The only rights that exist are those granted by the government. All others are hyped-up wishes. Those who assert 'natural rights' are agents of anarchy and vigilantism, make-believing some "state of nature" that is opposed to the state of law. They also aim to subject all nations and all generations to particular principles that will be in all likelihood cease to be suitable at some future date.

How often have modern people suffered due to the shackles of timeless "principles" laid out during Bronze Age Palestine? Or how often must urban centers suffer because the damned 2nd amendment written in 1789 supposedly guarantees the private right to own an arsenal of automatic weapons in 2010?

"Neither one is willing to actually move beyond ideology."

Are you trying to be ironical, or are you trying to impress people with your capacity for cognitive dissonance?

No, I was comparing you to the idiots in the Tea Party. I think its rather apt.

You know, since North Korea is a prosperous utopia, and when they invaded the South, it wasn't aggression.... or that Cuba is in fact a paradise.

You should be very familiar with cognitive dissonance, friend. I suggest checking the mirror.

"I suggest checking the mirror."

It's been a while since I've heard the Pee Wee Herman defense.

@CA, I was just re-parsing this thread and giggled again at "frit dessert" Too funny.

I agree with Putin on the definition of rights, except for its application to anarchists.

@ Stratagos: "Jamie, all the data I've seen shows the US as a net food exporter; can you tell me where you're getting your data? "

Erm, I quoted my source already - Reuters. Once again, the link is:

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINL1835607720080418

Sorry, I must have missed it to the first time; I was on my phone

Interesting, that surprised me. More up to date statistics are here:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FATUS/

It appears that, in general, the US still exports more than it imports - and it should be noted that many of the imports are of produce that cannot be produced domestically, not because the US cannot generate enough food to feed the population.

and I have a three year old who is demanding attention, so I'll have to get back to this later ;)

note: one reason there is a discrepancy is the latter source includes not just food sold to other nations, but the value of food given away as aid

but I thought Americans were fat and greedy and holding all the food for themselves

on a more serious note, when I'm able to do more than sporadically pop in I will address your response, Jamiet, because it was pretty solid and meriting of a response

"See also Putin's comment - 'The tablecloth would not be state-owned, but the factories that produce the material needed to produce the cloth would.'"

That's where I was going with that, thanks. You do in fact recognize property rights if you think that Granny can give the tablecloth to her grandchild. If it's not hers, she can't give it away. So on some level you undermine your position that there is no inherent right to property. What you seem to be arguing is that society has the right to take from its citizens whatever its policy makers deem to be worth taking.

There's a difference between personal possessions and Property. Socialism doesn't demand people be ascetic monks and hold every little thing in common. In the USSR there were clear distinctions between private property and personal possessions. People were allowed full use of things of a personal nature, but as soon as that was used as capital or entered the general sphere of production the status of those possessions changed.

"However, one of the defining factors of civilised society is that we *don't* just behave like wild animals. So you can't just say "we should have a system of property rights, because that's what lions and tigers do"."

These seems like ages ago because this thread moves so quickly, but I would just point out that that was not my argument at all. I was afraid that my post would be taken out of context, and it seems it was. I was responding to orathaics examples of ants and cells with examples from nature of my own. By no means would I model society based on nature, that'd be terrible.

Yet it's still the right to property. When one says as the OP did "There is no Property Right" the distinction between personal possessions and property of types doesn't appear to be that obvious.

Regardless there is a problem then with how much of these personal possessions a person can amass. At what point in your Utopia does the state say "You've got too much stuff & we're taking it"? What if someone lacks absolute faith in the government's ability to care for them and voluntarily lives on less than his neighbors. Does he have the right to save what is left over? What if this amount comes to a sizeable amount over a lifetime and he decides to indulge in luxuries or give it to a family member?

Can we have this conversation again when I don't have finals? I regret opening the thread because I've just gone and read every single post when I should be preparing for my 9 am tomorrow.

"Property rights encourage a "Mine! Mine! Mine!" culture of acquisition which leads to people hoarding resources in a manner which promotes poverty and social division."

Why then are cultures where property rights are observed and assumed the ones that typically have people giving the most to others?

http://2leep.com/bar.php?s=62572


Australia & New Zealand top the list with Canada, Ireland, the USA, and Switzerland doing very well.

China is way down at number 147. If Property rights encourage a "Mine, Mine" mentality shouldn't this be the other way 'round. I counter that when people think the government can solve their problems they are more complacent about helping one another.

Go study Chrisp, it won't go anywhere and if it does it only takes a post to re-ignite it ;-)

I'm sorry but I feel like this point has been made and no matter what hypothetical you bring up, the point remains the same. Having possession of a toothbrush is not the same as owning a factory. It's not about how many personal things you amass (why would you amass so many things to begin with if they can't be used as capital?), it's about whether the personal things are being used as capital or in production.

@ CA: "Why then are cultures where property rights are observed and assumed the ones that typically have people giving the most to others?... Australia & New Zealand top the list with Canada, Ireland, the USA and Switzerland doing very well, China is way down at number 147"

To be honest, I am not fond of philanthropy as a solution to problems of any significance. If you have to set up a charitable group to feed homeless people, care for the ill, or whatever else, then that indicates a failing of government - that is, we currently have charities providing a lot of services which the government should probably provide. In a well-organised socialist country, you simply shouldn't NEED huge amounts of individual personal giving.

As an example, we have several charities in the UK and USA dedicated to raising money to research a cure for cancer.

Why?

Why is it necessary to hold jumble sales and stand in shopping centres rattling a tin begging people for pennies to fund the research into cancer? Shouldn't the state fund this research? I would argue that it should. The collection of charitable, voluntary donations from kindly citizens simply should not be necessary.

We don't rely on charitable donations to fund our arsenal of nuclear weapons, do we? So clearly the state needs to get its priorities straight.

@Putin:

Quote "Why is it that these awesome private defense contractors couldn't develop an assault-rifle that's better and cheaper than the Soviet-made AK-47. Why is it that the Soviet-made T-34 was the best tank of WWII?"

Okay firstly the ak-47 was a close copy of a german design, the worlds first assault rifle.

Secondly, anyone who thinks the T-34 was the best tank of the war is clearly umm WRONG. Do you think a Lada is better than a mercedes as well?

Sorry, just couldn't let these dogs lie :)

Fyi I had decided to give arguing politics etc. on the forum a rest after the previous thread, hence my non-involvement in this

@fiedler: the Germans didn't exactly support free enterprise either, so that doesn't help your argument much.

@Crazy: I bet the stats you cite have more to do with religion than anything else. Churches are counted as charitable organizations, but a lot of the money given to churches is pretty self-centered--most of what most people give to a church goes to the buliding and staff.

The AK-47 did not "copy" the Germans, unless you think that anyone that designs an assault rifle is copying the Germans because they were the first to think of the idea of an assault rifle, which doesn't make any sense.

And "wrong" is not an argument worth responding to. Please explain which tank was better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/opinion/14brooks.html?_r=1

i've no time to contribute something more personal, but this is worth reading.

"Fyi I had decided to give arguing politics etc. on the forum a rest after the previous thread, hence my non-involvement in this"

Ha! You'll be back! Maybe not in this thread, or the next, or the one after that, but you'll be back alright. =P

As a wargamer and therefore someone with an armchair interest in WWII, I'm with Putin on the effectiveness of the T-34. It was not perfect in every area (arguably, no major WWII tank was) but it was the most advanced tank in the world at the time of its introduction and, thanks to developments made during the war, the T-34 variants being produced towards the end of the war (T-34/76 ,E and F and the T-34/85) were a match for any US, UK or German tank being produced in 1944-45.

To quote a couple of the senior German officers who had to face the T-34 on the field of battle:

"We had nothing comparable [to the T-34]" - Maj. Gen. Mellenthin, XLVIII Panzer Corps.

"The finest tank in the world" - Field Marshal Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist, Commander, German Army Group A, Eastern Front.

Indeed the T-34 is such a fine design that it was still in production until the 1960s, and hundreds of T-34s were still in service all over the world as recently as 10 years ago, with a few surviving in second-line military use to this very day.

I also recently read a wonderful story which demonstrates the remarkable durability of the T-34. (You'll enjoy this, Putin) - here's the story:

In the year 2000, the members of an Estonian history club raised a 1943-model T-34 from the bottom of a lake near the Estonian town of Johvi. Their investigations found that the tank had been captured by the Germans sometime in mid-1944 during heavy fighting in the area. Later in 1944 the Germans were forced to retreat from Estonia and during the retreat this tank ran out of fuel. To prevent it being recaptured and used again by the Soviet forces, the Germans dumped the unfortunate T-34 into the lake, where it would remain, fully submerged under the water for the next 56 years.

The tank would still be lying there today had not a local man, who had been a small boy at the time of the war, happened to remark to the chairman of the history group that he remembered, in 1944, seeing tank tracks dissapearing into the lake, and theorising that a tank must have ended up there.

The history group sent divers into the lake, who successfully located the tank. With the help of a powerful bulldozer they were able - with some difficulty - to shift the tank from its resting place of 56 years and drag it out of the lake. Once it was on dry land they were able to properly inspect the condition it was in for the first time.

To say they were impressed by how well it had lasted would be a huge understatement.

There were no signs of oil leakage, virtually no rust, nor any other significant water damage to the mechanical components. The engine did not run after 56 years in the lake, but the group found it a relatively simple project to restore the engine to full working order.

Not bad after 56 years submerged in a lake!

@ pastoralan

Money was only part of the study, This was not a study of how much but the frequency and pervasiveness of giving as measured by money, time volunteered, and helping strangers. The difference is striking among different cultures.

@ Jamie and Putin

I fail to see your point regarding the T-34. Sure it's a fine tank that stand right up there with anything that anyone else had. Are you suggesting that Russian engineering and production was superior to anything anyone else had? That's certainly not true nor could it be claimed that being communists had much to do woth that. When they were not facing the imminent demise of their civilization at the hands of very real Nazis with the Tiger tanks, bf 109's, and Stukas.

Sure the T-34 was a fine tank and the YAK 3 was a fine aircraft. When you start looking beyond the tanks though we get another picture. Only one fighter and one light bomber (the Stormovic) show up with the many fine fighters and bombers of the war.

I find it curious though that Jamie says we should have the government take care of us but then says that governments have their priorities screwed up. The fine T-34 tank shows quite clearly that Russia's priorities were as screwed up as any other nation's. On the one hand "We shouldn't have to have people rattling tins for Cancer research" and on the other "Boy look at those Russians and their super-fine death machines". It's an increasingly disparate argument.

Here is where we lose the forest for the trees. The point about the T-34 - long ago made - was about the importance of the state for developing advances in technology. You mentioned that most innovations stem from entrepreneurship, and even military innovations are the result of the innovations of private defense contractors. I countered with examples of how some of the best innovations in 20th century military history came from the Soviets, which is all the more surprising considering the economic and military might of the leading capitalist powers.

Your point about priorities is lost on me. First you say the development of the tank was a matter of survival and then you claim the tank reflects skewed Soviet priorities. I don't follow.

As for the bombers and fighters, yes, the US and UK spent much of their money on building up their air power, so it is not much of a surprise that they had the best bombers and fighters. Not everyone was convinced of the utility of strategic bombing, and most air forces - like the German and Soviet - largely believed air power was best used supporting ground operations. At the beginning of the war nobody planned on using strategic bombing to bomb cities, but Britain launched a bombing attack on Berlin out of retaliation against a rogue bomb attack on London. Hitler responded with the Blitz and from that point on strategic bombing became more important for the British.

On the American side, they lacked bombers which could reach Japan and their bombers had poor accuracy. It was only late in the war that strategic bombing became important in the pacific war after the Marianas were captured and their bombers could finally reach Japan.

So, the point here is the Soviets did not need to be supreme in the air. Putting up sufficient air defenses of their cities was enough. Tank supremacy was much more important.