Apres Moi Le Deluge

Rights and Responsibilities

11 posts in this topic

I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right place, forgive me if not.

*

"with rights come responsibilites", If that sentence means anything other than the respnsibility not to violate other peoples right not to have force initiated against them, I disagree. (Though, you could say people have a responsibility to treat other moral people in a moral way, (honesty etc) maybe..)

The people who say that sentence tend to be people who violate other peoples rights by taking over their lives (ie, people trying to justify the draft), but these people are in fact taking away a persons rights, but leaving the responsibility, if things go wrong, with that person. So they have infact seperated rights and "responsibilities" themselfs.

But, I think they view 'rights' as more as privileges the government sells to people at the price of those people having responsibilities to do what said government says.

Could one method of trying to stop government violating peoples rights more in future be for the peoples whos rights the government violates to refuse to take any responsibility when things go wrong, meaning that people will see that it is the governments fault?

I think this is a small part of what the strikers were doing in Atlas Shrugged. Though, how would it work on a smaller scale, with only one business, or just one individual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One takes on a responsibility of his own free will. In a contract, one party commits to an exchange of value for value. If one pays the other, per agreement, the other has a responsibility to provide the value promised voluntarily in the contract.

The focus of the Founders was always on the responsibilty of those in office to those who committed to be bound by the Constitution, not the other way around. It has been inverted.

We owe no duty, no responsibilty, to the U.S. Government by virtue of having been born here, living here, or naturalized here, other than that to which we owe ourselves to act in our own rational self-interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could one method of trying to stop government violating peoples rights more in future be for the peoples whos rights the government violates to refuse to take any responsibility when things go wrong, meaning that people will see that it is the governments fault?

How do people "refuse to take any responsibility" when rights are violated - do you mean they say they don't or won't, or they take some other kind of actions? How do these actions of refusal mean that "people will see" what is happening? To take an example from currency inflation, the Mongols knew how inflation worked, and they went ahead and devalued their currency anyway. When American "experts" told a newly-formed West Germany they had to create all sorts of government bodies to regulate their economy, they knew what would be the result, and those were the recommendations anyway, which West Germany rejected outright. I don't see how, even if people believe it's somebody's fault (rather than a political body), recognition of a fact is necessarily connected to action taken to stop violations and so it is not a "method".

I think this is a small part of what the strikers were doing in Atlas Shrugged. Though, how would it work on a smaller scale, with only one business, or just one individual?

Each adult makes his own decisions of which values he seeks to protect, and in what context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One takes on a responsibility of his own free will. In a contract, one party commits to an exchange of value for value. If one pays the other, per agreement, the other has a responsibility to provide the value promised voluntarily in the contract.

The focus of the Founders was always on the responsibilty of those in office to those who committed to be bound by the Constitution, not the other way around. It has been inverted.

We owe no duty, no responsibilty, to the U.S. Government by virtue of having been born here, living here, or naturalized here, other than that to which we owe ourselves to act in our own rational self-interest.

I agree with the first paragraph of what you say, in my original post I was talking about the opinion of people who think otherwise, not my own opininion. Though, I think that you can take on responsibilities without a written, or even spoken, contract. For example, if you choose to talk to someone who is not threatening you with force, then its your responsibilty to talk so as to make yourself understood and to be truthful. Of course this wouldn't be the sort of 'responsibility' that could, or should, be enforcable by law.

Not being an American, I only have a limited knowledge of the constitution, but I suppose it is similar to the English Magna Carta, which while it protected individual rights in some places, also violated them in others, and has since been completely disregarded by the MPs and judiciary anyway.

I know no one owes responsibility to any government that they don't choose out of their own self interest, I was talking about the opinions of people that think we do, and how best to counteract them. Again, sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do people "refuse to take any responsibility" when rights are violated... How do these actions of refusal mean that "people will see" what is happening? ...

For example, when government violates a companies rights with legislation, which causes prices to go above what they would be in a free market, to a level that makes life difficult for many people, the government (and other groups) will blame something like 'corporate greed' for the high prices. Companies that have had their rights violated in this way normaly just accept it and continue to do the best they can in the circumstances, and when 'corporate greed' is denounced they tend to make further concessions to government. This will mean the only opinion anyone hears on this is the one against 'corporate greed' which means most people will hold that opinion by default.

By refusing to take any responsibilty for the high prices that they did not cause, and making it clear that it was the governments intervention that caused it, a company would be withdrawing their sanction from any further, similar, legislation. By publicly refuting the argument against 'corporate greed', obviously won't change everyones opinion, though it will make more obvious for people to see that government intervention in the freemarket causes their hardships, not the free market itself.

<
I think this is a small part of what the strikers were doing in Atlas Shrugged. Though, how would it work on a smaller scale, with only one business, or just one individual?

Each adult makes his own decisions of which values he seeks to protect, and in what context.

Of course each adult makes his own decisions. My question wasn't "who decides what values should an adult protect?" it was about how you would go about not letting the responsibilty, or blame, be shifted to you for the consequences of an action that was took by others, or the consequences of you not taking an action that you were prevented from taking by the use of force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do people "refuse to take any responsibility" when rights are violated... How do these actions of refusal mean that "people will see" what is happening? ...

Companies that have had their rights violated in this way normaly just accept it and continue to do the best they can in the circumstances, and when 'corporate greed' is denounced they tend to make further concessions to government. This will mean the only opinion anyone hears on this is the one against 'corporate greed' which means most people will hold that opinion by default.

By refusing to take any responsibilty for the high prices that they did not cause, and making it clear that it was the governments intervention that caused it, a company would be withdrawing their sanction from any further, similar, legislation. By publicly refuting the argument against 'corporate greed', obviously won't change everyones opinion, though it will make more obvious for people to see that government intervention in the freemarket causes their hardships, not the free market itself.

I asked for a clarification whether you mean a refusal to take responsibility is done through words or some other actions. In your response, you have given an example of a worded refusal to accept any responsibility. If the company continues to operate under the legislation despite their words, how is the company withdrawing their sanction in the scenario you provide? By continuing to run the company in existing conditions, isn't it "obvious" to the public that the company is still in operation due to corporate greed irrespective of words claiming higher prices are the result of government intervention?

And as I remarked above, many things that are obvious to people go unchanged. Sometimes positive change fails to occur due to malfunctioning wishing wells and sometimes through a pervasive belief that conflicts of interests within and among men are to be expected and cannot be resolved (this is far from a complete list of concrete causes of screwups). PR statements as per your example won't change the fact that many people think governments exist to help protect them from reality and so governments are doing their job when they add new tariffs.

Each adult makes his own decisions of which values he seeks to protect, and in what context.

Of course each adult makes his own decisions. My question wasn't "who decides what values should an adult protect?" it was about how you would go about not letting the responsibilty, or blame, be shifted to you for the consequences of an action that was took by others, or the consequences of you not taking an action that you were prevented from taking by the use of force.

My response was to your question, not some other question you have not posed. You referenced the strikers in AS but your questions have been about rights violations generally. Unless you specify a particular field in which rights violations are taking place, my broad answer to your main question is that there are 24 hours in a day and one chooses which values one wishes to protect because rights violations are taking place in nearly every aspect of daily life and one's life had better be about more than writing LTEs ad nauseaum every hour of the day, despite incorporating such activities into one's hierarchy of values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, when government violates a companies rights with legislation, which causes prices to go above what they would be in a free market, to a level that makes life difficult for many people, the government (and other groups) will blame something like 'corporate greed' for the high prices. Companies that have had their rights violated in this way normally just accept it and continue to do the best they can in the circumstances, and when 'corporate greed' is denounced they tend to make further concessions to government. This will mean the only opinion anyone hears on this is the one against 'corporate greed' which means most people will hold that opinion by default.

By refusing to take any responsibility for the high prices that they did not cause, and making it clear that it was the governments intervention that caused it, a company would be withdrawing their sanction from any further, similar, legislation. By publicly refuting the argument against 'corporate greed', obviously won't change everyones opinion, though it will make more obvious for people to see that government intervention in the free market causes their hardships, not the free market itself.

It would be nice if companies could do that, but the government holds a gun to their heads and can shoot them any time they damn please thanks to non-objective laws.

If businessmen don't protest and speak up in self-defense, it isn't necessarily "sanction" or their fault. Morality ends where a gun begins and it is hard to win a gunfight armed only with ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betsy said:

Morality ends where a gun begins and it is hard to win a gunfight armed only with ideas.

Cometmaker said:

There are 24 hours in a day and one chooses which values one wishes to protect because rights violations are taking place in nearly every aspect of daily life and one's life had better be about more than writing LTEs ad nauseaum every hour of the day, despite incorporating such activities into one's hierarchy of values.

So, you have to choose which values you will relinquish at gunpoint, and which values you will refuse to give up even under threat of force?

(Whats an LTE? Is it like a PR statement?)

Cometmaker said:

many things that are obvious to people go unchanged. Sometimes positive change fails to occur due to malfunctioning wishing wells and sometimes through a pervasive belief that conflicts of interests within and among men are to be expected and cannot be resolved (this is far from a complete list of concrete causes of screwups). PR statements as per your example won't change the fact that many people think governments exist to help protect them from reality and so governments are doing their job when they add new tariffs.

Your right that PR statements wont change a lot of peoples opinion that the government exists to protect them, but it will remove that companies sanction of this view.

And:

If the company continues to operate under the legislation despite their words, how is the company withdrawing their sanction in the scenario you provide?

They could be saying "We're going to do the best we can in the circumstances, but if we didn't have to work under a constant threat of arbritrary force we could do a lot better."

I think that while most people beleive the government should look after them, most of them do not see - or don't want to see - the gun that is pointed at people by a government that 'looks after' people. If the gun were made completely obvious to people they would have to choose between supporting or opposing those holding the gun, and I think most people would be appaled to see what their beleif in a 'helpful' government had led to, and would decide they were against the gun. (Of course, this would depend on the culture of the country in question)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes positive change fails to occur due to malfunctioning wishing wells
That's the best one-liner I've heard all week. :wacko:

Thanks. And it's good, finally, to understand why government programs haven't been working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes positive change fails to occur due to malfunctioning wishing wells

That's the best one-liner I've heard all week.

I laughed too. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites