Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Bingo, but don't tell the people over on Kos that or they'll have a hernia, and denounce you as a conservative who wants to interfere with their rights.  That rights without resources have little meaning isn't obvious to them.  It threatens them.  

Negative liberty is sacrosanct, while positive liberty is heresy. Individuals have the freedom from coercion, but they do not have the freedom to live with human dignity unless they posses the means to achieve.  In other words, God bless you Charles Darwin, though Anglo-American elities embrace the cross publicly, their economics are pure survival of the fittest.

Now if wealth is the result of structural forces (class, race, nationality, culture, ie a philosophy of exogenous market construction), rather than coming from individual merit in which the individual behaving rationally accumulates wealth (ie a philosophy of endogenous market construction, the market is a sort of democracy), then the "liberal" economic ideal is anything but.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sun Mar 25th, 2007 at 11:32:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The principle of private property has never yet had a fair trial in any country; and less so, perhaps, in this country than in some others. The social arrangements of modern Europe commenced from a distribution of property which was the result, not of just partition, or acquisition by industry, but of conquest and violence: and notwithstanding what industry has been doing for many centuries to modify the work of force, the system still retains many and large traces of its origin. The laws of property have never yet conformed to the principles on which the justification of private property rests. They have made property of things which never ought to be property, and absolute property where only a qualified property ought to exist. They have not held the balance fairly between human beings, but have heaped impediments upon some, to give advantage to others; they have purposely fostered inequalities, and prevented all from starting fair in the race. That all should indeed start on perfectly equal terms, is inconsistent with any law of private property: but if as much pains as has been taken to aggravate the inequality of chances arising from the natural working of the principle, had been taken to temper that inequality be every means not subversive to the principle itself; if the tendency of legislation had been to favour the diffusion, instead of the concentration, of wealth--to encourage the subdivision of the large masses, instead of striving to keep them together; the principle of individual property would have been found to have no necessary connexion with the physical and social evils almost all Socialist writers assume to be inseparable from it.
— John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy
The principle of private property has had 150 years of fair trial sonce this was written, and it has shown itself to be toxic.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Mar 25th, 2007 at 05:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series