Comments on: Obligations and privileges

By: ukliberty

ukliberty — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:24:57 +0000

I’ll add something I was struck by when reading it today. I don’t know if it’s exactly true but it seems about right:

Ninety-seven per cent of all tax in this country is collected by central government and then doled out. The life of ministers is a stream of people like me coming from their towns and counties, saying, “Can we have more money for this, more money for that?” At some point the Government has to let go. When I told that figure of 97% to the Mayor in Moscow he said, “That is worse than Russia under Stalin”, and that is absolutely true. There was once a promise to return the business rate. That would help. – Ken Livingstone

Then of course you have tax revenue as a percentage of GDP being about 40%. These are pretty substantial portions of our money going into “common ownership”.

By: ukliberty

ukliberty — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:37:20 +0000

I don’t want to get into a battle of definitions. Facists are equally as bad.

By: Antipholus Papps

Antipholus Papps — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:24:50 +0000

How can you say with a straight face that these traitors are socialist? They are fascist to the core! By the corporation, of the corporation, and for the the corporation. I can’t see any common ownership of the means of production with these cunts. Whatever they are, they aren’t socialists.

By: IanP

IanP — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:01:42 +0000

In a free society, the rights and laws protect the individual from the government.

In a dictatorship, the rights and laws protect the government from the people.

Need we say anything else?

By: A Bill of Obligations and Privileges « UK Liberty

A Bill of Obligations and Privileges « UK Liberty — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:56:09 +0000

[...] A Bill of Obligations and Privileges March 14, 2008 Jamie K has it right. [...]

By: ukliberty

ukliberty — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:23:04 +0000

A Declaration of Rights is, or should be, about setting limits on what the state can do, not what the citizens are allowed to do, or what responsibilities they owe to the state. Yes, the Labour Government have got this totally arse about face. That's because they are gang of socialist control freaks. Jack Straw recently spoke at George Washington University and completely perverted Thomas Paine's idea of rights and responsibilities, which is simply that

rights become duties by reciprocity. The right which I enjoy becomes my duty to guarantee it to another, and he to me; and those who violate the duty justly incur a forfeiture of the right.

What more do we need? Jamie K has hit the nail on the head, this will be a Bill of Obligations and Privileges. Very well put indeed.

By: Flying Rodent

Flying Rodent — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:24:37 +0000

I have no beef with the concept of responsibilities per se, provided the responsibilities laid out are

1) Obey the law, and

2) Pay your taxes

Any more than that and we’re in fantasyland. Rights and responsibilities? I think Jamie K once said it would make just as much sense to say we have rights and cheesecake.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:49:41 +0000

On the subject of where laws guaranteeing rights come from, I take a fairly Hobbesian line – laws come from entities with the power to enforce them. So you have a right because some entity (i.e. the state) says you have that right (i.e. has passed a law to that effect), and is capable of enforcing that. Eighteenth century white men in Jamaica had the right to own slaves, nineteenth century married women did not have the right to own property. I don’t think either of those things was morally right, of course.

This has implications for what Straw and Wills are proposing. Obligations and rights are basically the same thing, so the imposition of an obligation may be the removal of a right, or the creation of a new right which removes an old one (e.g. the obligation to treat black Jamaicans as free men removed the right to own slaves). We shouldn’t pretend that a set of legally-enforceable obligations is not going to have implications for existing rights (and if these obligations are not enforceable, what is the point of them?).

By: thomas

thomas — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:39:54 +0000

Laws are based upon our freedom to act and our ability to enforce constraints upon our freedom, rights are the product of this interplay.

By: ad

ad — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:31:48 +0000

But what, then, is a law gyaranteeing rights based on?

What is any other law based on?

By: Jherad

Jherad — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:14:17 +0000

Much like the whole oath thing, this tries to demand what is normally earned. A Bill of Rights can help codify exactly what it is (or should be) to be a free member of a western democracy which then motivates you to be a ‘good citizen’ or whatever. But offering those rights in exchange is like… Swearing an oath to queen and country, instead of just being patriotic (whatever that means) *because* you are proud of your country.

By: JamieK

JamieK — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:09:13 +0000

“This is highly debatable. Many of us take the legal positivist line that a right is something the law guarantees, no more than that.”

Instrumentally, it does. But what, then, is a law gyaranteeing rights based on?

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:42:43 +0000

As usual with this increasingly rotten Government, this is arse-about-face.

What they fail to recognise is that a Bill of Rights is there to protect the citizen from an over-zealous Government – not the other way around.

Somehow when this was first mooted, I knew we’d get a shittier end of the stick.

It’s nonsense and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:32:28 +0000

“A right itself is inalienable. You possess it by virtue of being human.”

This is highly debatable. Many of us take the legal positivist line that a right is something the law guarantees, no more than that. What is right is a different matter from what your rights are.