3 ms·

It doesn't have to be funded. No law have to be funded. The mere idea that financial concerns is above law is a really new idea and not something to take for g

It doesn't have to be funded. No law have to be funded. The mere idea that financial concerns is above law is a really new idea and not something to take for granted. The fact that central banks are divorced from the political process is just around 100 years old for the US (Federal Reserve Act).

snapplebobapple 2y ago
It's not a new idea, it's one of the oldest ideas because it is a concern for property rights. Any of this style of "right" where it is promising to do something rather than not do something requires funding by definition, as the thing that it requires you to do will require resources and said resources will have to be forcefully confiscated from someone else. These types of "rights" are, by definition, coercive property transfers. it's fundamentally different than the original idea of rights (sometimes referred to as negative rights vs these positive rights) that cost nothing because they are of the form "The government will not do X". Further, I am extremely skeptical positive rights solve anything because the problem is pretty much never a need for coercive property transfer, it's almost always a need for more aggressive enforcement of negative rights to stop the governments doing stupid things that screw up markets (i.e. enforce property rights by relaxing zoning and forcing permits to be quick and painless with high likelihood of being quickly approved if they fit the relaxed zoning in this case) or market power abuse by private people/corporations which then needs more aggressive antitrust enforcement (i.e. stop collusion in the rental market by breaking up large rental trusts and/or fining the crap out of people using software to collude to raise prices for this specific example). coercive property transfer just makes things worse in this case because it doesn't fix the inability to build the needed housing stock where it is needed.
robertlagrant 2y ago
Of course rights can be funded. E.g. the right to legal defence: the state cannot prosecute you if you if it isn't willing to also fund someone to defend you. That's an actual right.

snapplebobapple 2y ago

It's not a new idea, it's one of the oldest ideas because it is a concern for property rights. Any of this style of "right" where it is promising to do something rather than not do something requires funding by definition, as the thing that it requires you to do will require resources and said resources will have to be forcefully confiscated from someone else. These types of "rights" are, by definition, coercive property transfers. it's fundamentally different than the original idea of rights (sometimes referred to as negative rights vs these positive rights) that cost nothing because they are of the form "The government will not do X". Further, I am extremely skeptical positive rights solve anything because the problem is pretty much never a need for coercive property transfer, it's almost always a need for more aggressive enforcement of negative rights to stop the governments doing stupid things that screw up markets (i.e. enforce property rights by relaxing zoning and forcing permits to be quick and painless with high likelihood of being quickly approved if they fit the relaxed zoning in this case) or market power abuse by private people/corporations which then needs more aggressive antitrust enforcement (i.e. stop collusion in the rental market by breaking up large rental trusts and/or fining the crap out of people using software to collude to raise prices for this specific example). coercive property transfer just makes things worse in this case because it doesn't fix the inability to build the needed housing stock where it is needed.

robertlagrant 2y ago

Of course rights can be funded. E.g. the right to legal defence: the state cannot prosecute you if you if it isn't willing to also fund someone to defend you. That's an actual right.