Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Oddball]

Let's just start there. And see whether ANYONE in their right mind can REFUSE to accept that GOVT ineptness and incompetence and maybe graft played a leading role in setting up the crisis...

Therein lies the rub.

 

[Intense]

PROGRESSIVISM (1900-1920)

Overview

Progressivism was not so much an organized movement as it was a general spirit of reform embraced by Americans with diverse goals and backgrounds during the early twentieth century (1900-20). Progressives sought the advancement of humanity (progress was defined here in Darwinian terms; i.e., the actually improvement of mankind in an evolutionary sense). Progressives sought advancement through the liberation of human energies and potential from both the fading restraints of past ages and the new restraints imposed by modern industrialism. Progressivism was, thus, both forward-looking and backward-looking in its outlook.

There were four general areas in which the progressives tried to reform American society. As you are reading Tindall and Shi, America: A Narrative History, note the discussion of these areas and the specific reforms that were a part of each area:

Democracy

Many progressives hoped to make government in the U.S. more responsive to the direct voice of the American people by instituting the following institutional reforms:

Initiative-A procedure whereby ordinary citizens could propose laws for consideration by their state legislatures or by the voters directly.

Referendum-A procedure whereby citizens could vote directly on whether to approve proposed laws.

Recall-A procedure by which a public official could be removed from office by a direct vote of the citizens.

Secret Ballot-A procedure by which citizens could keep their votes secret. Previously, voting was a public act witnessed by others. The voting records of individual citizens were recorded and made public. Many progressives argued that public voting allowed for voter intimidation. An employer, for instance, might require his employees to vote for certain candidates on pain of losing their jobs.

Direct primary-A procedure whereby political party nominations for public office were made directly by a vote of rank-and-file members of the party rather than by party bosses.

Direct election of U.S. Senators-A procedure to allow the citizens in each state to directly elect their Senators. Previously, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures. Direct election of Senators was achieved with the addition of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1913).

Women's Suffrage-Granting to women the right to vote. Women's Suffrage was achieved with the addition of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1920).

The progressives achieved their greatest and most enduring successes in the effort to make governments more democratic.

Efficiency

Many progressives hoped to make American governments better able to serve the people's needs by making governmental operations and services more efficient and rational. Reforms included:

Elite, professional administrators-Many progressives argued that governments would function better if they were placed under the direction of trained, professional administrators. One example of progressive reform was the rise of the city manager system, in which paid, professional administrators ran the day-to-day affairs of city governments under guidelines established by elected city councils.

Centralization of decision-making process-Many progressives sought to make government more rational through centralized decision-making. Governments were reorganized to reduce the number of officials and to eliminate overlapping areas of authority between departments. City governments were reorganized to reduce the power of local wards within the city and to increase the powers of the city council. Governments at every level began developing budgets to help them plan their expenditures (rather than spending money haphazardly as needs arose and revenue became available). The drive for centralization was often associated with the rise of professional administrators.

Movements to eliminate governmental corruption-Corruption represented a source of waste and inefficiency in government. Many progressives worked to cleanup local governments by eliminating the power of machine politicians and urban political bosses. Often this was associated with the effort to restructure the ward system. Power was transferred from urban bosses to professional administrators.

Note that the progressives' quest for efficiency was sometimes at odds with the progressives' quest for democracy. Taking power out of the hands of elected officials and placing that power in the hands of professional administrators reduced the voice of the people in government. Centralized decision-making and reduced power for local wards made government more distant and isolated from the people it served. Progressives who emphasized the need for efficiency sometimes argued that an elite class of administrators knew better what the people needed than did the people themselves.

Regulation of Large Corporations and Monopolies

Many progressives hoped that by regulating large corporations that they could liberate human energies from the restrictions imposed by industrial capitalism. Progressives disagreed over which of the following four solutions should be used to regulate corporations:

Laissez-Faire-Some progressives argued that marketplace forces were the best regulators of all. A company which paid low wages or maintained an unsafe work environment would be forced to change its policies by the loss of workers. A company which made an unsafe product would eventually lose customers and go bankrupt. In the long run, a free market would best protect the public interest.

Trust-busting-Some progressives argued that industrial monopolies were unnatural economic institutions which suppressed the competition which was necessary for progress and improvement. The federal government should intervene by breaking up monopolies into smaller companies, thereby restoring competition. The government should then withdraw and allow marketplace forces once again to regulate the economy.

Regulation-Some progressives argued that in a modern economy, large corporations and even monopolies were both inevitable and desirable. With their massive resources and economies of scale, large corporations offered the U.S. advantages which smaller companies could not offer. Yet, these large corporations might abuse their great power. The federal government should allow these companies to exist but regulate them for the public interest.

Socialism-Some progressives believed that privately owned companies could never be made to serve the public interest. Therefore, the federal government should acquire ownership of large corporations and operate them for the public interest.

The laissez-faire and socialist approaches were less popular among progressives than the trust-busting and regulatory approaches.

Social Justice

Many progressives supported both private and governmental action to help people in need (such action is called social justice). Social justice reforms included:

Development of professional social workers-The idea that welfare and charity work should be undertaken by professionals who are trained to do the job. (Notice again the progressives' concern for efficiency through professionalism.)

The building of Settlement Houses-These were residential, community centers operated by social workers and volunteers and located in inner city slums. The purpose of the settlement houses was to raise the standard of living of urbanites by providing schools, day care centers, and cultural enrichment programs.

The enactment of child labor laws-Child labor laws would prevent overwork of children in the newly emerging industries. The goal of these laws was to give working-class children the opportunity to go to school and to mature more naturally, thereby liberating the potential of humanity and encouraging the advancement of humanity.

Support for the goals of organized labor-Progressives often supported such goals as the eight-hour work day, improved safety and health conditions in factories, workman's compensation laws, minimum wage laws, and unionization.

Prohibition laws-Progressives adopted the cause of prohibition. They claimed the consumption of alcohol limited mankind's potential for advancement. Progressives achieved success in this area with the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1919.

Progressivism

So, which should the Progressive Movement throw under the bus next?

That's got to be one of the slickest, most carefully pruned descriptions of "Progressive" movement I've ever seen.. And I notice it's from a College course.. Nothing like purging the recruiting material of all the ugly and embarrassing stuff like Margaret Sanger and eugenics for instance.. Maybe I'll go pull an ACTUAL history of the Progressive movement in the 20th Century America. You know -- the stuff that's been purged from the GeorgeTown College curricula..

Yeah, and here you see Progressivism encouraging Big Centralized Business over Small Business, giving Privilege ans Advantage, maybe because it is easier to gain control over, then feeling threatened by these same Companies they encouraged to grow, calling for tighter controls. They create what they later see as either Competitors or Monsters, and Bitch about it. Why discriminate against Small Enterprise in the first place?
Manipulate and control Industries and Markets, create Bureaucracies, and Bitch about was was created as if you had nothing to do with the making, with Solutions that are Fascist. Only your Fixes can possibly work, ignore the self fulfilling Prophesy.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn::

My cartoon is right on the money. The financial crash of our economy was brought about by the private sector. Skyrocketing healthcare costs are because Wall Street controls the insurance industry.

I gave you some REAL reasons for healthcare crisis and you ignore those.. (about 4 posts back).. And then you continuously make your assertions that "the private sector" brought on the crash, and the healthcare crisis is created by the insurance companies..

You know --- ONE of us is right. History will figure it out. But this isn't a conversation if you ignore replies and keep spouting the same ole leftist drivel... I'm here for the truth.. Not to play GroundHog Day with a bunch of primadonnas.

Let's try to divine an answer to either one of your assertions. I'll start --- So the following GOVT actions had NO BEARING on the housing bubble that caused the last crash..

1) Abnormally low interest rates for an absurdly long time.

2) The govt establishing goals and quotas for making loans to subprime borrowers in Red lined neighborhoods.

3) Fanny/Freddy being pressured politically to "prioritize their portfolio" to include increasing numbers of sub-prime loans. And being among the 1st bundlers in the nation to "hide the junk" amongst the normal loans.

4) Barney Frank never told the regulators to stop picking on Fanny/Freddie and to go home. Never asserted that "Fanny/Freddie would never cost the taxpayers a nickel". Even when he KNEW they were taking on HUGE amounts of sub-prime paper and being pushed to approve more..

Let's just start there. And see whether ANYONE in their right mind can REFUSE to accept that GOVT ineptness and incompetence and maybe graft played a leading role in setting up the crisis...

Here is what we DO know:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN


WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

The Millionaire Foreclosure Club

Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting

More Rich People Default On Mortgages

The rich bail faster on mortgages

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage

Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’

Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[flacaltenn]

Name me a bank that writing Sub-Prime loans Before the Fanny/Freddy announcement in 1999...

Yeah -- don't blame Fanny/Freddy.. That's why getting RID of them today has overwhelming bipartisian support.

No comment on the "First time buyer tax breaks" or the "absurdly low interest rates" or all the official govt pronouncements to INCREASE the number of sub-prime loans written? Of course not..

You are in denial... Pick ONE of those raggedy-assed GOVT apologists that opined about not looking at GOVT policy (from your list) and I'll frickasee that bastard...

 

[Londoner]

Where in the blazes does this crap come from? And what are you babbling about Sean Hannity? Sorry kiddo -- Must be a language barrier here or you've been reading Chomsky but not really comprehending it -- one or t'other..

Noted. Fair. I wonder if my point depends on it though. Let's see if you see what I'm trying to say.

I was making a broader point about the effects of trade liberalization and the mobility of capital respective to labor. This country made a transition from protecting & strengthening labor, to protecting, strengthening, subsidizing, and bailing out capital.

Some history.

Strict trade laws, tariffs, tighter currency standards, powerful unions, a fed charged with maintaining full employment, and technological limitations tied American capital very tightly to American labor until the 70s (despite GATT in 1947, which had not truly blossomed until Reagan). After WWII many advanced industrial nations were in a shambles (e.g., Europe, Japan); and China & the far east were still off limits. This historical context - combined with the New Deal spirit of taking care of the middle class worker, which was supported by both major parties - gave Labor tremendous leverage over capital.

Consequently, business was "forced" to share more of its profits with workers. While this resulted in robust consumer demand, staggering economic growth, high employment, and upward mobility (freedom) for middle class workers, business wanted to keep a larger share of the pie. So it quietly started investing in the Republican Party, Think Tanks, & media. . . (and it waited for the right moment to change laws and minds).

Their opportunity came in the 70s with an oil shock and stagflation. Volker transformed the Fed's roll from maintaining "full" employment to busting inflation. It worked! Prices came down. As a side bonus, there was a massive recession which resulted in high unemployment and more docile work force, thus bidding down wages - preparing the stage for union busting and the replacement of solid manufacturing jobs with a sea of low wage, no-benefit temp retail jobs.

So, but here is the point about our 70s malaise: the special interests which put Reagan in office made their case successfully to the American people. They said that economic growth was being stunted by expensive labor, high taxes, useless regulations, and strict trade laws. They asked for cheaper operating conditions, which meant cheaper labor. They said that if capital was given more freedom, a utopia of investment, innovation, solid jobs, and competitive pricing would trickle down.

Who knew they were just going to ship our manufacturing to communist China, and replace high middle class wages with credit cards, crazy mortgages, and "no interest for 18 months" - and call it "Morning in America"… as both the American government and consumer traveled into historic debt (as the sultans of American industry quietly partnered with dictator-lead countries to make bank. And talk radio was paid to call it freedom. Brilliant). Yes, it was/is cheaper for Nike to get their sneaks made for pennies a day (by oppressed freedom hating countries, whose cheap labor made a small group of American owners and shareholders wealthy enough to fund elections and staff government). Ironically, they ship their product (courtesy of "trade routes" stabilized on the public's (Pentagon) dime) back to shopping malls staffed by the new low-wage no-benefit middle class - who were given credit cards instead of wages/benefits to buy shiny plastic objects made in "evil-doer" countries, as well as monopolized health care rising at 5x the rate of inflation (to pay for innovation [cough] "administrative costs", which innovation seems to have pumped the serfs up with antidepressants to keep them calibrated to their disappearing standard of living).

Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" should be re-titled "Capitalism, cheap labor, and the death of the middle class & environment"

So but wait: are you saying that we did not transition form a world of support/protections for labor to a world of subsidies/bailouts/regulatory-capture/global-mobility for the suppliers? The transition from the Keynesian/New Deal model to Reaganomics is not exactly a secret.

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWFv8LCVn3M]Liberty, a structured analysis - YouTube[/ame]
Liberty, a structured analysis

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HodW6uyucE&feature=related]An analysis of Tyrannical Systems, part 1 - YouTube[/ame]
An analysis of Tyrannical Systems, part 1


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ34kH4YsY0&feature=related]An analysis of Tyrannical Systems, part 2 - YouTube[/ame]
An analysis of Tyrannical Systems, part 2

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcPCy7W2Wc4&feature=related]Arguments against a Rights-Based Philosophy - YouTube[/ame]
Arguments against a Rights-Based Philosophy

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPkqya43CiE&feature=related]Ramifications of Tyranny - YouTube[/ame]
Ramifications of Tyranny

 

[Intense]

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[1] Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror.

The concept of totalitarianism was first developed in a positive sense in the 1920s by the Italian fascists. The concept became prominent in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era in order to highlight perceived similarities between Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes on the one hand, and Soviet communism on the other.[2][3][4][5][6]
Contents
[hide]

1 Etymology
2 Difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes
3 Examples of the term's use
4 Cold War-era research
5 Criticism and recent work with the concept
6 Totalitarianism in Architecture
7 In popular culture
8 See also
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links

[edit] Etymology

The notion of "Totalitarianism" a "total" political power by state was formulated in 1923 by Giovanni Amendola who described Italian Fascism as a system fundamentally different from conventional dictatorships.[7] The term was later assigned a positive meaning in the writings of Giovanni Gentile, Italy’s most prominent philosopher and leading theorist of fascism. He used the term “totalitario” to refer to the structure and goals of the new state. The new state was to provide the “total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals.”[8] He described totalitarianism as a society in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens.[9] According to Benito Mussolini, this system politicizes everything spiritual and human:

Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.[7]

As an example, he stated that "We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess. We must condemn once and for all the formula 'chess for the sake of chess', like the formula 'art for art's sake'. We must organize shockbrigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realization of a Five-Year Plan for chess."[10]
[edit] Difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes

The term 'an authoritarian regime' denotes a state in which the single power holder - an individual 'dictator', a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite - monopolizes political power. However, a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life including economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens. "The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into the deepest reaches of societal structure and the totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of its citizens ."[7]

According to one publication, the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian dictators can be expressed in a chart:[11]

Totalitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[flacaltenn]

Where in the blazes does this crap come from? And what are you babbling about Sean Hannity? Sorry kiddo -- Must be a language barrier here or you've been reading Chomsky but not really comprehending it -- one or t'other..

Noted. Fair. I wonder if my point depends on it though. Let's see if you see what I'm trying to say.

I was making a broader point about the effects of trade liberalization and the mobility of capital respective to labor. This country made a transition from protecting & strengthening labor, to protecting, strengthening, subsidizing, and bailing out capital.

Some history.

Strict trade laws, tariffs, tighter currency standards, powerful unions, a fed charged with maintaining full employment, and technological limitations tied American capital very tightly to American labor until the 70s (despite GATT in 1947, which had not truly blossomed until Reagan). After WWII many advanced industrial nations were in a shambles (e.g., Europe, Japan); and China & the far east were still off limits. This historical context - combined with the New Deal spirit of taking care of the middle class worker, which was supported by both major parties - gave Labor tremendous leverage over capital.

Consequently, business was "forced" to share more of its profits with workers. While this resulted in robust consumer demand, staggering economic growth, high employment, and upward mobility (freedom) for middle class workers, business wanted to keep a larger share of the pie. So it quietly started investing in the Republican Party, Think Tanks, & media. . . (and it waited for the right moment to change laws and minds).

Their opportunity came in the 70s with an oil shock and stagflation. Volker transformed the Fed's roll from maintaining "full" employment to busting inflation. It worked! Prices came down. As a side bonus, there was a massive recession which resulted in high unemployment and more docile work force, thus bidding down wages - preparing the stage for union busting and the replacement of solid manufacturing jobs with a sea of low wage, no-benefit temp retail jobs.

So, but here is the point about our 70s malaise: the special interests which put Reagan in office made their case successfully to the American people. They said that economic growth was being stunted by expensive labor, high taxes, useless regulations, and strict trade laws. They asked for cheaper operating conditions, which meant cheaper labor. They said that if capital was given more freedom, a utopia of investment, innovation, solid jobs, and competitive pricing would trickle down.

Who knew they were just going to ship our manufacturing to communist China, and replace high middle class wages with credit cards, crazy mortgages, and "no interest for 18 months" - and call it "Morning in America"… as both the American government and consumer traveled into historic debt (as the sultans of American industry quietly partnered with dictator-lead countries to make bank. And talk radio was paid to call it freedom. Brilliant). Yes, it was/is cheaper for Nike to get their sneaks made for pennies a day (by oppressed freedom hating countries, whose cheap labor made a small group of American owners and shareholders wealthy enough to fund elections and staff government). Ironically, they ship their product (courtesy of "trade routes" stabilized on the public's (Pentagon) dime) back to shopping malls staffed by the new low-wage no-benefit middle class - who were given credit cards instead of wages/benefits to buy shiny plastic objects made in "evil-doer" countries, as well as monopolized health care rising at 5x the rate of inflation (to pay for innovation [cough] "administrative costs", which innovation seems to have pumped the serfs up with antidepressants to keep them calibrated to their disappearing standard of living).

Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" should be re-titled "Capitalism, cheap labor, and the death of the middle class & environment"

So but wait: are you saying that we did not transition form a world of support/protections for labor to a world of subsidies/bailouts/regulatory-capture/global-mobility for the suppliers? The transition from the Keynesian/New Deal model to Reaganomics is not exactly a secret.

Nice fairy tale.. You and your cohort on this thread take waaay too much time looking at the world as it was --- not as it is today.. Truth is -- Americans probably shouldn't be making tennis shoes and basketballs anymore. We should be doing the harder stuff given our privilege and substantial lead. We should be filling our science and engineering schools with AMERICAN kids -- not foreign nationals on Visas. I don't know what labor force you're in meatpie.. Perhaps selling foundation garments at Sears. But in Silicon Valley, those folks are pampered primadonnas who leave a company for a better par course and a gourmet cafeteria and day care. We need to concentrate on Materials Science, Robotics, Artificial Intelligience and BioTech. We need to be first to prototype what 21st century manufacturing looks like. There are PLENTY of jobs available in those areas. Not union positions -- but I never missed the union when the company had free ski chalets in Lake Tahoe. If we don't stop thinking like Bangladeshis -- we will BE Bangladeshis. And our leadership needs to stop the charades of "internet superhiways" and "green jobs" and focus simply on producing innovators and allowing NEW COMPANIES to be borne without an army of govt compliance officers.

I don't want fantasies about Goodyear conspiring to keep Sean Hannity on the air. I don't want your conspiracy theories about Reagan. I want a FUTURE for this country where we outperform the rest of world in applying capital to good ideas..

 

[flacaltenn]

Liberty, a structured analysis - YouTube
Liberty, a structured analysis

Well that's a doggone coincidence ain't it? That the 2 things the Leftists love to attack most are property and belief.. Hmmmmm...

 

[flacaltenn]

Arguments against a Rights-Based Philosophy - YouTube
Arguments against a Rights-Based Philosophy

This one just made me remember a rant in a Neil Boortz book I picked up on sale for $2.

It was the juiciest part of the whole book.. Neil goes into the attempt the UN made to write an entire LARGE Declaration of Human Rights. Myriad of details, not totally objectionable but written from the unstated premise that "all other rights must be probably reserved to the State".. So basically, a wasteful circle-jerk.. But here's the punchline..

I'll let Neil tell this..

Today's Nuze: October 07, 2005 | Nealz Nuze | www.boortz.com

The document says that it represents "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations." Does the UN Declaration of Human Rights protect free speech? Freedom of the press? Well ... in a word, yes it does. Article 19 says that everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression. So far so good. The declaration also says that everyone has a right to rest and leisure and a right to a standard of living. Interesting. It also says that all mothers and children are entitled to "special care and assistance."

Problematic, to say the least. But, let's cut to the chase. Let's go to Article 29 Paragraph 3. "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Do you need to read that again? Please do. It's critical. This one clause negates every single right recognized in this so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." You have no freedom of speech. You have no freedom of expression. You have no right to own property. You have no right to your precious standard of living ... you have nothing ... not one thing if your exercise of those rights interfere with the goals of the United Nations.

That's when you realize the simplicity and elegance of what we were given based on the opening premise of certain Natural and Unalienable Rights..

 

[Intense]

Liberty, a structured analysis - YouTube
Liberty, a structured analysis

Well that's a doggone coincidence ain't it? That the 2 things the Leftists love to attack most are property and belief.. Hmmmmm...

That's where they split from Classic Liberalism. They do a 180 and throw it under the Bus. Natural Right, Individual Right, Property, Voice, Religion.

 

[Dr Grump]

That's when you realize the simplicity and elegance of what we were given based on the opening premise of certain Natural and Unalienable Rights..

And who gets to decide what they are?

 

[Intense]

Arguments against a Rights-Based Philosophy - YouTube
Arguments against a Rights-Based Philosophy

This one just made me remember a rant in a Neil Boortz book I picked up on sale for $2.

It was the juiciest part of the whole book.. Neil goes into the attempt the UN made to write an entire LARGE Declaration of Human Rights. Myriad of details, not totally objectionable but written from the unstated premise that "all other rights must be probably reserved to the State".. So basically, a wasteful circle-jerk.. But here's the punchline..

I'll let Neil tell this..

Today's Nuze: October 07, 2005 | Nealz Nuze | www.boortz.com

The document says that it represents "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations." Does the UN Declaration of Human Rights protect free speech? Freedom of the press? Well ... in a word, yes it does. Article 19 says that everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression. So far so good. The declaration also says that everyone has a right to rest and leisure and a right to a standard of living. Interesting. It also says that all mothers and children are entitled to "special care and assistance."

Problematic, to say the least. But, let's cut to the chase. Let's go to Article 29 Paragraph 3. "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Do you need to read that again? Please do. It's critical. This one clause negates every single right recognized in this so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." You have no freedom of speech. You have no freedom of expression. You have no right to own property. You have no right to your precious standard of living ... you have nothing ... not one thing if your exercise of those rights interfere with the goals of the United Nations.

That's when you realize the simplicity and elegance of what we were given based on the opening premise of certain Natural and Unalienable Rights..

I'm Very familiar with it. Sort of a ..... "This Rule Trumps and Takes Precedent, and Declares Void Everything said up to this point, that conflicts with Anything and Everything We decide to do, whenever We feel like it" 'ism. Or a "Catch-22" spin off. Or a Statist's Wet Dream.

 

[Intense]

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

[Dr Grump]

Maybe a link would have worked better....

 

[Oddball]

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Translation: All the foregoing rights are entirely revocable should we decide so.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's when you realize the simplicity and elegance of what we were given based on the opening premise of certain Natural and Unalienable Rights..

And who gets to decide what they are?

I imagine there are only 3 or 4 required to cover most of human dignity and fairness. Mainly the stuff you don't trust to mere mortal politicians.

Primary to all Natural Rights is that they SUPERCEDE any man-made compact. So when you're sitting in that Concentration Camp you KNOW that it is unjust what is being done to you by the State. Without violating anyones sensibilities, except maybe in Cannibal country, you could start with your Life, your Liberty, and the legal pursuit and retention of Property.

But the other genius was that Natural RIGHTS don't NEED to be enumerated. The powers delegated to others are enumerated. So it's almost irrelevent what SPECIFIC Natural Rights are involved isn't it?