Did You Know
Our current president has argued for people having positive rights. Examples of positive rights are the right to healthcare or the right to air conditioners. Basically a positive right is a right to have the government give you something.
In that 2001 Chicago public radio interview, Obama tells a radio talk show host, “One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was [the] tendency to lose track of political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” To this effect, he criticizes the radical Warren court (1953-1969) as not being radical enough: “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution generally, the constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what states can’t do to you, says what federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
I think positive rights are extremely problematic. Those that advocate for them have a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of a right. A rights is not a gift from the state but a prohibition to keep the state in check. Rights exist to prevent state abuse. Positive rights end up mandating state abuse. For example, a right to health care mandates that the state abuse it’s power by unfairly discriminating against the wealthy to steal their resources to provide to the poor.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
*facepalm*
October 7th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
“mandates that the state abuse it’s power by unfairly discriminating against the wealthy to steal their resources to provide to the poor.”
Does this translate as anything other than ‘have taxes’? Obviously anything the government ever does requires them to generate income. Whether you want to call things like roads, police ,military, etc ‘rights’ or ‘government services’, I’m not sure it really changes anything practical. Yes, you need to tax people if you want the government to do things.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Oh my god. Is this my long lost friend Darwin. I thought you were dead!
October 12th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“Does this translate as anything other than ‘have taxes’?”
Just because you tax people does not mean said taxes must be discriminatory. You can’t tax white people more than black people, so why can you tax rich people more than poor people? I understand the rationale, but that doesn’t make it right.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Right and wrong are slippery concepts. Given that being taxed $500 hurts a poor person more than it hurts a rich person, is it ‘wrong’ to tax them the same amount? Or is it ‘right’ because the numbers are the same? I’m more comfortable with morality being based on harm and benefit than on numbers and mathematics, but it’s not surprising that economists who only see the numbers might feel differently.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Well, the state would probably waste a lot of resources if it tried to squeeze 500 bucks out of the homeless guy who has nothing but the clothes on his back, and it might still not get the money because he simply -can’t- get that much cash together.
It is more efficient and practical to tax people with lots of discretionary income.
October 14th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Interesting argument. To bad nobody on the left argues that you tax the rich because its more efficient and practical. That seems like a stronger argument then the standard redistribute to right the wrongs of society.