We're doing alright, but not as well as last year

Government spending, which is used to provide education to everyone and make them freer, is used as a negative criterion. Great!
Let me present you these rankings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/...-10-en&_csp_=068e923eb1ecbbc65ba8f85d03f6f60d
Denmark is the highest ranked country in terms of happiness and oddly the highest ranked country also on government spending! I wonder why.

 

Positive rights cannot be held equally be all people in all situations. They are dependent on circumstances. Rich developed countries can afford to to pay for a level of taxation that gives a particular level of services but that is different to saying that positive rights can be held equally be all. That they violate other, more fundamental rights is wrong.

Looking at "part of the equation" doesn't change the fact that economic freedom is fundamentally about the right to use your person or property is whatever peaceful way you see fit. If you disagree, please show a test that is used for the rankings that disproves this.

In terms of "ignoring" positive rights you are confusing the fact that they should not exist in law with the idea that we should strive to fulfil them as part of a healthy, civil society. Enshrining them in law automatically creates conflict because they violate other more fundamental rights. The goal of civilised society should be the minimisation of such conflict and to deliberately create it by placing the lives and livelihoods of certain individuals above others is the opposite. It is illogical, even if fuelled by well meaning intent.

 

I didn't say all positive rights can be held equally by all. And for me, providing education and health to everyone is more fundamental than leaving money in the pocket of a wealthy person, so that he can buy his private yacht. I'm not saying that buying an yacht is wrong. I'm just saying that there are trade-offs to be made. If a person had the opportunity to study, progress and profit, before buying his yacht, maybe he should contribute so that others have the same opportunities and then, if he still has the money, he can buy his yacht.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom):

Again, for me negative rights are not more fundamental than positive rights, so the latter have to be considered in law. In fact if they weren't, our lives would be hell. Can you imagine your country without Military/Police/Courts?
Also, you didn't answer my questions about the education of children who can't afford it nor why Denmark is ranked 1st in happiness and has the highest government spending in the world. I guess it's not because of the weather...

 

Seems to me the freer society would be the one where uneducated ill were free to improve their situation without further liability. Ideally it would be an opt-in arrangement that could be chosen at 18 with coverage extended to children, and the option to buy in / sell out at varying cost depending on age. Call it generational social insurance, and sell it on the free market.

 

That seems good on paper, but in practice it has shown that it fails. For instance, during the 20th century in some countries many people didn't make their contributions to retirement (they weren't forced to do it, neither their employers were) and then when they retired the government had to give them something so that they wouldn't die in poverty.
I understand your point of providing more freedom to people. It's a noble cause. But most people aren't prepared to that.

Moreover, with that system you're trying to maximize freedom, but completely disregarding fairness. I know fairness is subjective, but we can try to find a consensus.
Imagine that everyone agrees on what's fair. Everyone thinks that's fair to provide healthcare to whom can't afford it. If you don't have the State providing that, it won't happen. Why? Because each person individually won't contribute unless he knows everyone else will do it. And even if he knows that, he may not contribute. It's game theory.

 

Fine. We agree. So it cannot be considered a universal right because it cannot be universal.

Trade-offs only have to be made if you believe positive rights should be law. But such trade-offs are arbitrary. Believing that there is a trade-off between everyone being equal before the law and the situation of individuals is basically stating that certain people have more rights than others. By what power is one person granted these greater rights? Are they smarter, prettier, healthier, a higher caste, marked by god, of the right blood, speak differently, urinate differently?

Fraud, theft or violence against another person is wrong irrespective of how much property a person has or what they look like. To claim otherwise is to claim that people do not have the right to own their person and instead they are slaves to someone else (eg a monarch, high priest or a dictator) or to some "higher ideal" (such as the spurious notion of "society" or a "collective"). It is a nonsense and means that no-one has rights except those that happen to be granted or taken away through privilege.

To state that someone doesn't deserve to have a yacht is to be envious of their situation. To claim that there is a trade-off that demands intervention is to claim moral superiority over others about what the trade-offs entail. Envy, vanity and the willingess to use force against others to obtain your ideals are not pleasant traits and should not be a part of civil society. As bad as greed can be, by itself, it does not actively initiate aggression against the livelihoods of others whereas positive rights is greed, envy and vanity dressed up as some Robin Hood-altruism and deemed to be virtuous when really they are just morally lost thugs hiding behind a veneer of authority. The ends do not justify the means.

Military/police/courts exist for the protection and enforcement of negative rights. That is not relevant to the discussion as they can exist without positive rights. That their power is abused to initiate aggression against peaceful individuals is immoral.

In terms of Amartya Sen, he is mistaken. Freedom/liberty/rights only make sense in the negative sense. Individuals restraining from aggressing against others is universal. Anything else is to claim that human rights aren't universal and that some humans are different to others. Again, why are some humans deemed different in the eyes of the law compared to others?

The treatment of children's rights is not really a small discussion. In essence they do not have full rights until they grow to acquire an understanding and respect for them (some never do). A newborn is different to a 2 year old is different to a 6 year old is different to a 12 year old etc.

The Guardianship is a voluntary act whereby the guardian takes on the responsibility to protect the rights of the child and to commit to the development of the child to adulthood. In essence it is a property right (acquired like any other property right). Like certain other property rights, it ideally cannot be abandoned without a societal process (ie although the guardianship rights of a baby is the property of the mother she (ideally) cannot place it in the bin without offering the rights to others).

What constitutes appropriate development is a highly contextual thing that is basically a social norm. We know it when we see it done correctly and we know it when we see it done badly. Fundamentally the guardianship obligations does not require an obligation for taxation to provide for public education - especially by people who have no connection to the guardianship rights.

RE Denmark - the happiness index is linked more to economic freedom than size of government and as I already reported it is in the top 10 for economic freedom. But saying that happiness as measured under this index justifies a large government taking and redistributing property is again putting the ends before the means. Australia, Canada and Switzerland are also in the top 10 for happiness despite much smaller governments. So what?

 

Simple answer - Friendly societies: voluntary organisations that provided a range of tailored services based on the requests of their members, including health insurance, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, life insurance, annuities to widows, sick pay, pensions, etc. Some grouped together to better provide against risk of numerous deaths etc in the one location with the benefit that members could travel from one region to another (including internationally from, say, England to America) and readily find accommodation and support to obtain a new job.

Also see the Medical care before the state thread.

 

I don't want to be rude to you, but it seems that you don't want to understand what I'm telling you.
I'll make it very simple: I didn't say all positive rights can be held equally by all, but some (fundamental) positive rights, such as Education, can.
Of course providing Education for everyone will infringe other rights, such as private property, as we'll all contribute with part of our wealth to the Education system. But, as I've said, I believe some positive rights (such as Education) are more fundamental than some negative rights.

Of course I believe positive rights should be law and I've explained that to you. Some positive rights are more fundamental than some negative rights. As I've said, those more fundamental positive rights can be held equal by everyone, so the trade-off has nothing to do with certain people having more rights than others. You're completely misguided by your initial assumption.

I don't remember of advocating fraud, theft or violence. Indeed, I haven't even talked about those topics.

You have to revise the definition of "envy". "Envy" is about discontentment and desire of other's property, independently of it being deserved or not. If I look at a person who enriched by stealing others, I'll feel that's unfair and not deserved, but I'm not envious, as I don't wish that to me.
Regarding the yacht, I was pretty clear. I said it wasn't wrong to buy an yacht, as long as the person had previously contributed to other more fundamental rights.
I believe in democracy. If people vote for a system that provides Public Education for everyone, those who don't contribute are stealing the opportunities of others. Of course we'll have to use force against those who want to limit our freedom and break the rules of an established society. No one forces them to integrate this society. They are free to go away and live in the mountains. They'll pay no taxes, but they won't profit from the society either.

Your view is the view of classical liberals. That doesn't mean that there aren't other views. Economic freedom only considering negative rights is not consensual. You were wrong on this one.
For the 10th time: some positive rights can be held equal by all, so they can be universal.
Regarding military/police/courts, they are funded by taxes, so they exist to enforce negative rights, but they also infringe negative rights. The solution would be everyone being equipped with a machine gun or paying others for protection. It would be the return to the Godfather era.

I don't see children as mere property. I see children as individuals who deserve equal opportunities and equal freedom.
If we confine a child's freedom to what his guardians are able or willing to provide, they won't have equal opportunities.
I can't see why the son of wealthy people deserves more freedom than the son of poor people. Can you explain that to me?

But if Denmark has such a large government (actually the largest of them all), why does it rank better than any other country (including those which are supposedly freer, such as Australia, Canada or Switzerland)?
So what? So, it has nothing to do with the size of the government, since the government may spend money confining or enhancing people's freedom.
No, it has nothing to do with putting the ends before the means. I, like you, advocate the use of force against those who want to limit someone's freedom. The only difference is that you ignore part of the equation when defining freedom.

 

The state is indeed a friendly society at the national scale. It's the evolution of the previous small friendly societies and is able to provide better social services to a much wider range of people.
If you don't want to integrate the society, you just leave. Democracies don't force you to stay.

 

Add to that a massive oil to population ratio. There is no way in hell that Denmark could pull all of those rankings off without that little gold mine of oil they have. It's like the saying about may engineered things. You have Cheap, Light and Strong. You can only have two of them.

In Denmark's case you could not have happiness, high government spending AND economic freedom without the oil. $12 for a beer? They are taking the piss on that happiness register.

 

On this Negative and Positive rights thing:

I'd go a long way to being happy if they just taxed everyone equally. Some equality in the tax code is what is needed first before we start trying to shove "equality" down peoples throats any more than it is today.

For the time being I'd like to say to all the socialists. "Fine!!!!! You get your "Free" healthcare and your "Free" education. But you aren't taking a single percentage of tax off of anyone that you aren't taking off everyone.

Then and only then will the huge percentage of society that pays no net tax really start to put some real scrutiny on how the public purse is spent.

Then and only then can we have a real debate over what services the governments at all levels should be providing.

 

+1
Beautifully said.

 

Denmark is 10 positions behind Canada in terms of oil per capita (indeed, it has just slightly more than half of Canada's oil per capita - see http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Energy/Oil/Production/Per-capita). Canada ranks higher in that freedom ranking, has a much smaller government spending and still people are less happy than in Denmark. Why would that be?

 

There's a reason why the tax rate is not flat. Things have evolved into a progressive tax rate in pretty much every developed country. Only less-developed countries have flat tax rates.
Indeed, a progressive tax rate better reflects the effort of each person in contributing to the system. 500 are much more essential to a person who earns 1000 than 5000 to a person who earns 10000. If a person who earns millions contributes with 50%, he still has half of the millions to spend and he will barely notice the impact of that on his life style. It's called "law of diminishing returns".

 

Easy boy. Using a 20 characters word or 10 smiles doesn't help you on your arguments. Your arguments are determined by the content of what you say; not by the way you say it.
Regarding the friendly societies I don't know any that has had the reach of a State. But if you know such a society that has provided education, healthcare, security and so on to an entire country, please tell me.
Btw, it wasn't my purpose to discuss whether the State should be the direct provider or if it should just provide funding so that private companies do it.

That's not true. You can isolate yourself from the society. If you go to the mountains, no one will go after you.

 

:lol:
Confirmed my suspicion that you had no hope of a response of any substance to this gem.

 

This is not true. You are not discussing providing "education" for everyone, you are maintaining that a system of formal education is a right of every person. Providing such a formal system requires time and resources of other people - ie the life, liberty and property of others. A subsistence society cannot afford to pay for such a system unless the people donate their time (or are made slaves). Every hour of education forced to be provided has to be taken from someone - either taken from the hour of life of the teacher or paid out of the lives of others by them working to sustain both their own lives plus the lives of the teachers.

Education of some implies the slavery of others and is not something to be glorified.