Where do "Rights" come from?

[Riggerjack]

I read your kelo v article. I didn't see anyone enjoying extra rights.

I did see a minor abuse of city power, but nothing out of the ordinary. At least they were compensated for their houses. The usual practice is to steal land as part of a permit shakedown.
Oh, you want a garage? You need a permit.

Oh, you want a permit? We'll just need you to give us the front 15 feet of your yard. Oh, and a check for the permit, of course.

This shakedown happens day in and day out.

But back to your original premise that rich folks have more rights and less responsibilities. I still haven't seen an example. I think taking greater freedoms requires taking more responsibilities.

For instance, if I hire a carpenter, full time, he will get a regular paycheck, and I will sell his work for a significant markup. I have the right to tell him where to go and what to do while he is working for me, and to make money off of his work. I have that right, because I took on the responsibility to line up the work and materials. If this were a 3 man shop, there was probably a real negotiation to hire him. If this was a 250 man shop, there was probably a standard package offered and accepted.

[Campitor]

@ Riggerjack

Did you drill into any of the sublinks in the main article? I've pasted below some snippets.

I REACHED Mike Cristofaro on Thursday afternoon, a few hours after the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can seize people's property by eminent domain and turn it over to private developers. The court's 5-4 decision was a defeat for seven New London, Conn., property owners, who have resisted the city's plan to demolish their homes to make way for offices, upscale condos, and a waterfront hotel. Mike's 79-year-old father, Pasquale Cristofaro, is one of those homeowners, and I wondered how he had taken the news.

In truth, though, it isn't all property that is at risk. If ''public use" now means the government can evict a property owner so that a new owner can use the land to make more money, it is clear who will suffer most. ''The fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote sadly. ''The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. . . . The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more."

In a separate dissent, Thomas made the same point: ''These losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities . . . the least politically powerful." Fifty years of eminent domain statistics drive home the fact that families uprooted by eminent domain tend to be nonwhite and/or nonwealthy. No wonder urban renewal came to be known bitterly as ''Negro removal."

Isn't this an example of asymmetric right when the courts can force the transfer of private property to another private entity because of the size of their bank account/resources? Isn't this the very essence of lopsided rights?

[Riggerjack]

No. This is courts acting on their responsibilities. The responsibility they claimed from citizens. We as Americans are born into a citizen package of rights and responsibilities that was originally packaged as a better deal than King George was offering, then modified over the years (the biggest changes were under Lincoln). All along, part of that package was to be subject to the will of our government, courts included. Obviously, the Constitution and amendments put limits on governmental will, but it is our responsibility to uphold them. If we fail, they will follow the 10th amendment into unenforceable obscurity.

I'm familiar with the Kelo decision. It fell as predicted, progressive justices supporting the government power, conservative justices pointing out the amazing abuse that WILL result.

No state supreme court has taken it as a guiding policy, and many states immediately passed laws prohibiting it. Unpopular, closely split decisions are often overturned, I expect this will be as well. Scalia compared it to dredd scott. I didn't often agree with Scalia, but I do miss his writing...

[Riggerjack]

I'm not in any way defending eminent domain seizure as morally right, just that it is part of the package. That nobody exercised some mysterious special alpha powers, this was merely business as usual.

[Campitor]

That nobody exercised some mysterious special alpha powers, this was merely business as usual.

Mysterious alpha powers - don't know why but that comment made me laugh. Anyways - it wasn't business as usual or the states wouldn't have amended their laws to stop it from happening. Despite the temporary nature of the imbalance, taking property from the less affluent and giving it to the more affluent, it still led to the forced relinquishing of land from owners that didn't want to sell but took $$ to avoid getting $0.

Just because a land grab was state sanctioned doesn't invalidate that someone's rights (the holder of greater capital) were enriched at the expense of the relatively less powerful. I'm also not arguing for or against the morality of the decision but just pointing out that in these circumstances there is an unequal enjoyment of rights. Someone's right to property was forcefully terminated with the explicit intent to hand it to someone else who the state assigned greater value.

[Dragline]

This leads to another confused subject matter as to what these "rights" are in opposition to. Rights against the demands of a government? Which ones? Rights against the demands of other actors? Neighbors? Family? Which ones? Where and when?

In my experience, most people are hopelessly confused about these issues because they have not thought about them in any detail. The issue only comes up when someone opposes their will. Then they assert inchoate "rights" to whatever they are doing. This is a very Western thing, BTW.

Consider this real-world issue from another board: "[M]y neighbors actually hired an attorney to get my airbnb shut down. They are taking a vote via email to get the HOA policies changed to require at least a 6 month lease. The board is strongly encouraging they vote for the change."

This is the classic individual against her local community. No far-away governments and theoretical constructa necessary.

[Riggerjack]

Just because a land grab was state sanctioned doesn't invalidate that someone's rights (the holder of greater capital) were enriched at the expense of the relatively less powerful. I'm also not arguing for or against the morality of the decision but just pointing out that in these circumstances there is an unequal enjoyment of rights. Someone's right to property was forcefully terminated with the explicit intent to hand it to someone else who the state assigned greater value.

Uh huh. I'm not arguing that it is morally right, or that the parties were equal. I'm arguing that this was consistent with the model I described earlier. That "rights" are concessions won by betas from alphas as part of their cooperation agreement. In particular, this is a standardized inheritable agreement we call citizenship. Part of that deal is to have a say in our governance (Bernie fanboys know what this is worth, BTW). Part of it is to get property rights as assigned and enforced by the government. Look at your deed, it will only go as far back as a congressional land grant in most cases (I haven't looked into how far back deeds went for communities predating the the US).

Am I making this clear?

[Riggerjack]

Consider this real-world issue from another board: "[M]y neighbors actually hired an attorney to get my airbnb shut down. They are taking a vote via email to get the HOA policies changed to require at least a 6 month lease. The board is strongly encouraging they vote for the change."

Right. So someone created a HOA to help sell his lots to conformity minded customers. Then, one of those customers (or customers many steps removed) chose to try something new. New, and apparently unpopular. Stepping out of the bounds of the norms of the group she bought into. I don't see how this is so strange.

On a practical note, this is just one of many reasons I wouldn't buy into a strong HOA. HOAs attract the absolute worst candidates for office. People willing to waste their hours to have a small edge on their neighbors. These are generally people very unfamiliar with an alpha position, and most thrilled to have the opportunity to abuse that position. Placing myself in a beta position to such people isn't a path to happiness.

[Campitor]

Uh huh. I'm not arguing that it is morally right, or that the parties were equal. I'm arguing that this was consistent with the model I described earlier. That "rights" are concessions won by betas from alphas as part of their cooperation agreement. In particular, this is a standardized inheritable agreement we call citizenship. Part of that deal is to have a say in our governance (Bernie fanboys know what this is worth, BTW). Part of it is to get property rights as assigned and enforced by the government. Look at your deed, it will only go as far back as a congressional land grant in most cases (I haven't looked into how far back deeds went for communities predating the the US).

Am I making this clear?

Crystal. I didn't mean to imply that you found it moral. In an earlier response you stated that property confiscation was not an asymmetric exercise of power. I understand and agree with the concept of eminent domain - sometimes the benefit to society outweighs the rights of the individual and this is the compact we silently agree to when living in a modern society - I like to call it enlightened self interest.

But in this case, the state, via SCJ decision, grabbed private property from a private citizen to hand it over to another private party (Pfizer). The original owners didn't want to sell and Pfizer walked away from the deal and never developed the property which remained an empty lot. Shortly thereafter most states passed laws to prevent this type of eminent domain seizure which seems to indicate that eminent domain shouldn't be used to confiscate property for private development. Someone got shafted unwillingly and the state got shafted when Pfizer walked away from the deal. If this isn't an imbalance of consequences, responsibility, and rights/power, I don't know what is.

[Riggerjack]

Someone got shafted unwillingly and the state got shafted when Pfizer walked away from the deal. If this isn't an imbalance of consequences, responsibility, and rights/power, I don't know what is.

And that is a popular way to look at it.

Another way: Pfizer wants a new plant. They put together a real estate team to find a location. New London and a few other places qualified, and they had to make choices. They weren't happy with the 6 tenement houses, and made it clear.

Enthusiastic (it's hard to think of a better term) local government had to choose between the 6 houses they had, or the jobs and taxes a mega Corp could bring in. I expect their legal advice said eminent domain hadn't been used that way before, but they could try...

We know the rest of the story. Pfizer walked away from the whole mess, and developed a different site. The rest of our democratically elected officials decided that there was political hay to be made distancing their constituents from a very unpopular decision.

The city of new London is out the price of the lots, and their taxes. Not a huge sacrifice, and I would like to think a few careers ended, but I didn't follow it very closely.

So all I see is a bad decision, pushed all the way to the Supreme Court where it was affirmed. As abuse of government power goes, this doesn't top my list.

You brought this up as an example of rights without responsibility, if I understand you correctly. I don't see that. This really looks like BAU. Yeah, it was BAU between parties with an imbalance of power, but that is normal, too.

[Riggerjack]

In an earlier response you stated that property confiscation was not an asymmetric exercise of power.

Ahah! I just caught this when I reread your post. My point wasn't that there was no imbalance of power my point was that nobody gained a right, without assuming a responsibility. That if you want more rights, more power, you gain it by assuming responsibility.

[Riggerjack]

I want to say again, I'm making no moral claims here. I'm talking about a model for how things work, I'm not saying any of this is right or moral.

I got out of leadership roles specifically because I found it morally abhorrent, if done right.

[Campitor]

My point wasn't that there was no imbalance of power my point was that nobody gained a right, without assuming a responsibility. That if you want more rights, more power, you gain it by assuming responsibility.

I guess I did a poor job communicating what I was trying to say. I never meant to imply that rights don't come with responsibility or as rights expand there isn't a corollary rise in responsibility. What I was trying to say is these responsibilities can be passed on and or delegated to other individuals or groups in such a way that the consequences of a bad decision or execution of an expanded privilege/right isn't felt as strongly by the originator of the bad idea/abuse than it's intended/unintended victim. This unequal distribution of pain allows some to wield rights more freely or exercise more of them because they are isolated or buffered from any negative consequences.

A POTUS can start a immoral/unwise war - certainly being POTUS comes with a boatload of responsibility - the consequence of a bad decision to go to war will cost him an election and cost hundred of soldiers their lives - unequal consequences which allows POTUS to be...hopefully...more objective in their decisions to go to war. Unequal outcomes sometimes is a good thing but it's certainly abused. And this is what I was trying to say - not all responsibility is equal because its consequences aren't felt equally - ergo some enjoy more rights than others despite the added responsibility.

[Riggerjack]

I thought this was going to be a nuts and bolts discussion of rights and where they come from. So I have been trying to break that down into first principals.

But, this dinosaur seemed to be looking for a chance to demonstrate that "God" is a trigger word for him. And campitor is talking about rights, morality, and equality. And very few others had much to say at all.

I thought I was keeping this thread on topic, but I'm starting to think I've been thread jacking. I'll try to stop that.

[Riggerjack]

What I was trying to say is these responsibilities can be passed on and or delegated to other individuals or groups in such a way that the consequences of a bad decision or execution of an expanded privilege/right isn't felt as strongly by the originator of the bad idea/abuse than it's intended/unintended victim. This unequal distribution of pain allows some to wield rights more freely or exercise more of them because they are isolated or buffered from any negative consequences.

Of course they can. That's the whole point.

Look, if Bill makes a deal with Bob, where Bill will take care if his physical security in exchange for his plowing Bill's fields and tending Bill's farm, Bill can then make a deal with Peter to provide that physical security, in exchange for a small share of Bob's farming. Bill has to choose the right Bob for farm productivity, and the right Peter for security. If Bob's farm gets raided, Bill's out his share of the farm, maybe out Bob and Peter, too.

You describe this as:

This unequal distribution of pain allows some to wield rights more freely or exercise more of them because they are isolated or buffered from any negative consequences.

I describe this as a huge setback. Bill has to find and bend a new Bob and a new Peter. I mean, sure their sacrifice may be greater than Bill's, but it didn't work out great for Bill either.

That doesn't mean it was a bad deal for Bill, Bob, or Peter. It means the people and/or circumstances were wrong for that deal to work out well.

Choosing the right people for the right positions, is the beginnings of leadership, and it starts when you are in Bob's or Peter's position.

[Dragline]

I couldn't let this discussion of Bob and Peter go without invoking the "Peter Principle", which states that people rise to their level of incompetence. Meaning, the right people often don't end up in the positions they are best suited for, especially if they are related or otherwise affiliated by extraneous characteristics. The "spoils system" is probably more natural than a system based on competence or responsibility.

[Riggerjack]

The Peter principal is a fine example of looking at hierarchies from the bottom.

Peter seems incompetent. And he very well could be. But he serves the purpose to which he was promoted, well enough to stay there. There are good reasons to choose an incompetent underling.

He makes a great test when you put someone you *think* is competent under him.

He may be more effective as an incompetent manager than an incompetent worker. This is important if you can't get rid of him for some reason.

Incompetents are rarely unaware of their incompetence. Having someone insecure on your team can be useful. Easier to leverage compliance from the insecure, and more secure people bend easier when in the presence of others who have bent.

It's always a good idea to know who is first to go when a sacrifice needs to be made.

All these aside from the normal excuses you mentioned.

Having weak team members lowers efficiency and morale, so you don't want many of them, but they are great for raising morale at difficult times. Blame Peter for whatever bad situation is current, and fire Peter publicly, followed by differentiating between the loser you just fired and his team, who have done great work, but now will have to dig deeper to get out from under the mess Peter left...

Any leader who can't use an incompetent or 2 isn't a leader, he's a Peter, in place to be used by a leader.

[ThisDinosaur]

Maybe I'm not spelling this out clearly enough, or maybe you have a cartoon in your head labeled "riggerjack, libertarian".

But, this dinosaur seemed to be looking for a chance to demonstrate that "God" is a trigger word for him.

This combination of quotes made me

I'm not sure where Riggerjack got the idea that I'm some kind of commie, but nearly every comment about me reads like you are schooling a cartoon of a lib'ral SJW. I'm not offended, its just not accurate and I'm not sure where it comes from. Did you figure out who made that "stick/carrot" comment yet?

Speaking of my trigger word:
https://deusdiapente.wordpress.com/2012 ... nevitable/

Belief in an active High God was significantly greater in societies that were larger, more stratified (i.e. less equality) and societies engaged in intensive agriculture. Now, all of these things go together – you need intensive agriculture to support a large society, and large agricultural societies have the surpluses and politics that facilitate stratification.

All of this fits nicely with the hypothesis that moralising gods are an invention of large, structured societies.

A small community can probably get along with a complicated myth set, or intricate argument about what community members owe each other and why. A large, complicated society is going to have many more conflicting opinions. As a result, stability depends on a simplified mythology that we can all agree on. A vague set of inalienable rights is a much simpler story than explaining social contracts in terms of game theory.

[ThisDinosaur]

And campitor is talking about rights, morality, and equality. And very few others had much to say at all.

I thought I was keeping this thread on topic, but I'm starting to think I've been thread jacking. I'll try to stop that.

The people who study this IRL seem to think rights, morality, and equality are intertwined.
http://www.moralfoundations.org/

Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

I'm not sure if this is where campitor got his ideas about rights, but Jonathan Haidt 's team of experts seem to agree with him. Morality and rights have their origin in the social nature of the human brain. We evaluate if a situation is fair or unfair with our gut, then rationalize a set of rights or moral laws to explain that judgement as consistent with our instinct.

Since evolutionary biology is the hammer with which I hit every nail, I like this explanation.

[bryan]

This and the "The opposite of poverty is justice" thread have had some good nuggets and reminders (e.g. "empowerment").

My own take is of course that "rights" is a construct _extremely_ similar to "value."