The delusions of Western "natural rights".

A state, by definition, holds a monopoly on justice. Assuming that it has any right to exist, which I contend it does not, there is no reason it cannot exist for any reason that the people imagine and are willing to defend against enemies of that state.

But I do like where you are going. If the state is the source of law, then how can a state be lawfully formed?

Money existed before Rome was a gleam in the eye of Romulus and Remus.

Also, I have a small collection of ancient British coins. I favor the Celtic Dobunni (my tribe) coins but I also have a Thurrock type Potin from 100 BC which were in circulation before Julius Caesar hitched up his britches and crossed the channel.
Currency was around far longer, but money serves some other purposes which currency does not.

I love these tautologies. Why does government exist? To promote th ecommon welfare! Who alone can promote the common welfare? Government.

Government schools, sadly, do little to encourage critical thinking, especially when it comes to law and government.

You mean, we irrelevant, tiny band of libertarians somehow prevented the most powerful entity in the world from being the biggest bully on the block and imposing it's will upon everyone else through whatever it calls law.

The state is a criminal organization. it has no right to exist and tautologies aside, you cannot prove an objectively legitimate source of the right to rule.

 

I'm just going to address this part as I find it tedious to argue against One World Government types.

1st: There is no such thing as "economic justice". Its nothing more than a phrase concocted by those that are jealous of the rich yet too lazy to go through the same steps the vast majority of rich people go through in order to get rich. (IE: I'm referring to non-inherited wealth since I know you'll try and use it as an example of "undeserved" wealth)

2nd: Don't suppose you know the phrase "Those that would give up essential liberty for the sake of a bit of security, deserve neither"? Think on it.

 

As I said, "natural individual Rights" don't exist, only desires exist (arising from the survival instinct, as well as other factors including ego). So I'm not sure what to make of your above paragraph.

"Monopoly on justice"? - check; "right to exist"? - because people desire to join in co-operation for mutual benefit against outsiders.

ie, people form states (nations) to survive in competition with other states, and to maintain order at home. The 'pecking order' which arises is another problem which must be dealt with.

By agreement/consensus among the peoples' representatives who have the skills or are elected to write the nation's Constitution - because the people want/desire to form a nation.

Correct, but the inportant thing is money is related to civilization and state sovereignty:
(google)
"There is evidence of money being used in ancient civilisations in Mesopotamia and Egypt, where they used clay tablets to record debts and transactions. However, the first physical forms of money are believed to have emerged in China around 1000 BC in the form of cowrie shells as currency."

ie in city states or "civilizations" with a ruling class asserting sovereignty over the population.

.

(google)

"Some of the tribes in the South of England produced coins before the Romans arrived, however, they were not used for purchasing things. The Romans brought in their own coinage, which was the same across the Empire."

See above

Not a tautology; government - and rule of law - is required to adjudicate between self-interested individuals, to promote order along with the common welfare. Simple reasoning.

Replacing rule by "the mandate of heaven" /"divine right of Kings" with rule by Constitution.

In nations where individualsim is emphasized, and funding of public educatiion is inadequate, lack of critical thinking may be the case; but eg, in Finland there are no private schools at all, and the Finland has some of the highest standards of education in the world.

That's because Libertarianism is the basis of US law, founded on delusional "natural individual rights" ideology which is worshipped by the Dems as well as the Repubs.

[And "national sovereignty" ideology - an extension of "individual sovereignty" ideology - forced the veto onto the UNSC, thereby crippling the UN from the start. (You can't have law, if the justices have a veto).

Now you are removing the mask: in your view both Repubs and Dems are participants in a "criminal organization." ...when in fact the problem is the "natural individual rights" delusion enshrined in the US Constitution.

Istead of rule by self-aggrandzing kings, we now have rule by self-interested individuals, with a "right" to pursue (his own idea of ) happiness, regardless of the conditions of his fellow citizens.....hence people living in tents on city streets, in the world's 'richest' nation.

Refuted on both counts, above.

 

You're not American... are you? Here we feel quite differently:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

"self-evident" maybe, but delusional....

That's why the US has the highest prison population in the world, ranks among nations with the highest level of economic inequality, has the highest rate of gun violence for a first-world nation, and accepts people forced to live in tents in the streets of major cities.

"Deplorable"....

 

"Self evident truths" - a list of the nice things we all desire; but the list contains an obvious error ie " all men are created equal" - meaning BEFORE THE LAW, but not in capacities; and other less positive truths of human nature, not mentioned, which require adjudication between self-interested individuals (aka rule of law) ; eg bad behaviours which may result from interaction of individuals' survival instincts, and competitive instincts.

 

Delusional is handing your freedom over to other people and expecting them not to exploit you.

US has a high prison population because we have laws that are enforced. Economic "inequality" is a function of human laziness versus human ambition. We have lots of achievers and motivated people in the USA. That leaves the lazy in a bad way.... you reap what you sew. Bums live in tents. Very natural. Guns kill people like spoons make people fat.

 

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL... but years later some are drug dealers, some are surgeons, some are teachers, some are bums. But we all start out on an equal footing.

 

So nature produces equality but nurture can create inequality.

 

Well, yes; but hopefully The Law, represented by "blind" Justice, is not conducive to exploitation.

Whereas "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are only possible in the absence of war and exploitation; hence the need for international, as well as national law, to defend the principles outlined in the UN UDHR.

Laws.... based on 'inalienable individual rights" which fail to mention rights to basic necessities, like housing and jobs.

Which is related to:

Economic inequality has many causes, some of which are systemic and external to the individual.

eg the mainsream economic guru Larry Summers even said "unemployment must hit 10% for a year, to bring inflation down to 2%". That is, workers must be forced onto demoralizing unemployment, through no fault of their own.

There is NO necessity for unemployment or homelessnes in a rich nation; government can ensure provision of necessities, without impinging on incentive and reward principles.

(The currency-issuing government can claim a proportion of the nation's resources, to guarantee the basics for all citizens, the remaining resources can be up for competiton in private sector markets. Anyone see the film "Finding the Money", recently released in San Francisco?)

Simplistic ideas of causation, as noted above.

A dsyfunctional economic system - which only works for some - increases social discord and alienation, ruining "the pursuit of happiness" for those unable to compete in neoliberal markets.

Both related to economic disadvantage.

 

No; in fact the "Right" to life was spectacularly violated during the US civil war, with slaughter of over half a million. Similarly it's less spectacularly violated every day by criminals. So a "Right" is a desire, rather than a natural law.

Hence the need for law which is based on reason in the service of justice; and reason demands provision of the essentials to all in a just society.

Reason defends economic justice; no one desires to be jobless and homeless (except for a few sick people). Systemic poverty is a failure of the system, not individuals.

See how the 'survival of the fittest'/ "natural individual rights" mind works?

You side-stepped my observation of the reality of systemic dysfunction ( eg, central bankers managing inflation by deliberately increasing unemployment**), and blamed the individual for being unemployed.

**following the absurd 'Philips Curve', which equates low unemploymenr wih high inflation.

More preaching about "lazy" people.

That's the ancient, obsolete convention**; even so ...."Taxation is the price we pay for a civilized society", (Justice Holmes).

And reason tell us you need a job to be able to pay taxes, regardless of the state of the job market.

And reason also tells us a shop-keeper like Bezos ought not become wealther than entire nations, by merely being the first to utilize the creation of the internet (which he did not create) to access a global market.

**'Modern Money' (described in the film 'Finding the Money') tells us the currency-issuing state can mobilize the resources it needs without taxing the private sector (provided the desired resources are available for purchase, in the currency of issue).

Correct.

Without leaving anyone behind; a state guarantee of above poverty employment and housing is not the same as 'equality of outcome'. Incentive and reward can remain part of a system which guarantees the basic essentials without the state resorting to the "safety net" of demoralizing welfare payments.

 

But rights based primarily on "freedom of the individual" empirically lead to conflict, entrenched poverty, destructive inequality (ie destroying social cohesion); and hence the hyper-partisanship we see in the US today. The next election will be a doozy - provided the SCOTUS doesn't ban Trump from standing...

Note: Government, rule of law and democracy is - and must remain - a 'work in progress', directed by reason (not competitve instincts of individuals) on the path from savagery to a creative civilization, which I define as one existing without the insanity of an arms race in the age of MAD.

Money actually comes from Treasury, not taxes; eg, when the pandemic hit, government had to quickly find $billions to pay the essential bills of locked-down workers. (The fact govt. borrowed the money is another story, the point here is the money didn't come from taxes).

I gave you an example of systemic economic dysfunction, eg central banks lifting interest rates to increase unemployment, to kill demand and inflation.

You are just ignoring the external factors - beyond the control of individuals - that can negatively affect individual prosperity.

And as for your friend who escaped poverty and became a doctor, not every one has the capacities needed to achieve such outcomes; Mozart was writing symphonies at age 6, most of us can't do it in a lifetime....

 

"Working really well".... (!)
"Poverty easily conquered" ....(!)

I rest my case.

Not so; most Americans want gun control but Congress won't legislate it (the 2nd ammenment is obsolete; the US is no longer a sparsely populated frontier society). The gun violence in the US is abhored by the world.

Well - if typing numbers into Treasury computers is magic....yes....
(link)
Innocent Frauds - Mosler Economics / Modern Monetary Theory

But in a game of musical chairs - when the central bank is trying to increase unemployment - the least gifted MUST lose.

I suggest you change your constitution, to require government (the public sector) to provide the basics for all, before individuals can compete for the luxuries in the private sector.

 

Refuting the nonsense still taught in some mainstream economics schools re money creation:
(link)
Central bankers on their ability of banks to create money out of thin air (taxresearch.org.uk)

"This incredibly valuable collection of quotes from central banks and bankers on their ability to create money out of thin air was assembled by regular reader Bill Kruse. I share it with his permission because I think many people will find it valuable. I certainly will".

The Fed - the US central bank - deliberately raises interest rates to decrease employment and demand in the the economy, when inflation is high.

I love "an economy which works for all" (to borrow Bernie Sanders' words).

Your neoliberal 'invisible hand' market economy, based on erroneous analysis of "rights" - erroneous because it doesn't take into account the different abilities of indivduals, nor the negative (amoral) potential of individiual competitive greed - needs to be mediated by "fairness"....

So if "fairness", and an economy which works for all - and in which all participate without recourse to state-provided "welfare" - then I love "communism" (with a small 'c'..)

 

Yes they are.

They are recognized in law.

 

Tell that to a crocodile, wnen you stumble into an infested creek..

Anything can be "recognized in law", according to the choice of the lawyers.

 

If you say so.

Whereas an economy which provides for above-poverty participation by all is fair.

 

Thank goodness its not that way in America. We have a Constitution that establishes the basis for our laws to avoid just the thing you are talking about. BTW, we're watching how that Mountie assaulted the reporter who was trying to question your Deputy Prime Minister on the street. The Mountie pushed the reporter and charged the reporter with assault. It was all caught so clearly on video that the Mountie took it all back. THAT is what the rule of law is in Canada.

 

Bums should have the right to choose to be cold and hungry if they don't want to earn their own way in life. Its a matter of freedom of choice. Its their choice.

Aren't you "pro-choice"?