22 ms·
Kind of sad when people make such suggestions, not because it's alright if the government interferes with ones wealth, but because they thereby implicitly water
by jonathanstrange 10y ago
Kind of sad when people make such suggestions, not because it's alright if the government interferes with ones wealth, but because they thereby implicitly water down the concept of human rights.
Basic human rights are being treated as an equal to other human beings and with human dignity, being allowed to live, prohibition of slavery, being treated equal in front of the law and getting due process, and not being tortured. Everybody should be able to agree on them.
Yes, maybe controlling your own wealth should a right. But please don't put it on a par with basic human rights.
- WalterBright 10y agoProperty rights are basic human rights. John Locke wrote of "life, liberty and property".
- vinceguidry 10y agoThose three things are not equal. Life is more important than liberty. Liberty is more important than property.
- ominous 10y agoOpinions may differ, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty,_or_give_me_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty,_or_give_me_de...!
- aninhumer 10y agoFixed link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty,_or_give_me_death%21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty,_or_give_me_de...
- ominous 10y agoThanks, didn't notice it. Url encode? Test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty,_or_give_me_death%21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty,_or_give_me_de...
- hueving 10y ago>Those three things are not equal. Life is more important than liberty. There are a lot of revolutionaries that would like to have a word with you.
- vidarh 10y agoThere are also plenty that would insist that insisting on a right to property is fundamentally incompatible with liberty, and can even be incompatible with a right to life (e.g. if enforcement of property rights de facto takes away peoples realistic ability to provide for themselves). EDIT: We even have good historical examples of the latter, such as the Great Famine in Ireland, where food exports continued - people died because other peoples property rights were put before their right to life, and people had no realistic prospect of acquiring or growing food in time to compensate for the crop failures. Notably, in contrast, in at least one past famine, the government had banned food exports to force prices down.
- hueving 10y ago>There are also plenty that would insist that insisting on a right to property is fundamentally incompatible with liberty Not related to what I said.
- vidarh 10y agoYou brought up revolutionaries - it is plenty related.
- astine 10y ago"if enforcement of property rights de facto takes away peoples realistic ability to provide for themselves" Removal of property rights intrinsically takes people's ability to provide for themselves away and replaces it with dependency. Some people seem to prefer this arrangement and I can respect that, but when they describe it as 'liberty', I assume that they must have lost their minds.
- 10y ago
- kaid 10y agoyes, they aren't equal, but they are still basic rights.
- matthewmacleod 10y agoDoesn't "not controlling one's own wealth" end up equivalent to "subject to arbitrary seizure of assets by a third party"? I think you could construct a reasonable argument that this is a basic human right.
- aninhumer 10y agoNot necessarily arbitrary, it could be subject to well defined rules. And indeed, property is one such system wherein people are subject to seizure of assets according to particular rules. Controlling ones own wealth also means there is a mechanism to seize it from anyone else.
- DennisP 10y ago> Controlling ones own wealth also means there is a mechanism to seize it from anyone else. That's not the case for the cryptocurrencies which Coinbase deals with.
- chenster 10y agoIt's maybe a few levels above basic human rights, but nevertheless, it should be a fundamental rights.
- _petronius 10y agoI have sympathy with your argument, but I'm not 100% convinced. If controlling your own capital means having access to the economy so that you can buy food and housing, then it becomes a prerequisite for basic human rights like actually living; doesn't that at a certain point put it on the same level? It's sort of like countries that take steps to ensure everyone has access to the internet as a basic right: they acknowledge that participating in the modern economy, and the things that flow from that participation (security, dignity, basic sustenance) require internet access to do it meaningfully. How else are you going to apply for jobs, when companies no longer sort through CVs sent in by post? (As an aside, this is one reason I rage at people -- and this has been a strain of thought popular in Britain recently -- that make negative comments about the homeless having "luxuries" like smartphones. How else are they supposed to find work, be contactable to do that work, etc.? Being able to make and receive phone calls, SMSes, and emails is essential in 2017, at least in Europe. Madness.) Anyway, point is, it's not enough to say that "everyone has the right to life and not be tourtured" and other abstract concepts. Having a right, truly, means being able to exercise it meaningfully -- just having it under the law is not enough. Therefore, the prerequisites to exercising those rights need to also be in place, and form at the very least a part of those basic rights, even if you do not want to classify them as seperate, also basic rights. (But I think arguing about Linnean distinctions is a little pointless.)
- richmarr 10y ago> ... doesn't that at a certain point put it on the same level? I don't think so, no. Basic human rights are something that we agree shouldn't be taken away, from anyone, even from prisoners. Control of wealth is not one of those things, I don't think. There are times when it's fair for your country to take your money from you against your will. There are times when it's fair for your country to audit or freeze your finances against your will, or simply stop you accessing them. Is control of money & access to the economy important? Sure. It's important enough to be in the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are expected to be paid, and have access to a shop. Is it a basic human right? I don't think so.
- narag 10y ago
- devoply 10y agoWithout money you are homeless. Another human right that should be a right is a right to a job. That is necessary to survive as a human with any level of dignity in our society.
- kybernetikos 10y agoI think the parent comment is trying to say that 'basic human rights' are the ones that apply regardless of society. The claim is that there are some rights that should be due to us because of the context we are in, and some rights that should be due to us simply because we are human. 'Right to a job' would definitely be a right based on context, especially since there are contexts where the concept of 'job' might not make any sense at all. The question is whether right to property is of the context type or not.
- aninhumer 10y agoNo, without shelter you are homeless. If money is for some reason absolutely necessary to acquire shelter in a particular society (which I don't think it is), then it is implied by a right to shelter.
- vertex-four 10y agoThe issue is that you can quite easily imagine a society where everyone is guaranteed shelter, food, and water by the social structure, and money might be used primarily for luxuries. Money-as-a-right wouldn't necessarily make sense in such a society. It exists in classical liberal societies because liberalism doesn't really have a consistent concept of positive duties, either on the individual or the societal whole. But there's definitely other forms of political thought, liberalism is just seductive because it claims to arise from the natural state of things.
- tomcam 10y agoI can't quite easily imagine such a society. No one can ever explain to how that gets paid for without the government taking even more money from me by force.
- tomcam 10y ago>But please don't put it on a par with basic human rights. Why not? It is essential to taking care of my family.
- distances 10y agoIn your current country of residence. Basic human rights should transcend economic models, though.
- DennisP 10y agoRegarding due process, in some criminal cases the U.S. government freezes the funds of the accused, so they can't pay for adequate legal representation and have to take a plea bargain. Would you say that violates basic human rights?
- popra 10y agoWhat about those who don't have funds to begin with, hence can't pay for adequate legal representation and have to take a plea bargain. Would you say those don't have basic human rights to begin with?
- eli_gottlieb 10y agoWell of course that goes against their basic human rights. That's why public defenders are supposed to exist, be well-staffed, and be competent.
- pjc50 10y agoThis is being discussed rather ineptly, but I note that ECHR considers property to be a human right - with qualifications. http://echr-online.info/right-to-property-article-1-of-protocol-1-to-the-echr/introduction/ http://echr-online.info/right-to-property-article-1-of-proto... "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law." > Everybody should be able to agree on them. The major problem with rights-based reasoning is that, while you might be able to get people to agree on the rights, you can't necessarily get people to agree on the implications or interpretation of the text. E.g. Article 8 ECHR effectively overrides the immigration system, which is not immediately obvious from the text. E.g. US commerce clause in Wickard v. Filmore.
- aminok 10y agoThrowing someone in prison for refusing to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade is no less egregious a violation of human rights than invading their privacy or their right to free speech. The right to control one's own wealth is arguably the most important human right, since its infringement is the cause of so much death and poverty around the world.
- RobertoG 10y agoSurely, the problem is in defining what it's "one's own wealth". It's there where opinions are going to diverge. Very few people will dispute your right to own a pair of boots, but a lot more could have problems with you owning more land that all the farmers of your country together or more money that an entire country.
- aminok 10y agoIn most cases, it's not a problem defining what one's own wealth is. If I receive currency in private trade, that's my own wealth. The fact that the government needs me to surrender my privacy and disclose how much currency I received in order to be able to enforce a tax on currency transactions (e.g. an income tax) is an indication that currency received in trade is truly 'private' property. A law requiring me to hand over a share of that currency, and requiring that I be imprisoned if I do not comply, violates my human rights. The edge cases are natural resources - the most prominently example being land. But the current bevy of economic laws make no distinction between this class of property and other classes, and limit one's right to what is clearly their own wealth.
- RobertoG 10y agoThere is not such thing as "clearly their own wealth" because there is not a natural right to private property but a society agreement. What you can or can't own depends on the circumstances. For instance, can you be the owner of 1000 can of food? Absolutely, if you are in the bay area, because the society there allow you that. What about an island without any other food that is inhabited by 40 other people? I doubt it very much.
- 91928919911 10y agoI would say that privacy in all forms is a basic human right. I do feel uncomfortable that I'm just a number controlled by the "state" and corporations. It affects my well being and sometimes my creativity.
- user150987 10y agoI would say check out Monero if you haven't already.
- astine 10y agoProperty is a basic human right in exactly the same degree and for exactly the same reason as prohibition of slavery. People have a right to the product of their own labor and the benefits that entails. The right to provide for oneself is a really basic thing. One might argue for exceptions, but one can also argue for exceptions to the right to life. They are both still basic human rights.
- Frondo 10y agoFair, but by definition, what you owe in tax is not your property. It's everyone's, in the form of the government.
- ColanR 10y agoActually, it's a necessary infringement upon your right to property for the good of the many.
- clarkmoody 10y ago> what you owe in tax is not your property So you're saying that it does not violate my rights when someone else claims to own an arbitrary portion of my income? With 25% taxes, I work for 3 months of the year for someone else. If I choose not to pay, then people with guns come to lock me up. How is that not slavery? > It's everyone's, in the form of the government. Government is not society. Government is a group of people who consume the productive output of society by force.
- ska 10y ago"Your income" doesn't even make sense outside of the context of the government and tax system it was created in. Starting from the assumption of the converse is a fundamental error that derails many potentially useful/interesting discussions in the area before they get off the ground. jonathanstrange is right: Property rights are a complex issue, attempts to align them with "basic human rights" have limited success, and invariably muddy the waters.
- crusso 10y agoBeing forced to work for others against your will is slavery.
- imgabe 10y agoAll the other basic human rights flow from self-determination. If you don't control your own wealth, someone else does. If someone else controls the wealth, you'll have to do as they say in order to access that wealth. In effect, you'll never be free.
- clarkmoody 10y agoSo if 100% of my income is taxed away from me, then I cannot enjoy the produce of my labor. In effect I am working completely for someone else, without my consent. Thus, I am a slave. Slavery violates the basic human right of liberty. Thus, controlling your own wealth (right to property) is a basic human right. Dignity is not a human right, since it is subjective.
- ajamesm 10y agoSubjectivity, huh? Who can truly say what is "due" in "due process"? Dispense with it!
- clarkmoody 10y agoI never said anything about due process.
- madgar 10y agoYou seem to be confusing work without net pay with slavery. Sharecropping was abhorrent but was distinct from slavery. Slaves may be killed legally by their owner.
- clarkmoody 10y agoI see the distinction, thanks.
- akgerber 10y agoBy that argument, jury duty is slavery.
- clarkmoody 10y agoIndeed. So is conscription.
- turc1656 10y agoIt's not that obvious. At first I was inclined to agree with you but after some further thought I'm thinking the answer is actually that they are both not - and it's purely due to the constitution. In the case of jury duty, we have a constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial constructed from impartial jurors. Based on both statutory and common law that predates the formation of the US, this has always meant a selection of peers that are compelled to serve their nation. Because it is defined within the constitution, it rests alongside the 13th amendment. To end compelled juries, the 13th amendment would have had to explicitly state the lack of exception for the jury trial, thereby effectively nullifying it without repealing it. That, or the 6th amendment would have to be repealed altogether and replaced with something else to ensure a manner of securing a fair jury trial. As for conscription, it's a similar situation. The constitution allows the government to "raise and support Armies" under article I section 8. This has been interpreted to mean the usage of the resources of the nation to build an army as approved by Congress. It can be money (taxes), land (eminent domain), or people (conscription). Again, because of historical precedent set in statutory and common law, as well as being included in the constitution, it has not been deemed to violate the 13th amendment and instead exists as another exemption. At least, that's my understanding.
- ColanR 10y agoHuman rights include property. To say otherwise is to water down the concept of human rights.
- bsmith 10y agoThis seems a lazy and weak argument (verging on assertion) to me. Can you please elaborate; what is essentially lacking from the right to control one's own wealth that is present in the other basic human rights you enumerate?
- turc1656 10y ago@jonathanstrange - I disagree. Being able to control your own wealth is akin to retaining the fruits of your labor, which is the guiding principal of John Locke's labor theory of property. Not being able to control it is merely a variant on slavery - they may not be forcing you to work, but society must produce to survive and if they can take whatever they want whenever they want, you are not free under any reasonable definition. Also, please consider the original coinage act of 1792. It carried a penalty of death (yes, death) for anyone caught debasing the currency. Why? Because debasing the currency was considered equivalent to the crime of counterfeit. And debasing the currency was effectively theft from literally every single person in the country through reduced value and less purchasing power via inflation. Counterfeit, debasement, and inflation were considered hidden taxes because they achieve the same goal. Later coinage acts removed this penalty, which is why (in part) we have the problems we have today. We are approaching 20 trillion in debt. That was money that was spent that debased our currency and drastically reduced our purchasing power. Make no mistake, we are not truly free anymore because we do not enjoy this basic human right. This is not to say "taxes are evil" or anything like that. But deficit spending through unbacked credit is theft. If the money were actually taxed instead of issued as unbacked credit, the value of the USD would not erode.
- jly 10y agoLocke lived and wrote in a time when populations were smaller and land and resources were generally far more available than the world we live in today. He stated the right to own property did not include the right to "spoil or destroy" it, and he also stated there was a moral limit to excess accumulation of property on the grounds that individuals have consumption and labor limits that should not be exceeded. His idea of property ownership was rooted in the idea that it would be somewhat fairly distributed. When humans start behaving like that, then I'll agree they should be able to fully control their wealth.
- turc1656 10y agoYes, but John Locke also lived in a time and place where the average life expectancy was <40, meaning you could work until you died. There was no inherent need to accumulate wealth because most people could continue to labor right up until you got sick and died. You didn't have to save for retirement.
- steamer25 10y agoObviously, the usage of the words 'own' and 'wealth' in the title have evoked assumptions/interpretations/implications that may or may not have been intended. I do believe that there is a 'basic'/fundamental human right to retain the benefit of one's own labor. The situation is complicated through trade. E.g., one might trade their labor for paychecks that can be exchanged for further trade opportunities. A government may provide various protections in exchange for taxes, levies, fees, etc. In spite of those details, I also believe individuals have a general right to defend their ethically accumulated property/wealth from various re-distribution/re-negotiation/fraud -schemes which sometimes include inflation. All of that leaves plenty of room for further debate about e.g., * What constitutes ethical accumulation? * In which direction is there a balance due for services rendered? * Were said services actually agreed-to/contracted/requested? * Etc.