Obama FTW

If they make it to adulthood without starving they've the right to sue their parents. Duh, Jane.

I think a lot of people are confusing 'rights' with 'moral obligation'.
I have a right to freedom
I have a moral obligation to feed my children
My child has a right to food, because they cannot care for themselves
I have a moral obligation to protect my childs freedom.
Etc, etc.
It is a blurry line where rights being and end and what we are morally obligated to do.
I think were things go south is where people begin to believe they have a right to someone elses goods, products or income.

What I was basically doing is eliminating the blanket generalization that everyone has the right to food. But you bring up the point, does Steve have the right to food if he doesn't have the means to feed himself? Or, more specifically, does Steve have the right to demand others to procure the food for him? (If the government is buying food, they must be using someone's money, after all.) Seems that a Libertarian would say that no one should be made to (that is, have a gun pointed at them) to procure food for Steve; Steve's only chance would be to be fed through charity. If we're being optimistic, we can envision people donating to this charity for Steve, especially since they're not paying tons of taxes that governments like to waste on bridges to nowhere and stupid wars. That would be the moral thing to do, after all, right? The question I think Giggan is saying is that, should they be made to do this, or should it be their choice?

If you established things like Giggan proposed, and it worked out like Giggan says it would, then I don't see what the problem is. However, perhaps it wouldn't work out like Giggan imagines. Perhaps people wouldn't donate to Steve's charity. Perhaps they'd buy a new car instead, and let Steve to die. That would be an injustice, I think, and I would be for laws to enforce the feeding of Steve.

Well, I was specifically talking about you. Yes, I agree, if you really need meat then it's a need, not a want. But for Americans, it's a want, not a need.

Biofuels are helping to drive up the price for food, yes indeed. But I'm positive meat consumption raises the price of food by a lot! And I can find articles to back me up if you don't believe me.

I really need to respond to Vig Pup before I spend 4 hours more on here. But...

^^^this, word.

Real quick, you don't have a right to food. Try and grab some somewhere without paying. You'll likely be told to 'pay'. If you need to pay, its not a right. But you have a right to obtain, this is a negative right (nobody can stop you from obtaining) whereas granting you food for nothing would be positive right (people owe it to you, you can take it).

I would say parents are responsible for keeping their kids alive via food delivery, so in that sense, kids have a positive right to food through implied contract with the parent upon delvering them.

I'm runnning on here, so I better stop there so I can answer all in full tarde-er. Via con Allah.

Are we getting confused? I mean, no one would say "you have the right to feed your child". They would say "you have the duty (or moral obligation) to feed your child".

Or are you saying that a homeless person doesn't have the right to someone else's food, but that people have the moral obligation to feed that homeless person? If so, that's basically what I was talking to Mirka about in my previous post to this.

Of course you can't steal food from where ever you like, but you can get food stamps, and you don't have to pay for those, so is it then a right, and a positive right at that? But aren't we talking about what rights should be enforced, as opposed to what rights we currently have enforced? I mean, we can just look at what the law is for the latter.

It turns into a philosphical arguement. thats what Im getting at.
If I grow mmy own crops, I am the rightful owner of that crop. No one has a right to that food other than myself and my family that I grew it for.
The homeless thing is where this gets skewed.
Do we have a moral obligation to feed the less fortunate members of society?
They have no right to the food I produced, but obviously c they cannot take care of themselves, so then is it my moral obligation to feed them?
I have my own answer on what i would do. I would offer the man a job on my farm instead of giving him a handout, letting him earn his keep. Giving people handouts on a constant basis bacfires alot of times and some people then have no incentive to be productive.
BUT, what about the mother of three whose dirtbag husband just bailed on her, left he with the kids and she has no job. Doesnt she have a right to provide for her kids? It wasnt her fault that this sitation happened (hypothetical).
Both Gig and I have read the Revloution. Ron Paul point is that charity has given more than the Govt ever will,and more effectively, but when the Govt does get involved in 'chairity' or help, they cant run it correctly and it becomes another failed govt program.
There is no straight answer, but it doesnt help that the govt would love nothing more than to have its society sucking off the govt teat.
Shoot they are already talking about conficating peoples 401k's!!! (whole other ball o wax)
I do believe we need to throw the bums out and start over, because or current system has become so corrupt, its not effective anymore.

That sounds great in theory, but I have a hard time seeing that as being realistic. How many farmers really want to invite crazy homeless people onto their farms where they might fuck things up?

But you bring up the mother with the kids, who you agree might actually deserve a handout. You and G are saying charities would be better suited to do that. There's this issue, and the issue that government shouldn't put a gun to people's heads, and make them give their money away, that it should be their choice, right?

I cannot say if charities would do a better job than the government. I think what the question is is would people really give to charities? Or would they spend the money on themselves. From what I'm hearing, libertarians think people would give. But liberals probably don't think they would, and they'd say that's why we need laws?

Great discussion, btw.

^5

I think he means that the government isn't allowed to prevent you from buying food or growing your own, and that it's your right to obtain food in these ways. A negative right is a denial of government power, and thus, negative rights are a libertarian's best friend, I would expect. Positive rights, on the other hand, impose affirmative obligations on government to act in certain ways. The right to education, health care, work, etc., are among these claimed positive rights. Positive rights are what libertarians have sadistic fantasies about.

This thread is officially no rock-n-roll fun...

Maybe this is just me, but I ain't too worried about the US government preventing me from getting food. I'm more worried about things like the people who sell food, the people who grow food, and the people who think they need the food more than I do, preventing me from getting food. I look upon the government as the intermediary that keeps other people from callously allowing me to starve to death, if push comes to shove.

Oh, and just as a point of interest...the people that grow and raise your food for you? If society collapsed tomorrow, those people aren't going to keep growing food for other people out of the goodness of their hearts. And they're not going to wait around for years or decades for a "better system" to arise in a free market. Yall would starve to death in a matter of months.

speak for yourself, kemo sabe! i'd be eating just fine and dandy.

i've never tried playing that Sims game. Is there a way to set it up to play out Giggan's pipe dream system and see how fast it collapses in a simulation?

And I'm sure any Libertarian worth his salt could tell you all the ways that that wouldn't happen to you, not in a true free market society. But then the question would be, is that picture he paints a realistic one, or just wishful fantasy.

We've never seen what Libertarian's consider a true free market society, so anything bad that has happened in the past they'll find a way of blaming on other sources than libertarian politics. This is my theory as to what Giggan's rebutal will be based on when he gets around to writing it in response to vig pup.

I think where the whole free market society idea breaks down is the transition from what we have now to the truly free market. The cost of transference, the loss of jobs in the government sector, and the birthing pangs (like civil unrest, or falling back on sexist models, or the halting of food production) that accompany any complete societal revision are being completely overlooked by Giggan's philosophy.

not to mention basic human nature.

Well, maybe he didn't overlook it, maybe he just didn't get a chance to explain how that would work yet. I mean, it's an obvious thing, and I'd think he wouldn't overlook the obvious -- he's a smart guy. But it's not Giggan's philosophy, anyway; it's Ron Paul's philosophy. How many of us who are arguing against it have actually read his book? It would probably explain things better than Giggan could explain around here, just because Giggan doesn't have the time to slap down a book length post here.

You can start reading it here,

http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/ref=pd...

Read the first pages and see if you'd be curious to read more. I haven't bought the book, but I have been curious...I think I might.

Edit: I just ordered the audiobook version of it, along with another audiobook you might have heard of:

Shipping estimate for these items: November 17, 2008

1 "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream"
Barack Obama; Audio CD; $13.59

Sold by: Amazon.com, LLC
1 "The Revolution: A Manifesto"
Ron Paul; Audio CD; $16.49

Sold by: Amazon.com, LLC

I was reading an article in the New Yorker about Obama, and came across a few paragraphs that would be interesting for you to read, especially in the context of what we were talking about,

Cass Sunstein, the Harvard law professor and author, was Obama’s colleague for many years at the University of Chicago Law School. Sunstein’s most recent book, “Nudge,” co-written with the behavioral economist Richard Thaler, tries to find a new path between governmental control and the unfettered free market. “Nudge,” Sunstein said, is about “ways of helping people to make better choices without requiring anybody to do anything. It’s a conception of government that is reluctant to impose mandates and bans but is kind of shrewd about enlisting what we know about human behavior in good directions.” Sunstein added that the book is well known in Obama’s circle; Obama’s top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, also of the University of Chicago, has read it, and Sunstein has discussed its ideas with Obama. In “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama included a proposal from Sunstein and Thaler that would have employees automatically enrolled in retirement plans, with the option not to participate, because “evidence shows that by changing the default rule, employee participation rates go up dramatically”—a non-coercive “nudge” toward better decisions. “He knows an astonishing amount about cutting-edge economic thinking,” Sunstein said.

Full article here,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/17/081117fa_fact_packer?print...

Oh, and I found the article through RealClearPolitics.com I'm very happy to have learned about this site!

Edit: Further on in the article it says,

Instead, Sunstein suggested as the governing philosophy of an Obama Presidency the idea of “deliberative democracy.” The phrase appears in “The Audacity of Hope,” where it denotes a conversation among adults who listen to one another, who attempt to persuade one another by means of argument and evidence, and who remain open to the possibility that they could be wrong. Sunstein pointed out that “deliberative democracy” has certain “preconditions”: “It requires an educated citizenry, a virtuous and engaged citizenry that has sufficient resources—and Madison sometimes spoke in these terms—that they could actually be citizens, rather than subjects.”

This thread is one more proof that when someone says something he's completely convinced of with enough eloquence, even if it's the stupidest piece of bullshit ever, there will be people who will believe him.

That was very eloquently said.

How's that? Do you have stockpiles of cheeseburger in a can?

Oh, and no I am not a vegetarian, Bug. I tried it and it didn't work for me. I don't think that invalidates my opinions about government and fundamental rights though. I am exhausted by this thread however. I am going to finish reading The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs and start a new thread.

For you even trying to be a vegetarian makes me greatly admire you. (Not to infer that I don't admire meat eaters.) But I would hope that even if you are unable to go vegetarian all the way, that you're at least trying to cut down on the amount of meat you eat. Every hour in the United States, one million animals are killed for human consumption. If each one of us cuts back on our animal consumption by only 10%, approximately one billion animals would be spared a lifetime of suffering each year.

Yes, yes, new thread! I started reading The End of Poverty a long while ago, but for some reason never finished it, even though it was a great read. You've inspired me to seek it out. Maybe I'll read it before my other two books come.

For five years, yeah. Then I went to Europe and fell off the wagon in Germany. The Brats got me. I'm pretty careful about the meat I eat anyway, and fish, as well as the produce I buy. Have you read Michael Pollan's book IN DEFENSE OF FOOD? I think it should be required reading in schools around the 9th grade.

I'd just like to say that as much as I admire Ron Paul, his philosophies in few ways mirror mine. I am a voluntaryist, he is a minarchist. He's a Thomas Jefferson clinging to the idea that government can be used for good and is not currently.

There are some in the liberty movement who espouse RP is a closet anarcho-capitalist. He was good friends with Murray Rothbard, who I believe was the first economist to profess anarcho-capitalism, and has a picture of him in his congressional office. Either way, though I find 'The Revolution' to be a great book for the politico, I've shied away from the belief that liberty can be salvaged through political means. In that sense, I'm an agorist.

This may sound like semantics, but it's kinda a crucial difference. I believe every person (children included) have the negative right to be able to lead a productive life, what ever they may define it to be. Example, Ted Bundy found happiness in killing and raping young women who resembled his first girlfriend. Whatever he found in this, he equated it with happiness, or at least some sort of necessary balance within his life. But he infringed upon the negative rights of those he killed.

It gets down to, how do we define 'happy'? 'Productive'? What if they don't desire these things? This is why we can't put an end goal on other people. Parents, and other caretakers of children should encourage positive goals, but once someone hits adulthood, they have the ability, being of sound mind and body, to choose those goals for themselves. I could treasure eating junk food and playing video games all day. To me, the video game designers are the most productive people around. To those who don't play, they're either neutral or borderline destructive.

This gets into how we all perceiev things, morals, goals, in different ways. I'm imposing if I demand a positive right of any sort. So what I propose is absolute respect of negative rights, then from there, the individual chooses what positive liberties they wish to sacrifice some negative liberty for. To get anything from anyone, there's some sort of contract. Even when friends give you gifts, they're not giving them to everyone. There's an implied contract that the relationship has a value to them. The measurement does not have to be made as to what the value truly is for a value to exist.

Well, our parents made us go to school, so they should pay. But there is also the moral obligation to educate a child. However, since they chose to bring the child into the world, they default accepted the responsibilities thereof. I'm pro-choice every sense, though this should not be associated with voluntary abortion, which is a seperate issue. I believe people should choose whether or not to have children. Thus, if you did not opt to become pregnant, you should not be forced to carry or raise a child. However, if you did consent to the process, the moral obligation exists that you care for the child until it reaches adulthood. I won't let this turn into an abortion discussion by ending it there, but know I will voluntarily pay to prevent anyone from killing their fetus without first delivering it, so I include partial birth infanticide here (since you can't really 'partially' birth a child.

That said, I'm glad later in the thread Ross brought up moral obligations...again, there is a moral obligation to educate a child. But I will not enforce moral obligations. I will aid the enforcement of the protection of rights.

My example should have been a bit clearer...I was getting at the fact that situating my body within a distance of 30 feet, or whatever, makes me liable to pay for the education of x-many children here, but none of the children there, and vice versa. If education is a 'right', should I not be liable to pay for all children within America? The answer is no, because it is not a natural right, it is a state-established right based on a realistic moral obligation.

As for the roads, they may benefit you if you use them. They don't at all if you don't. Roads in China aid productivity of shipping everything to Wal-Mart, so should we pay for Chinese roads through taxes? No. We pay for Chinese roads by buying from Wal-Mart, who pay Chinese industry who pay for roads through taxes or whatever, so they can do business. It's all based on supply and demand, and its all connected. I say you shouldn't have to pay for roads you do not intend to use. If you do, chip in.

Back when I was a minarchist (that phrase is a bit of a paradox in itself, because I guess everyone considers themselves a minarchist, even Stalin...I digress), I used to believe we should find a fair way of taxing. I eventually elimated every form, because there is no fair way to steal money. The only fair way to get money is to receive it from the consent of the owner. But before this, I was a flat tax advocate. I was at a political function and in attendance was a libertarian radio talk show host whom I admired. When I got to know him better, I found out he was a closet anarchist.

You caught me. That was a test to see if anyone would say, "Those d*mned mormons have too many kids, its their fault! To infringe on your religious freedom would be to infringe on your negative rights, so no, I don't oppose religious freedom. Even though most of the anarchists I know are devout atheists.

Or you could let people have as many kids as they want, so long as they do so responsibly, do no harm.

People don't starve in civilized countries.

If enough people do not want that (as most people do not), they can pay for the solution. Not forcing your neighbor to agree with you and forcing them to pay for something you cherish is your moral obligation, their right.

When I was running for state rep, some guy on a blog called me an 'idealogue' (granted, I had no idea who this guy was, he did not know me personally, and was upset that the liberty-leaning group I was running with had knocked a more statist repub out of the race). I left a comment for him, putting my identity right out there and asked him why cherishing ideals was a negative. He also used words like 'nut-job' 'whacko' and 'moron', so he had little else to stand on either way.

Point being - yes, I'm an idealogue. I base my moral outlook on specific rules, notably the non-aggression priniciple. This is only radical because most people do not, or their ideals are far different, a conflict of ideals often. My thing is, if ideals are not absolute, what value do they have? Arbitrary value is potentially no value.

I just finished reading Anselme's Bellegarrigue's Anarchist Manifesto, and follows up talking about how evil governmental power is by saying, 'If you guys are stupid enough to vote me into power, don't be surprised when I take your goods and put them to my use.'

I promise never to do that, and if put into power, I promise never to vote for oppression, but I'd rather the power not exist.

See Ross' post, rights vs. moral obligation. If a man is starving in front of me while I hold a fresh loaf of bread, my stomach full, he does not have a right to my bread. I have a moral obligation to give him some bread. But the bread is my property, thus I have a right to it. If you don't give some bread, you're a heartless mofo, but still within your rights.

All human interaction is severing some rights. If you invite someone into your home, you're surrendering the right to keep them off of your private property. We don't think of it this way, but it's how it is, it's all based off of consent. You consent to have a friend over your house, they consent to being there, give and take, all voluntary, all peaceful, all good. To use force when you believe something is not right, having 100 ppl or 100,000,000 ppl agreeing does not make it right, it just makes it consensus.

Rights are 100% theoretical. They're the absolute values that, if not cherished, cause a breakdown of society (exactly what archists/non anarchists claim about the state...perhaps I should call them Hobbesians). To not hold natural rights, which are negative as absolute is to give them arbitrary value. 'You can not be stolen from...only if you pay to educate kids.' -In that case, you can be stolen from. The right is, in that instance, severed. Where else may it be arbitrarily severed at the whim of the majority?

This is where one could argue Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's position that 'property is theft'. Maybe so, I'd assert, that the first seizure of property was theft, or maybe chance, people didn't know what they were stumbling upon when they found the one fertile field and controlled it. Either way, property was unfairly split somehow intially. It couldn't have been fairly split because people were unaware of the potential value of property.

So do property rights exist? I think they do now, or should be treated as such because there is civil war when one group will defend their rights they forsee and another group will act as though they have a right to them. I'm delevoping a theory that I'm for now labeling the 'immeasurable debt theory' based on voluntaryist values...while property and such may be inequally distributed right now, to solve the problem using force only makes the equation 'more immeasurable', as you're creating more tension within the system. to come to voluntary conclusions, even when someone feels wronged, forgives debt and relieves tension. What I'm contemplating is a little more complex than that (meaning it's hard to summarize, but it also involves some of Gandhi's theory, which can be empircally measured which assert that giving in to your enemies consciously and voluntarily without resentment is the way to prevent them from furthering harm. People complain about giving money to gov't, well, then stop. Either stop, or do something peaceful, cause complaining is just building up tension which will explode in the form of a revolution, as history dictates.

I like the fact that you addressed nationality. In truth, we all live in anarchy. There's a piece of paper somewhere that says what rights we have. That's often abused. For the most part, it's upheld. And that's one of the things I wish to empirically prove, that government, that protection of rights on paper does not exist. If your rights are natural, people must begin acting as though they are. No one will give you your freedom if they believe themselves to be the keepers of it.

I enjoy the fact that we seem to be of similar mind for very different reasons.

If food is a right, then you may never be productive to survive, you may simply steal from others to fulfill your right to food. However, food is not a right, it is a need. Otherwise, we'd have a cutthroat society of people doing as little as possible to get as much as they can from others, voluntary or not. Why should the farmer farm if you're just going to steal it? For these reasons, we establish negative rights. Since man needs certain items to sustain life, the right to obtain the items necessary becomes a right. But physically taking these items is theft. It is an 'anarchy' in a sense that there are no rules of voluntary production of food, just grab it when you see it!

Because then no rules would govern the means of which society produces these needs. There is a concrete diff.

Animals, the way in which they live, are barbaric by human standards. They do not respect the negative rights of other animals. We do of our own species, until government comes along and institutionalizes violence as a means to an end.

Eddy's question is important because you're calling something a social obligation and he's asking how you're doing your social part. You could have answered that government fulfills these obligations for you and you pay the taxes to get it done. And I'm with you that its nobody else's business...until you espouse that it is a social obligation. Then, the question does kinda have to be answered, since you're in favor of forcing everyone else to not only answer, but act in such a way that you deem morallly obligatory.

Understandably, I did too until about a year or so ago.

Going down the thread...I liked Bug's response about Lazy Steve.

Parents have a binding responsibility to care for children. To not feed kids is criminal neglect, since they voluntarily took on the responsibility.

Yeah, refer to my thing about the guy with bread. He has a right to keep it. He's an asshole, but he has a right to the bread. 99% of people would share.

Raise your hand if you'll share food with Jane (Giggan's hand is up).

Why should they not sell to you?

BTW, its not just government you have to worry about, its anyone who wishes to have dominion over you. Government is to be most feared because the dominion they exercise over you have the veil of legitimacy. They hurt you, and no one stands for you. That is the danger of government.

Also, new av is cute!

No, I'll go to the food guy and say, 'hey, how much for some corn'. Hey'll say, "Shit son, Ize gotz so much corn I don't know what to do with it. But it has value, so I ain't just givin that sh*t out! Best be paying...x amount per ear.'

I'll say, 'Okay, I'll pay...but wait, the government collapsed, money no longer has value, its just paper!'

'Damn, son, you be shit outta luck! No corn for you!'

'But wait, I've got (something of value). This will benefit your life by...(whatever).'

'Cool, I think that is worth x-ears of corn!'

I can agree, barter, whatever. That's how you get food without government. Or try this:

'Farmer Sanchez, you sure have a lot of fields to plow!'

'What's it to ya, Dramaeuax?'

'Tell ya what, you sit on the couch, and I'll work the fields for an hour'

'Why'

'So I can have 3 ears of corn, or whatever we barter my time to be worth!'

'Ok'.

The possibilities are endless. As long as demand exists, as long as supply exists, life is good in the free market.

So you've conceded it works once we're all on the same page, but now it's just the transition? (evil grin)

I just read Siddhartha, and it talked about how the monks would starve themselves, then go to the town occasionally and beg for grains of rice and crap that would barely sustain anyone. So Sid goes to this businessdude and talks about skill, how people capitalize on skills to sustain themselves. Business Bob asks Sid what skills he has and he says he can fast and be patient and such, and people give him food. It doesn't make sense, but he gets the food.

More against positive rights/the assertion that they are rights:

I do not want to be violated against. Nobody does. If you do, then you volunteer for it, like I said, you let someone into your home, etc. Food, I want food, but I do not want...idk, onions. I do not enjoy onions. Nor do I have a right to them. So whether I chose to get onions should be completely my choice, how can such a thing be forced on me, or be inherent, if I inherently don't want them?

Rights are severable, but they are implied as natural throughout people because we all expect they won't be violated until people consent to governance. I don't consent.

We'll get rid of our union, just as soon as you get rid of yours...

Caligs, haha, I like your user title. I'll remain a spacemonkey at level 3 till I hit level four. 275ish to go!

About unions, I think they're a great concept and productive in the market, however I ain't down with forcing people to pay dues. Theft = bad. Voluntary support = good.