5 ms·

Is "right" the correct abstraction? An alternative might be "obligation". Bill of obligations: Article 1: All parents are obligated to either support their ch

by meric 9y ago

Is "right" the correct abstraction? An alternative might be "obligation". Bill of obligations: Article 1: All parents are obligated to either support their children and provide their physical and educational needs, and give them the emotional support they need to grow up or leave them up for adoption at the earliest opportunity. Article 2: Adult children must financially support their parents by a percentage of their income while their parents are over the age of 65. Article 3: The nearest relatives with income to a person with disability are obligated to support that person financially. Article 4: The government have obligation to help the needy, the disabled, the elderly, the abandoned, to search for their nearest relatives and garnish their wages and income to ensure the persons' needs are fulfilled. Etc etc. Instead of centralising social welfare payments through the government, we can place this obligation back towards those nearest to those who need help. Instead of paying taxes to the government for who knows what causes, they go directly to those nearest to us, and if supporting them is too onerous, search for the next nearest relatives. These articles obligations can be extended to include companies, governments, institutions. Any entity that doesn't fulfil their obligations can be sued by anyone, rather than only when they violate the plaintiff's "rights".

gambiting 9y ago
This goes directly against personal freedom though, especially points 2-4. What if you were abused by your parents and/or had some other issues with them, and you haven't had any contact with them for 30 years? Should you still pay them after they get over the age of 65? In general, the whole idea is upsetting to me, over here in EU we pay massive taxes but they guarantee people in need are taken care off, "garnishing wages" of nearest relatives sounds just stupid.
- igk 9y ago
  It's a difference in conception...in Europe, the idea of "positive freedom" is more prevalent...we care about being able to actually do things in all cases, even if we are in a bad situation. You have a right to education, health care, political participation etc., and part of that right is to be able to actually do it (i.e., "I could if I chose not to work today, but then I can't eat"). Property is a means to freedom, not an end, and can be touched more easily. Hence, taxes are (more) ok. In the the states, I feel there is still the idea of property as a basis for freedom. "Negative freedom" - don't force me to do things, don't touch my house, don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I have the means - is more dominant. Hence, people don't seem to like the idea of having to pay for "other peoples freedom". It's more palatable to think of taking care of just your kids/relatives - there is a limited number of them, and you can probably do that without actually giving up a lot of property. Buy a big house, move your parents in there, you still have a big house afterwards. Of course, this also leads to (or is equivalent) to a "fuck the poor" mindset
  - meric 9y ago
    A 2.5% annual wealth tax that goes to the nearest 20 families who are less well-off, split equally.
    - talmand 9y ago
      Why start at 2.5%? Let's go ahead and get down that slippery slope to start taking people's money at around a 90% rate.
  - talmand 9y ago
    >> In the the states, I feel there is still the idea of property as a basis for freedom. This doesn't exist in the US anymore, maybe for a long time. People think it does, but it does not. >> "Negative freedom" - don't force me to do things, don't touch my house, don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I have the means - is more dominant. People like to think this too, but it doesn't work out that way for most people.
    - igk 9y ago
      Do you know when and how that changed? I'd like to change my view, but just from the discussions I've had with US citizens and what is see happening in your politics, it seems like it is very much still alive. Sure, Sanders and his crowd think less like this, but he lost to Hillary, and not only because of rigging
      - talmand 9y ago
        It would be difficult to nail down, simply because it's not a across the board change that happened overnight. There have been various encroachments on our liberty and property rights over decades. Simple examples: police confiscating money and small items during routine traffic stops with little or no recourse, overzealous use of eminent domain for questionable reasons, creation of various "fees" because local government can't get tax increases passed, etc. There's likely more easily found but those are the first few I can think off the top of my head. Note that in some areas of the US this sort of thing happened and there was instant backlash against it in some jurisdictions. But in others the government moved along just nicely thank you very much. People think of their homes as their "property" and maybe there is some basis in "freedom" in that. But most people don't "own" that property in the first place. Property can mean many different things and many different aspects of property are in a constant state of seizure by government for its own ends.

by meric 9y ago

gambiting 9y ago

This goes directly against personal freedom though, especially points 2-4. What if you were abused by your parents and/or had some other issues with them, and you haven't had any contact with them for 30 years? Should you still pay them after they get over the age of 65? In general, the whole idea is upsetting to me, over here in EU we pay massive taxes but they guarantee people in need are taken care off, "garnishing wages" of nearest relatives sounds just stupid.

igk 9y ago
It's a difference in conception...in Europe, the idea of "positive freedom" is more prevalent...we care about being able to actually do things in all cases, even if we are in a bad situation. You have a right to education, health care, political participation etc., and part of that right is to be able to actually do it (i.e., "I could if I chose not to work today, but then I can't eat"). Property is a means to freedom, not an end, and can be touched more easily. Hence, taxes are (more) ok. In the the states, I feel there is still the idea of property as a basis for freedom. "Negative freedom" - don't force me to do things, don't touch my house, don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I have the means - is more dominant. Hence, people don't seem to like the idea of having to pay for "other peoples freedom". It's more palatable to think of taking care of just your kids/relatives - there is a limited number of them, and you can probably do that without actually giving up a lot of property. Buy a big house, move your parents in there, you still have a big house afterwards. Of course, this also leads to (or is equivalent) to a "fuck the poor" mindset
- meric 9y ago
  A 2.5% annual wealth tax that goes to the nearest 20 families who are less well-off, split equally.
  - talmand 9y ago
    Why start at 2.5%? Let's go ahead and get down that slippery slope to start taking people's money at around a 90% rate.
- talmand 9y ago
  >> In the the states, I feel there is still the idea of property as a basis for freedom. This doesn't exist in the US anymore, maybe for a long time. People think it does, but it does not. >> "Negative freedom" - don't force me to do things, don't touch my house, don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I have the means - is more dominant. People like to think this too, but it doesn't work out that way for most people.
  - igk 9y ago
    Do you know when and how that changed? I'd like to change my view, but just from the discussions I've had with US citizens and what is see happening in your politics, it seems like it is very much still alive. Sure, Sanders and his crowd think less like this, but he lost to Hillary, and not only because of rigging
    - talmand 9y ago
      It would be difficult to nail down, simply because it's not a across the board change that happened overnight. There have been various encroachments on our liberty and property rights over decades. Simple examples: police confiscating money and small items during routine traffic stops with little or no recourse, overzealous use of eminent domain for questionable reasons, creation of various "fees" because local government can't get tax increases passed, etc. There's likely more easily found but those are the first few I can think off the top of my head. Note that in some areas of the US this sort of thing happened and there was instant backlash against it in some jurisdictions. But in others the government moved along just nicely thank you very much. People think of their homes as their "property" and maybe there is some basis in "freedom" in that. But most people don't "own" that property in the first place. Property can mean many different things and many different aspects of property are in a constant state of seizure by government for its own ends.