Discussion in 'Economics' started by triggertrader, Jan 17, 2018.
Or as Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
From Locke we get a triumvirate of inalienable rights stemming from Natural Law:
a right to Life, a right to Liberty, and a right to Property.
The "Property Right" is wildly, yet curiously, under-celebrated -- and has been so since Locke's time. But the ability to Keep What One Has Built is the ONLY thing that provides a purpose to expending energy on -- digging a ditch for irrigation; planting an entire field in a crop; tending to a herd to prevent predation; developing a reliable signal rate for energy passage across a silicon medium (the diode; the transistor); finding a use for that really hard failed plastic left in the jar overnight (Corning Labs)..... etc etc etc....
Any society that denies the sanctity of private property -- whether through abject lawlessness, capricious "takings" of a dictator, or declared abjurance of "private" anything by socialist/communist/fascist/statist societies (where, like our Vulcan friends, "The good of the many outweighs the good of the one.") -- ANY society that does not declare private property to be sacrosanct in its relation to the state -- is doomed. Period. End of story. Mic drop.
Big mistaken generalisation to see an entire population as being aligned with that of their leader (who also controls the military, security services, employment and national economy).
Correct and to suggest that the people "Don't deserve it either." is a contemptible comment.
Like the discussion on freedom last week, extremism in practice is almost always suboptimal and one person's freedom often tramples on another's rights. Do I have the right to dig a ditch that siphons off all the water of the river downstream, killing the livelihood of everyone who depended on it, weather for irrigation, recreation, or supporting salmon runs? Do I have the right to discover the transistor and prevent anyone from using it forever, even if they subsequently discover it on their own? Do I have the right to build a monopoly or collude to effectively stop any competitors or innovative solutions? Do I have the right to develop a drug that cures cancer and preclude anyone from using it, forever, even if they independently develop the same drug? In the real world, you have to balance if we want a prosperous, healthy, happy society or some pre-social contract stone age where "right to Property" trumps all.
Agreed. But declaring Property in private hands to be sacrosanct means the State carries a heavy burden by which to *take* it and still retain legitimacy.
It's a tough line to draw. For example I'm routinely called a "communist" on this form (and recently was simultaneously labeled a fascist!), but strongly disagree with the Kelo v. City of New London decision, which allowed the taking of property by imminent domain essentially so a private company could build a shopping center. On the other had, the "communist" in me sees no problem in taxes that support the military, public services, safety net programs, national parks... even though that "taking" impacts me much more directly. It's definitely a continuum where smart well meaning people can and will disagree where we should lie.
Way too sensible.
A bit of clarification:
We often don't like much the traditional terms, PC speaking. But the reality is - Potential trend:
Separate names with a comma.