Introduction<br />Today’s liberals and conservatives as well as libertarians all agree on a small but significant number of classical liberal principles and practices, most importantly the words that Thomas Jefferson used with lasting effect in the Declaration of Independence- “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”- a close paraphrase of words written by John Locke. Liberal parties throughout Europe, as is the case with the Democratic and Republican parties including conservatives in the United States, most outspoken advocates of economic liberalism- of capitalism. Conservatives in Europe have traditionally favored a paternalistic economy and state controls and regulations, including even nationalization; now they have become advocates of deregulation and a free market. Both the British Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher (1979- 1990) and the Gaullists in France, even since the early seventies, have moved ever closer to the tenets of free market economy. Liberty can divide to two categories that are positive liberty and negative liberty. Positive liberty is the possibility or the fact of acting in such a way as to take control of one’s fundamental purposes. While negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. Human rights are developed to protect individual’s benefit, welfare and safety. Right is limits the validity of social benefit and focus on the individual. There are two types of human right that is negative and positive right. <br />Rights<br />Negative rights<br />Put simply a negative right is the right to be left alone. Specifically it is the right to think and act free from the coercive force of others. negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery and the right to bear armsFree from muggers, fraudsters and restrictive laws and taxes. A negative right is an absolute. You are either free from the above or you are not. Even the slightest violation breaks this right. Imagine that a man stops you in the street once a week and forces you to stand still for one minute - hardly a life changing violation - yet your right to be free of the coercion of others is being broken. The degree to which this right is violated changes from place to place but I know of no country where it is not routinely violated by the state. Remember that a person cannot claim this right while violating the same in others. A mugger cannot claim a right to be left alone whilst mugging people. The kind of society where this right is prevalent is a society whose government exists only to protect the individual from the force of others. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights are the closest examples - which, sadly, modern day America is abandoning daily.Positive rights That are rights to something. A right to food, to healthcare, to education -whatever. positive rights may include other civil and political rights such as police protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as public education, health care, social security, and a minimum standard of living The reality of a positive right is that whatever the object of the right is (e.g. healthcare), it needs to be created before the 'right' can be fulfilled. This creates an obligation upon others to create it and it is the basis for slave societies and statistic dictatorships. In the UK positive rights exist and each person who is taxed and restricted via legislation into providing the object of the right is working a proportion of his/her life as a slave. This may seem a bit extreme, but it isn’t. Unless you agree entirely with your payment of every tax and everything the government then spends your money on, you are being forced to work for ends you have not given your consent to - just like a slave. Slavery was outlawed, but it crept back under the guise of the 'public good'. The reason most people tolerate, or even give apathetic support to it, is because they are not thinking about which principles are being abandoned and which of their own rights they are giving up by doing so. <br />Different between positive right and negative right<br />A positive right imposes a moral obligation on a person or the government to do something for an individual, while a negative right, obliges the government not to do something, i.e. .intervene in an individual‘s life. Positive rights are economic in nature: they involve the rights-holder being assured of the provision of some economic good such as housing, a job, a pension, or medicine. Under most systems of social democracy, these are provided under some manner of public welfare system, in which public funds are used to establish public housing, works programs, social security, and the like. In contrast, negative rights are usually not directly economic in nature, although the right to security in private property is considered an economic negative right in that it entails freedom from theft or state confiscation. Other negative rights include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, freedom from violent crime and freedom from involuntary servitude. Negative rights would correspond to duties of forbearance: if X has a negative right to V, then other's have a non-interference duty in relation to X's enjoyment of V. Positive rights would correspond to duties of assistance: if X has a positive right to V, then others (perhaps government) have a (positive) duty to provide X with V. <br />Personal character in positive right and negative right<br />Negative and positive right, furthermore, may be said to be quite distinct and separate phenomena. Although utilitarian argument may be made for negative rights (like mill’s famous case for free speech), they have always received most of their support from the moral assertion that person have claims against other not be treated in ways thought to be abusive, irrespective right of the social consequences (cf.dworkin, 190-92). Negative right, then, unlike positive right .may be said to have a predominantly deontological character. on the hand ,one can easily imagine a society (like Huxley’s brave new world),in which everyone receives a high level of benefit from government and yet possesses no negative rights whatever –or a high level of negative right and no benefit whatever.<br />Country preference negative right and positive right<br />A negative right is a right, either moral or decreed by law, to not be subject to an action of another human being (usually abuse or coercion)."
To use Justice Brandeis' famous phrase more broadly than he used it, negative rights are "
rights to be left alone."
All civilized legal systems beyond the village or tribal level have been systems of negative rights. For example, Anglo-American common law defines spheres of personal space which other persons must not invade especially spheres involving the body, residence, possessions, and property. The only way to create positive rights in traditional common law is to personally agree to them -- i.e. to make a contract.<br />The United States Constitution was drafted by people who, at least for amendments made before the 1930s, defined rights as negative rights. Thus, when the Constitution in the Fourteenth Amendment protects the "
life, liberty, or property"
equal protection of the laws"
it is referring to acts which government must refrain from doing, not to any positive duty of the government to act. The only time the government has a positive duty to act is when it has already deprived a person of liberty (e.g., prisoners, and arguably children compelled to attend public schools). Unfortunately, the Court since the 1940s has departed sharply from this basic tenant of civilized law. It has read positive rights into the Constitution, thereby depriving citizens and other persons of negative rights to which we are entitled. <br />Liberty <br />Think of another word that comes from the Latin liber, meaning “liberty”. A classical liberal is someone who values individual liberty and who advocates those governmental constructions that help to guarantee that liberty. Addition, government has set up human right such as positive right and negative right. Another that positive and negative liberal are significant differently. Negative liberty requires only that one refrain from acting. For instance, punch someone in the nose, walk on their property, and so on. If I have a right not to be punched in the nose by you, you have as perfect a right not to be punched in the nose by me. Positive rights require me not merely to refrain from acting, but to affirmatively act. There are legally and philosophically can distinguish the workforce markets to two different view that are one can fire someone, and require them to leave one's workplace, but one cannot compel him to work there, even if he has signed a contract promising to do so.<br />Conservatives<br />Conservatives refer to those who prefer preserving the traditions of the past into the present. They typically oppose rapid or radical changes. Edmund Burke was the first to address conservatism as a philosophy, the first to analyze the basic principles and motivations of conservatives. To be conservative, one must have something to conserve likes property, status, power, a way of life. Conservatives more to be those who have power or wealth or status and who simply want to keep things the way they are. For those who live in small towns, the old, and the uneducated are can’t imagine something different, or are afraid of change. So they want to keep their way of life the way it is. <br />Differing from the liberals in almost every respect, conservatives have little confidence in human morality or intelligence. Consequently, though the would may not be as pleasant as the conservatives might wish, they are dubious about efforts to change it for fear that incompetent meddling might, indeed, make things worse.<br />Positive versus negative liberty<br />The simple negative or positive right distinction doesn’t really do work that most conservatives or even moderate libertarians would want it to do because private property and freedom of contract themselves involve positive right. To protect of private property should be legitimate social goals. Government should take steps to protect our property and enforce our contract. Government generally shouldn’t itself take our property because there is indeed a negative right component to property but we are entitled to demand a certain benefit that is property protection and contract enforcement from government.<br />Government given the cost of the other party’s negative right. Individual have right to own private property likes land and demand the government keep other people from walking the land. This is a restraint on those people’s negative liberty to go the land. The perfectly legitimate restraint does enforce individual positive right by limiting other negative right.<br />Liberals vs. Conservatives<br />Generally in liberal thought the right to own and control one’s private property is essential to liberty, and the U.S Constitution reflects that idea. However, some classical liberal thinkers thought that too much property for same individuals would hamper the freedom of others and that the state should be involved move heavily in regulating private property. A government ceases to be liberal, though, when it goes from regulating private property and taxing with the people’s consent, to owning and monopolizing property itself without the people’s consent.<br />Admittedly, the way of liberal thinkers view human nature, liberalism as a political philosophy has more in common with realism than with idealism. Liberals start with the assumption that human nature is selfish and individualistic. But unlike the ancient idealists, and like the realists, they wish to construct laws and institutions that work with that human nature, channeling it in positive ways, rather than trying to change human being’ minds and hearts.<br />Conclusion<br />Conclusion, positive and negative right liberally and conservatives cannot be fully maximized. That conservatives and libertarians have a much less coherent definition of "
than one would think, to hear them talk. For one thing, among the rights we embrace as "
, they clearly can conflict with each other. For example, my freedom of speech is indeed less if I may not speak on your property; your freedom of property clearly less if you are free to come and speak on it whether I will or no. But I think the distinctions of reciprocity and inaction do hold, and that we have a pretty good social and legal framework that can mediate these conflicts such that there is a stable social equilibrium.<br />The Fall of Soviet Union and The Marxism<br />The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was a socialist state that existed in Eurasia from 1922 to 1991. Its short name is Soviet Union. Initially there is a union of four Soviet Socialist Republics, the USSR grew to contain 16 constituent or "
by 1956. But the Soviet Union's collapse into independent nations began early in 1985. Several Soviet Socialist Republics began resisting central control, and increasing democratization led to a weakening of the central government. The Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991. From 1945 until dissolution in 1991,this period known the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States of America which were the two world superpowers that dominated the global agenda of economic policy, foreign affairs, military operations, scientific advancements and sports. In Soviet Union, there is Marxism as it has been understood and practiced by the various HYPERLINK "
socialist movements, particularly before 1914. Then there is Soviet Marxism as worked out by Lenin and modified by Stalin, which under the name of Marxism-Leninism became the doctrine of the communist parties set up after the Russian Revolution. However, whether the fall of Soviet Union really means that Marxism is dead? Karl Marx economic philosophy relate to the socialism or communism practice in Soviet Union. Marx is the philosopher whom critics against capitalism which characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the rule of supply and demand. For Karl Marx, humans from their earliest beginnings are motivated by material concerns and needs, like the need to eat and survive. At the beginning, people worked together in unity and it wasn’t so bad. But eventually, humans developed agriculture and the concept of private property. These two facts created a division of labor and a separation of classes based upon power and wealth. This in turn created the social conflict which drives society. All of this is made worse by capitalism which only increases the disparity between the wealthy classes and the labor classes. Capitalism interrupts by introducing a profit motive. Profit is ultimately derived from the surplus value produced by workers in factories. So as a summary, Marx critics against capitalism based on three claims which are: the first capitalism exist and based on exploitation of worker. For example, a labor might produce enough value to feed his family in two hours of work, but he keeps at the job for a full day and in Marx’s time, that might be 12 or 14 hours. Those extra hours represent the surplus value produced by the worker. The owner of the factory did nothing to earn this, but exploits it nevertheless and keeps the difference as profit. Capitalism as to Marx is wage slavery. So, as this immoral practice should be replaced by socialism and eventually by full communism so as the owner of means of production would not exploit the workers in order to gain more profit and they should be controlled by the government. <br />The second claim by Marx is capitalism involves alienation of human beings. Alienation involves domination or control of some by others and this produce other negative effects. In capitalism economics system, the workers are alienated by the product of their labour and also from others and the possessions for work are to live dominate them and leave negative effects on a dull life and routine working life. Marx claims that capitalism produce alienation because it’s a function of private property at which it is supports by the rights to property and liberty. While Soviet Union as the example is the one which eliminates private property. The third claim by Marx is capitalism protects the vested interests of the few and prevents the many from achieving a better, more just and more equitable society. This is unjust. This means that in the capitalism, the rich or whom who have the power or authority or vested interests are protected while preventing others people to attain a better life and equal society.<br />However, there are critics against Marx ideology. First and foremost is his claim on alienation of other people. The defenders of capitalism argue that during the reign of Stalin, The Soviet people were more suffer, oppressed and alienated from their government than Americans have ever been. So the claim that private property is the cause of alienation disproved. Many argued that capitalism in fact is ultimately a more effective means of generating and redistributing wealth than socialism or communism, and that the gulf between rich and poor that concerned Marx was a temporary phenomenon. Some suggest that greed and the need to acquire capital is an inherent component of human behavior, and is not caused by the adoption of capitalism or any other specific economic system. Many observe that capitalism has changed much since Marx's time, and that class differences and relationships are much more complex. As one example the fact that much corporate stock in the United States is owned by workers through pension funds. Some claims that Marxist ideologies haven’t kept up to date with the world. They have no solutions. The stagnation of socialist centrally planned economies especially that of the Soviet Union, demonstrate the need to reject Marxist elements. <br />While Marxist political parties and movements have significantly declined since the fall of the Soviet Union.Critics argue that the Soviet Union's numerous internal failings and subsequent collapse were a direct result of the practical failings of Marx's program, but Marxists claim that the Soviet Union's Leninist and Stalinist policies were only superficially similar to Marxist theory. Marx analyzed the world of his day and refused to draw up plans of how a future socialist society. Actually Marxism not really dead or being totally criticized by today’s modern world still has some modern Marxist supporters who claim for him and critics for the capitalism. Like the dominant thought among modern Marxists is the idea of "
in which the means of production are owned by the worker or worker organizations and the economy is directed by market forces rather than by a central bureaucracy or control. For the supporters of Marxism, they claim that Marx never spelled out precisely how a socialist economy would look or how it would be managed. Although the revolutions happened in the Soviet Union and China earlier in the century were undertaken in the name of Marx, critics of the communistic societies that emerged, is more emphasis on central planning and authoritarian rule. While these features were from revolutionaries such as Lenin, Stalin, not Marx.Actually, Marxism is the ideology which Karl Marx proposed and it’s became different used by different leader from Lenin, Stalin even to the Mao Zhedong, president of China also a communist country and also in Cuba. However, they just adopt his ideology but there are difference in proposed it and apply on the policies of each country. <br />So although many moral issues and critics were raised against the capitalism and socialism, it is difficult to absolutely determine whether either one or both are inherently immoral and should be eliminate. For the capitalist economic system, even now many people in the United States complain that government is out of control and they don’t know how they are governed while the others complained the emphasis of Americans on material goods. So, the claimed inherently immorality, pros and cons of capitalism remain open questions so as to the socialism or communism. <br />Marxism<br />Marxism is an ideology and socioeconomic theory derived from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Karl Marx was born in Trier, German on the 5 May 1818. He was an immensely German philosopher, political economist and socialist revolutionary. Marx pointed out a lot of issues such us alienation and exploitation of the worker, the capitalist mode of production and historical materialism. Friedrich Engels was born in Barmen-Elberfeld in Germany on 28 November 1820. He was a 19th century German political philosopher. He formed the communist theory parallel with Marx. These two men firstly met in Paris on September 1844 and they realized that they had same views on the capitalism. They began to work together producing The Germany Ideology and the Communist Manifesto.<br />The most forms of the Marxism share the principles like an attention to the material conditions of people’s lives and social relations among people, a belief that people’s consciousness of the conditions of their lives implies these material conditions and relations, an understanding of class in term of distinguish relations of production and as a particular position within such relation, an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable, a view of history according to which class struggle, a sympathy for working class or proletariat and a belief that the ultimate interests of workers best match those of humanity in general.<br />Marxism is a fundamental ideology of the communism. Communism is the doctrine of the conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. (Engels, 1847a) The overall aim of the communists was to organize society in such a way that every member of it can develop and use all his capabilities and powers in complete freedom and without thereby infringing the basic conditions of this society. (Engels, 1847b:92) Marx and Engels posited the distinguishing features of communism are the abolition of private property, the abolition of buying and selling (and the consequent disappearance of money), the abolition of he division of labour, the abolition of the personal appropriation of the products of labours, the abolition of countries and nationality and the abolition of the family. The transition would be a gradual one, but would eventually result in a society where there would be the production run by society as a whole: for the good of the society, according to a social plan, common use of all instruments of production, common distribution of all products, labour as means of the enriching and promoting the life of the workers, communal education of children and openly legalized community of women.<br />Critics against Marxism<br />Many thinkers have criticized that historical materialism is an oversimplification of the nature of the society. The influence of ideas, culture and other aspects that called as superstructure are just as important as the economic base to the course of society, if not more so. Indeed, historical materialism calls into question why Marx would support his ideas so intensely if he thought that they would have no influence.<br />Many critics claim that to achieve the ends of the communism such as the abolition of the private property, communist regimes always forced to use violence. As the evidences, both purges in Soviet Russian and the Cultural Revolution in China have murdered around 85 millions of people. Anarchists argued that Marxist communism will inevitably lead to coercion and state domination. Mikhail Bakunin believed Marxist regimes would lead to the despotic control of the populace by a new and not at all numerous aristocracy.<br />An end which requires unjustified means is not a justifiable end. Max Weber criticized in his 1919 lecture Politics as a Vocation state that “conduct can be oriented to an ethic of ultimate ends or to an ethic of responsibility…Whosoever contracts with violent means for whatever ends and every politician does is exposed to its specific consequences. This holds especially for the crusader, religious and revolutionary alike...The leader and his success are completely dependent upon the functioning of his machine and hence not on his own motives”. This criticism is supported by Gandhi in the work Satyagraha, which outlines his philosophy of non-violence. The theory of Satyagraha views means and ends as same. Thus, it is contradictory to try to use unjust means to obtain justice or to try to use violence to obtain the peace.<br />Capitalism<br />Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth and the means of the producing wealth are privately owned. Through capitalism, the land, labor and capital are owned, operated and traded by private individuals either singly or jointly, and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy. A distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns his or her own labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to employers. In a capitalist state, private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework. In the modern capitalist state, legislative action is confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market, though the state may provide some public goods and infrastructure. (Source: Wikipedia online)<br />Critics against Capitalism<br />One of the criticisms of capitalism is unequal distribution of wealth which produces a society of gross inequality of wealth and income, that capitalism is a rich man’s economic system and that is bad for the poor. Another criticism of capitalism is since capitalist incentive system is based on individualistic self seeking activity, it is inconsistent with feelings of compassion, sharing and brotherhood which make for a good society. Another challenge to capitalism is boom or bust economy. It is true that the capitalist economy does go through frequent contradictions or expansions. Many people also criticized capitalism is wasteful. As long as individuals are freely to make choices and as long as corporations are free to offer any goods and services they want, a few mistakes are emerge. One of the mistakes is occurring surplus of the supply. In addition, the production and consumption of some goods involves harmful side effects such as pollution that affect people not involved in the market transaction. <br />Capitalism In America<br />Capitalism in the America works because of the America government has empowered the Federal Reserve Bank to issue currency based on the "
full faith and credit"
of the government. This means that while there is no gold or silver to back the dollar bills issued, the US guarantees that it will honor the notes (bills). This enables ordinary people to use the currency to exchange them for things they need or want such as groceries, auto repairs, movie tickets and everything else that can be purchased in life. American economics are primarily defined by capitalism, a financial system which prides itself on unlimited growth and prosperity. Capitalism has greatly affected the lifestyles and affluence of those who live with it and was an undeniably significant factor in the configuration of a defined American identity. Capitalism also is the utmost reason for resentment towards the America. The unfortunate reality of a fully capitalist society is that the highest priority is profits, and not the well being of the consumer. As a result, Americans have created the reputation of being greedy, dishonest, and arrogant.<br />The American economy continues to get worse rapidly with the overwhelming credit crunch and major loss of confidence by consumers, businesses and investors. Usually in credit-crunch induced recessions, firms stop spending because the banks shut up shop. Tax cuts or just handing out cash to banks or big infrastructure projects or re-regulation are improbable to help speed up economic recovery. Alan Greenspan was the former of Federal Reserve Chairman which was the icon of modern America capitalism, was forced to show his contrition in October 2008. Greenspan said that the banking and housing crisis is a "
once-in-a-century credit tsunami"
and he found a "
in his governing ideology and that has led him to re-examine his thinking.<br />The America economy is rapidly descending from a recession into a depression. Hundreds of thousands of workers are losing their jobs each month. One out of five workers is out of work or working part time; one out of every ten homeowners cannot meet their mortgage payments and face eviction. The Gross National Product (GNP) will be retreating at a rate between minus 2% to minus 5% for 2009; manufacturing is declining to minus 6%; consumer spending is down 25%. Bankruptcy rates are at depression levels and credit is drying up. Major of the banks survive only because of the trillion dollar government bail-outs. Issues like unemployment, bankruptcy, credit freeze, corporate losses and debt has devastated the domestic America economy and severely damaged the 'real economy' and stock market. The Obama administration will need to take more radical measures to ensure that the much needed credit to businesses and consumers starts flowing again, including nationalization and recapitalization of major banks and speed up recovery on ordinary Americans in terms of job losses, home foreclosures and loss of other basic supplies of life. However, the fate of many new-comers from the emerging economies of the world is closely tied to the success or failure of capitalism in America like Brazil and India, who hold the conservative American ideas of "
. The European and Asian nations with substantial population of savers and entrepreneurs will recover rapidly and flourish again, as long as they keep their banks and financial institutions on a tight leash. America was faced three interrelated crises which were economic recession, energy insecurity and the overarching climate crisis. Sustainable capitalism is needed to build the long-term value creation. <br />