected as much because we're not going to get trampled into the dust in the same way as the poor are.
The law certainly doesn't regard taxation as taking property.** At which point, one can be merrily socialist by taxing wealthy people heavily without getting into that particular issue.
**Otherwise certain provisions of the Australian Constitution that were written over 120 years ago and based on UK legal principles completely collapse.
Quite. Equating taxation with taking property and therefore designating it as conflicting with property rights is a sort of cornerstone of Right-Libertarianism and the sort of position Russ appears to hold which is deeply indebted to it.
No, but I'm deliberately appealing to law because of the audience. If the complaint about "taking property" is based on taxation, then the complaint is simply wrong as far as a thoroughly property-loving and property-supporting legal tradition over centuries is concerned.
Right-wing government don't have a problem with taxation, they just have different views as to where the money goes. And the level of taxation is a policy question, not a legal one.
I don't think the audience in this cares so much about what the law is as what in his view it ought to be.
That's all fine and I suspect you would get universal agreement so far from Shipmates. Godwin would forgive you I suspect and I definitely will because any discussion of rights should involve the concept of inalienable rights and what happens in a society that declares that some people have none.
So far, so good. But here's where you go completely off the rails and revert to a Strawman. (If you can forgive the horrible mixing of metaphors herein):
Firstly, it should give you pause that the people you are arguing with are proponents of the Human Rights Act and Universal Human Rights in general. I think this side-bar is particularly pertinent as the HRA is a unique piece of law* in that it only applies to the state and to agents of the state. The whole point of it is to recognise, outlaw, prevent and where necessary provide a remedy to, injury to individuals by the state.
Given that the supporters/defenders of human rights are predominantly democratic socialists, you have quite a job to do to argue that socialism = authoritarianism. Simply declaring it doesn't really get us anywhere.
The other key point here is that in a democratic society, we the people and the state are not completely separate entities. As the brilliant Toby Zeigler put it, Government is a place where people come together...
No one here is denying the dangers of state power. But that is neither the only kind of power nor the only danger. Moreover, it is not the only characteristic of governments. Governments can be a force for good; that's arguably the reason we have democracy. Feudalism is always possible. The problem with much of modern capitalism is that it undermines democracy and looks a lot like feudalism. And the state is often coopted to serve limited private interests.
AFZ
*IANAL. I would not be offended if someone needed to correct me on this.
Possibly. But if he does turn out to have a view that is so thoroughly idiosyncratic then I will feel safe to ignore it rather than address it further.
To put it shortly, believing that taxation is inherently 'socialist' would be stupid.
To my mind (and experience), one of the chief functions of the state should be to protect communities from powerful individuals, who believe they can operate outside of the law - be they powerful politicians, rich landowners or crime bosses. That the state fails to do so (or worse, enables them to rewrite the law) is a failing of the state, not of the ideal.
The right to enjoy your personal property and have a peaceful life is less intruded on by the state than it is by bad actors within and without your community.
Well put.
States need money to function. So it seems to me that the choices are either that your state owns lots of income-generating assets, and funds itself that way, or your state is funded by its citizens via some sort of equitable distribution of costs. (Or some combination, obviously).
And, of course, to protect individuals from powerful communities who believe they can operate outside of the law.
I'm not sure I follow. Do you have examples?
Which is why it is vitally important that those powerful communities are democratically elected and accountable.
That the law is written and rewritten by powerful politicians is a feature, not a bug. That's what a powerful politician is.
No-one is arguing against the idea that defending citizens from crime bosses is part of the role of the state. Whether it's meaningful to talk of the role of the state or whether the state should be able to do whatever the hell it wants is however part of the issue.
And lumping rich landowners in with crime bosses is just your socialist prejudice showing. If I were to go around talking of "felons, perverts and socialists" you wouldn't be impressed...
That those in power can be held accountable for the wrongs they commit is indeed vitally important. That they gain power by being voted in is rather less so.
That the UK state is still generally benevolent and preferable to the other actors on the scene is the result of the struggles of liberals, democrats, and socialists.
And I reject @Russ 's suggestion that being accountable is somehow different from being voted into office. I wouldn't want to have a revolution every time I wanted to change a government: that shit can get messy very quickly.
Democratic accountability is a probably necessary, but not sufficient, feature of a framework in which people's rights are respected.
As long as you don’t have too much personal property, of course.
This isn't the first time you've deliberately confused personal property and private property, and I expect it won't be the last.
You did, and I was very taken by the idea, and looked it up: p. 235 of this
Have to admire GKC's mastery of the English language. But behind the soundbite ?
Isn't the basic question here whether or not it's anyone else's business how much property the Duke has or how many wives the Sultan has ?
If the latest wife has been coerced or the latest property acquired dishonestly, then yes - a crime is just as much a crime (no more, no less) when committed by someone with wealth and power.
What basis is there for the notion that other people have some sort of right to know how many wives, and to act to reduce that number if they don't think it "justified" ?
So you see no upper limit on how much personal property (defined however you like) someone should have?
(Pedant alert: Communities don't get elected but individuals from those communities do).
I'm concerned that people with wealth and power may use such advantages to help them get elected unfairly. How many UK MPs came from ordinary family backgrounds, went to state schools and spent years earning a wage or salary? I don't know but I'd like to.
Dude, this isn't even some weird socialist definition. It's a basic principle in law.
If you can pick it up and move it, it's personal property.
It's a bit more complicated than that isn't it? I note, Doc, from the useful reference you offer us: "In political/economic theory, notably socialist, Marxist, and most anarchist philosophies, the distinction between private and personal property is extremely important. Which items of property constitute which is open to debate. In some economic systems, such as capitalism, private and personal property are considered to be exactly equivalent."
Yes, it's a bit more complicated. But, as mentioned, the working definition of personal property (vs real property) is something that's widely acknowledged and understood. We can go from there if you want, but I'm offering to accept that so we don't get bogged down in yet another pointless definition war, and get to talk about the principles instead.
I think everyone would be OK with, say, I have a car which is my own personal property for my own exclusive use - and if someone else drives that car without my permission that's theft. No one would question the right to choose which shirt to wear (no matter how unstylish that may be).
But, things get a lot murkier with, say, someone owns a factory so it belongs to them but is also a place where other people come to work ... to what extent does the owner have rights over that private property that conflict with the rights of the people that use that property (in this case, workers), does the private ownership mean that rights to a safe working environment don't apply? or the right to earn a living wage? to what extent would rights to "do with my property as I want" extend to sacking everyone and letting the building stand empty? or running processes that produce toxic effluent that are just left lying around the without being properly secured or disposed off, risking pollution of property beyond what is owned by that person?
If what was owned was, say, a large expanse of moorland to what extent is that "private property" and no one else has a say in the management of that land? Or, does the fact that it's a rainwater catchment and the water flowing off it is used by the local communities for drinking or watering crops impact the ability of the owner to do what they want? Such areas of land have an amenity value beyond the landowner; the aforementioned water, a scenic landscape to attract tourists, etc.
At one extreme of capitalist thought would be that the only person who has any say would be the owner; amenity values such as local employment and environment would have no relevance. This is "private property" and the owner enjoys the same rights over it as "personal property", if the owner decides to put up "keep out signs" and stops hikers crossing the land with armed wardens that's no more anyone else's business than if he decided to put on the blue check shirt rather than the yellow silk. At the other extreme Communist thought, anything with amenity value beyond the owner should be public property held by the people for the people. Almost everyone is somewhere in between those extremes. We accept that everyone has some personal property which is theirs, and over which no one else has any rights (some, of course, have a lot more than others) and no one should be taking that property from them. We accept that some people (and I'm going to expand that to include corporations and the like which are owned by people just because I'm writing this and I can simplify things that way) own property that has amenity value to others (a place to live, something giving employment, a source of common resources, recreational value etc) and that ownership carries some social responsibilities (if you own a home someone else is living in then you need to maintain it at some basic minimum standard ...). The question is, where is the balance point between personal gain from private property and the social responsibilities that accrue to owning private property? And, especially for socialists, at what point does the amenity value of a particular property cross the threshold that maintaining this is best done by a different model of ownership than keeping that as private property (eg: state ownership, community ownership, breaking the property into smaller privately owned units with owners working in cooperation ...)
Shares are not a thing in themselves, they are a share in something. The very fact that it is shared tends to take it beyond personal property. Bitcoin is no different from other currencies in existing primarily on computer. It just has a vastly fluctuating exchange rate, in part because there is no central bank with the power buffer it and in part because there is no economy primarily priced in it to which its value is anchored.
No, it doesn't get murkier. The situation here is perfectly clear. Can you pick up a factory? No. Then it's real property, and is considered private property.
Real property. Again, perfectly clear.
You mean, where we are, the status quo.
I'm not sure why you're characterising this as an extreme position. You're literally talking about the Commons.
No, almost everyone is in favour of expanding the Commons. Only a very few people are in favour of the status quo - unfortunately, they're the ones who've made the laws that keep the status quo intact, and by disseminating scare stories about how the socialists are after your toothbrush.
The rest of your comment is simply the usual liberal social democratic tweak to make capitalism just a bit less shit without ever having to address the structural inequalities inherent in the system.
Indeed. If I have an apple tree in a pot, I can pick it up and move it. If it's planted in the garden, I can't. Why should planting my tree give anyone else any rights in it ? Not seeing the logic...
You're talking here Alan about three different reasons why others may have rights in your private property.
One to do with environment - if your car pollutes the atmosphere (which is part of the commons) then you may have duties to limit that impact.
One to do with amenity - if your car is something that people like looking at then they would suffer a loss of utility if you were to decide to scrap it (or conversely if it's an eyesore they might very much want you to do so).
One to do with employment - if you pay someone else to drive your car for you then you seem to think this gives him some rights over it.
I'd fully accept the environment argument. But the other two seem highly questionable.
That's mischaracterising what public ownership is. I've no interest in having say in Thames Water, because I'd rather have a say in Northumbria Water. Likewise, I've no interest in having a co-operative with HarperCollins, because I don't write for them.
Public ownership doesn't mean ownership by the whole public. Just by the stakeholders. The government may be a stakeholder, it might not. And under communism, there'd be no government anyway.
Well, there are different understandings of "public ownership", which can mean ownership by the whole public via the state.
As for "stakeholders" it's a posh word for "interested parties". I would have thought that in a socialist state everyone is an interested party in just about everything.
Under communism there would be no state, but there would need to be a government to organise "the administration of things" - a bit like Amazon, I guess!