NationStates Jolt Archive

From the beginning of human civilization in the land between the rivers, humans have sought to create a system that would secure them in their rights. From Sargon the Great, conqueror of Akkadia, to former US President George Bush, natinal leaders and political philosophers have sought to define these rights and the means used to secure them.
Sargon sought a system that emphasized security over rights. Those of us who know history, know he did this by depriving people of their rights, much as the fundamentalists are doing today. Since Sargon created the world's first empire, the world's first armed forces and started the very first war in human history, history has been the story of man's quest to find the right balance between national security and the natural rights of all mankind.
I have much disagreement with the people running the show today. Unlike the Christian Fundamentalists running the US federal government, I firmly hold these truths to self evident:
All human beings are equal and they are endowed by their creator, Yahweh, with certain nonalienable rigths which no government, person, community, or any other group may abolish or restrict without their consent. Indeed, there are rights that can't be signed away nor voted away.
I hold that these rights are:
the right to own private property
the right to life
the right to seek prosperity
the right to seek marital happiness
the right to self defense
the right to freedom of worship and conscience
the right of free speech which includes freedom of the press and artistic freedom
the right to choose whatever form of government they deem best for the securing of their happiness and rights and those of their posterity,
the right to basic health care
the right to basic housing
and the right to be treated fairly, equally, and impartially by the law and those who represent the law. And let us not forget the nonalienable right to be treated like a human being.
These are the basis of Canalism. These are the reasons Canalism is superior to all other forms of political theory and governance. Indeed, unlike the current American system, under Canalism a vote is more important than money. Under Canalism people are judged by the integrity of their hearts and actions, not by their positions in society or their income. Under the current American system, run by Christian fundamentalists, you don't get a fair start. And if you fall, you are condemned.
Canalism requires that everyone be given fair and equal treatment, regardless of their moral views. Under Canalism, you are given a hand up, not beaten down further. The rights of the individual trump the rights of the group. Hence, all persons have the nonalienable right to be secure in their persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. This applies not only to law enforcement searches but also to peeking into people's bedroom windows and the like.
I note that neither party holds these ideas and neither one has even tried to keep faith with them. In the party system, the group with the most money is given more importance than the individual who just lost his job or was locked. Lobbyists are given more rights than the young people who are concerned about their future and the course of society. Under the new political system of Canalism, it is the opposite.

Robert Canales
Political Philosopher
Former Candidate
US House of Representatives, 34th District.

You say people have a right to own property but you also say people have a right to basic education and healthcare. Please explain.

You say people have a right to own property but you also say people have a right to basic education and healthcare. Please explain.

The two rights are not conflicting in the slightest.

You say people have a right to own property but you also say people have a right to basic education and healthcare. Please explain.

The two rights are not conflicting in the slightest.

Yes they are. In order to have a right to basic education and healthcare you would have to violate the right to property.

The right to own property would be one thing, but the government still has premises. In Britain, we can own property ourselves, and we have free healthcare and education systems. The right to own property doesn't neccesarily mean the government owns squat.

I dunno what hes talking about, Free education and healthcare are derived from monetary taxes paid to the government.

I dunno what hes talking about, Free education and healthcare are derived from monetary taxes paid to the government.

Okay, maybe I mistyped that a little - it is paid for by the taxpayer. But that is taken from the whole sum of the taxes paid to the government, meaning people can walk in off the street and be treated to the same level of healthcare without having to worry about medial insurance affecting the level of treatment. That's a damn sight cheaper than each person paying out thousands for themselves, which inevitably puts the poorer sections of the community at a disadvantage.

It is called 'free' at the point of need, despite taxes paying for it.

You say people have a right to own property but you also say people have a right to basic education and healthcare. Please explain.

The two rights are not conflicting in the slightest.

Yes they are. In order to have a right to basic education and healthcare you would have to violate the right to property.
Right to private property
right to basic healthcare

I left out education. Hello.

Taxes don't violate the right to private property.
The right to basic healthcare does not either. Rather, it is obligatory of any government to provide its people with basic shelter and healthcare whereas basic education can be handled by parents or other nongovernment community groups.
Healthcare requires resources and specialists.
People have a right to be sheltered from the elements. People also have the right to that which enables them to enjoy the right to life (namely healthcare.) Therefore, you cannot violate the right to basic healthcare without also violating the right to life.
Just as the right to basic housing is necessary for the enjoyment of the right to life.
Therefore, the government is obligated to provide the basics of these two things. Note, the basics, namely preventive care.
A person who smokes, drinks, and has promiscous sex with lots of people or drives recklessly, forfeits his right to advanced healthcare that would otherwise be provided in emergency rooms and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars but he retains the right to basic care which is just enough to prevent them from getting something or injuring themselves further. But if they do any of the above, the government is under no obligation to go to extremes to keep them alive. The govts. only obligation, then becomes to make the days they have left as reasonably comfortable as possible.

The right to own property would be one thing, but the government still has premises. In Britain, we can own property ourselves, and we have free healthcare and education systems. The right to own property doesn't neccesarily mean the government owns squat.
The right to basic healthcare and basic housing is not a private good but a public good and hence all persons have a right to them.
Education can be both a private good and a public good and it could also be a combination of both.

Of course, if you believe that paying taxes violates the right to private property, then you also believe that the government should not provide national defense, police or fire services since these require taxes which violate the right to property. Yet they are also public goods.

This wasn't meant to be rp. But is an actual political theory.

Of course, if you believe that paying taxes violates the right to private property, then you also believe that the government should not provide national defense, police or fire services since these require taxes which violate the right to property. Yet they are also public goods.

That's right. It should be voluntary.

Of course, if you believe that paying taxes violates the right to private property, then you also believe that the government should not provide national defense, police or fire services since these require taxes which violate the right to property. Yet they are also public goods.

That's right. It should be voluntary.
But the securing of our liberties requires we voluntarily gives some up by paying taxes to the govt so it can have armies to protect our other liberties and rights.
After all, you have the right to seek prosperity, this is not the same as having a right to be prosperous (which of course no one has).

Of course, if you believe that paying taxes violates the right to private property, then you also believe that the government should not provide national defense, police or fire services since these require taxes which violate the right to property. Yet they are also public goods.

That's right. It should be voluntary.
But the securing of our liberties requires we voluntarily gives some up by paying taxes to the govt so it can have armies to protect our other liberties and rights.
After all, you have the right to seek prosperity, this is not the same as having a right to be prosperous (which of course no one has).

In regards to the first issue you raised, that would be correct. Police and army would be funded by voluntary taxation.

In regards to your second point, I agree you have the right to seek prosperity but you also have the right to keep the fruits your prosperity. I also agree that no one has the right to be prosperous, so why do you think we have a right to a basic level of education and healthcare?

Of course, if you believe that paying taxes violates the right to private property, then you also believe that the government should not provide national defense, police or fire services since these require taxes which violate the right to property. Yet they are also public goods.

That's right. It should be voluntary.
But the securing of our liberties requires we voluntarily gives some up by paying taxes to the govt so it can have armies to protect our other liberties and rights.
After all, you have the right to seek prosperity, this is not the same as having a right to be prosperous (which of course no one has).

In regards to the first issue you raised, that would be correct. Police and army would be funded by voluntary taxation.

In regards to your second point, I agree you have the right to seek prosperity but you also have the right to keep the fruits your prosperity. I also agree that no one has the right to be prosperous, so why do you think we have a right to a basic level of education and healthcare?

I never included education though it could be a right, but you can get an education without government funding. You can educate yourself, and parents can educate their children or see to it that someone does.

Now healthcare, is necessary for one to be able to exercise the right to life. Medicine is not a private good it is a public good.
All persons have a right to a prolonged life with out being racketeered by some greedy HMO's whose only concern is not keeping people alive but in making a quick buck. Many people have died cause of the greed of the HMO's which refused to allow them to have procedures that would have kept them alive. But which the HMO's decided would be for the rich only. Of course, this policy of HMO's is directly influenced by the evil ideology of social darwinism which states that only the fittest or wealthiest have the right to live.