Unaccredited Degrees Are Legal

Nasty, brutish and short? Enough about Robert Blake.

We owe much to our UK political forebears but, well, screw them for now. For now, have you anything to say about what's called 'negative rights?" The Bill of Rights was opposed by some for the reason that it was an appendage of 'positive rights' to a body of 'negative rights'.

The Constitution does not allow or permit behaviors, beliefs or actions but restrains or forbids government from forbidding or restraining behaviors, beliefs and actions. That, I think, is 'negative rights' in a nutshell.

The exceptions to the above, for the most part, are actions and behaviors injurious to others. Murder, rape and fraud, for instance.

I'm not enough up on Hobbes to know what he meant by the natural state being man enslaving man. The Founding Dudes certainly understood it is the natural state of man as governor (government) to expand the governance to the point of tyranny.


"America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

 

Hm.

Well, okay, but does the idea of a "right" have any meaning outside of an organized, governed society?

How about this? Without a government, do you have a "right" to own your real estate or do you possess your real estate only so long as you can defend it with your own fists (or bazooka or whatever). See what I mean?

It looks from that perspective that the "right" to own property, by which I mean the ability to call upon the police machinery of force to defend your possession for you, is a positive right conferred upon you, and upon all citizens, by the government.

Or if you don't like comparing governed with ungoverned humanity, how about the "right" to make a Will with the reasonable certainty that it will be enforced by the State after you are dead? Isn't the power to make a Will a positive right conferred upon you by the government?

 

Popular argument in libertarian circles.

Maybe three arguments:

1) Do delineated "rights" have any meaning or is there a general right to be left alone. Being left alone would of course mean my leaving you alone as you do me.

2) Need an organized society be a governed society or is it give-and-take and contractual arrangement that gives order.

3) On a more practical plane, does an ungoverned society spawn tribalism and must a governed society always devolve to tyranny.

These arguments are never settled, by the way.

Yes, I know what you mean. Libertarian anarchists are called anarcho-capitalists. I don't believe anarchy can work and consider myself a minarchist - minimal government not too much different than was attempted at the founding of the US.

IMO, without government of some form you will defend that real estate or cede it to the stronger.

You are a good lawyer - pragmatist. Rights, or the general right to be left alone, are theoretical. Our rights (United States) are specifically inalienable and endowed by our "Creator." The latter was a handy qualifier for the religious, deist and atheist of the Founding Dudes. Handy as that position denies any man or collection of men claiming to be the endowers of rights as men or as agents of the higher power of the state.

I can call upon the police to protect my property not because the employers of the police have arrogated some privilege to grant me rights but because I have inalienable rights the police have volunteered to enforce for a fee.

No. I have the right to will my property. The government (a collection of people volunteering to enforce my rights for a fee) has an obligation to enforce my will against transgression by others.

No offense but for a practical fellow you harbor some mystical notions as to the nature of government. Government is not some mystical other but a collection of people volunteering to serve the citizenry for a fee. Government ain't Mount Olympus.

 

1) This starts to get bogged down when you try to say something about where the "rights" come from. God? Plato's Forms? Do they simply exist? Did the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness exist 1,000 years ago. If so, where was it? Clearly these questions quickly move into the realm of Metaphysics and unless the debaters can agree to a basic set of assumptions, they never exit the realm of Metaphysics.

2) These are not static entities, they are dynamic. I think one evolves into the other. Two guys decide to have a fistfight because the each think they are the toughest. Will there be rules to this fight? Who interprets/enforces these rules? Bets are made. Who keeps track? Who holds the money? Who insures all bets are paid? All contracts require enforcement and government is born.

3) I think an ungoverned society does lead to tribalism, if for no other reason than group protection. Common interests lead to cooperation. As for tyranny, I don't believe it's a necessary stage.

Thanks for the fun debate.
Jack

 

As the world turns ......

As we debate the "negative/positive rights" and the relative roles (of lack thereof) of individuals, employers, and government in investigating / prosecuting / protecting society from scams, frauds and cheats, the scammers, the fraudulent perpertrators, and the DL cheaters are debating no such thing. They are hard at work .........

And more ..........

If the above two examples are simply and unarguably cut-and-dried cases of "illegitimate" unaccredited entities, then what about an advertised online "University" which provides a degree for a good credit card plus one completed course and paper? ...... three courses and a paper? .......... five courses and no paper?

Did the anti-RA and anti-accreditation russ and Morgan et al. ever draw the line of legitimacy anywhere? On what basis or per what standards?

Ummmm ........

Who was it that uttered the eternally insightful observation that: “Liberty doesn’t necessarily contract as government expands. Sometimes, you need more government to get more liberty.”

To which the governmental-minimalist, the anarchist-prone and surprisingly most diploma mill shills may say: "Bonk! Let freedom ring! Let the free market rule!"

Unaccredited degrees are legal. (It may even be legal to print, to buy and to sell bogus degrees, as well as to possess them).

Yes, legal ........ and, for the vast majority of them, irreversibly BOGUS, too.

Thanks.

 

The 'natural rights' argument. If rights derive from men then they can be denied by men. Hence, the Creator. Which leads to vicious debate over how religious were the Founding Dudes.

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

I think both are true.

I don't actually enjoy the more philosophical debates for knowing they have no conclusion.

I'm bothered that the arguments against russ and Morgan Khanstein include the illusion of a therapeutic state administering balms or a mommy state kissing booboos. If government is to restrict some activity then that should be on some reasonable grounds. In this case I can think only of fraud as being the reason and I haven't heard another suggestion as to what would be the reason.

 

decimon,

I'm not actually taking ANY position about positve rights. I am just ASKING. And no, this isn't a pose.

The problem I see with "inalienable rights" is the problem I have with natural law in general. It tends to describe what "ought" to be instead of what "is".

Taking the Will as an example; arguably you have the "right", whatever that may mean, to put your wishes down on paper but if you rely on the Creator to defeat your heirs' attempts to set aside your bequests, I fear that from Heaven you may be disappointed. God is unlikely to intervene personally, if you see what I mean.

I suggest that there can be no meaningful definition of "right" without reference to the secular power to enforce the right. You seem to take the view that the "right" is somehow a thing with objective existence. In short, the "right" exists whether or not it is enforced or enforceable.

I agree with you that this view a) can be argued with a straight face; and b) has some useful consequenses, especially in the areas of international law and human rights. Indeed, the Nazi War Crimes tribunals HAD to resort to this idea to avoid punishing conduct that was not, strictly speaking, illegal when committed.

A Nod To Jack Tracey:

You are right; this issue is not likely to be resolved. I think, though, that the debate is useful because it causes us to examine more closely our fundamental assumptions. That contributes, I think, to a clearer, less absolutist view of ourselves and our world.

 

It has probably been said a million times before:

Why bother when you can get an accredited degree? That would apply to 99% of the world.

 

As am I, in other context. I'm specifically asking what others are arguing, as to unaccredited educational institutions, is the legal basis for disallowing those institutions or the using of degrees or diplomas from those institutions. Is fraud the basis? If not then what?

New York is probably as controlling of educational instutions as any jurisdiction. I think it's safe to say that in New York a 'degree' must be from an RA institution. Diplomas, however, are issued by other accredited or unaccredited institutions. They all of course must pass the smell test of the New York Dept. of Ed.

My overall view of the New York way is that it works well if you believe that history ended in the 1950s. A good check on the hustlers but stifling of innovation.

The "what is" of the 1930s has Nosborne the Jew "in quota absentia" (bogus Latin but I like it) from law school. IIRC, that included law school.

I'm not religious but neither were all of the Founders. Not believing in an active God (deism) precludes the intervention thing. That 'Creator' thing works well, IMO.

Natural rights cannot be argued to any conclusion but neither can anything else. I accept the thing for believing that is what best works.

I counter suggest that there can be no meaningful exercise of rights, or some general right, without some secular enforcer. The right or rights, I must insist, are immutable.

 

As I see it there are two basic approaches.

1. Don't allow anyone to grant degrees unless you're certain that they will be legitimate.

2. Allow most anyone to grant degrees and try to deal with the fraudulent operations after the fact.

Approach one is the way that most of the world handles the problem. Approach two is the way that some states within the USA handle it. Approach one does not really involve fraud or really needs to deal with your questions. If I understand them correctly.

As to who is arguing what, it appears to me that your questions (while interesting, possibly more interesting) are more tangential than getting at the core of anyone's argument.

 

I'm sorry but "don't allow" doesn't cut it. Jim Crow was "don't allow." You shouldn't be able to disallow in absence of criminality.

How do you arrive at this certainty of legitimacy? Legitimate by what measure? Who decides?

 

I think that given the existence of 200+ nation-states around the world, with who knows how many political subdivisions and discrete levels of academic recognition within them, the international situation resembles the American. When you factor in the off-shore accreditation havens, it's the wild west out there.

It's interesting that the seat-of-the-pants procedure that now travels under the acronym 'GAAP' essentially consists of the assertion that if a school is operating legally in its (foreign) jurisdiction, then it should be accepted here in the US as meeting our own academic standards. That confuses academic and political criteria. Nevertheless, it seems to be the thinking that underlies things like the International Handbook of Universities and the WHO list of international medical schools.

 

I'm just trying to state the facts of the situation, at least as I understand it. (If "you" meant me, Bill. )

(If "you" meant the general amorphous you.) That differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and I suspect frequently from request to request even when within the same jurisdiction. For example, within the USA it sometimes means RA, DOE approved accredited, or pursuing recognized accreditation. Within other countries it can mean approval from a legislature, approval from a dictator, approval from an education department.

In regards to you assertion that, "You shouldn't be able to disallow in absence of criminality." As a general statement it is far too general, IMHO. For example, licensing is a very accepted method of protecting the public and keeping order. I doubt that you really believe that all licensing is bad.

If you're referring specifically only to new schools being required to prove legitimacy before being allowed to operate, I think that both methods have their pros and cons. I think I probably would favor proving legitimacy first to reduce academic fraud but I recognize that this might make it more difficult for new innovations to be introduced, e.g., distance learning 10 or 20 years ago.

 

It is interesting. My guess is that the reason is that it appears to me that the worldwide academic community primarily resides in first and second world countries. The third world countries are the ones that better fit your "wild west" characterization. Which is fair because from a numerical perspective it probably is a large percentage of the total countries even if it is not necessarily representative of a large percentage of the worldwide academic community.

 

One has the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Of these, property rights is the pillar that upholds all of the others. In the state of nature, property becomes yours by mixing your labor power with a thing. Hence, in the state of nature (possibly some nomadic state of noble savagery?), one has the right to acquire food through one's hunting and gathering skills. However, I would think that governments would quickly be formed. For, you see, if you're running around looking to bring back to the cave some wooly mammoth burgers (or maybe brontoburgers) for the wife and kiddies, then there would probably be safety in numbers if you had to chase your wooly mammoth burgers or brontoburgers around a bit (instead of buying them at your friendly neighborhood local Stone Age Restaurant in the town of Bedrock). The most proficient hunter would soon rise to become chief and the husband/father for his provision skills would become headman of his own cave. Hence, the rise of government as a way of fostering mutual interests.

 

There's a lot to be said for your position. Property rights do seem to underlie MOST systems of civil law. Those systems that don't enshrine individual property rights do enshrine collective property.

But you see, a Will isn't like any other transfer of property. It isn't the same in history or legal theory. Why? Because the holder of the right is DEAD. In general, and historically, dead people have limited ability to affect the actions of the living.

In the common law, real property descended by operation of law. The land descended and the office and duty of the land holder descended with it.

The Will, however, was largely a creation of ecclesiastical courts and canon law. your right to GIVE your property away while you live is historic and constitutional. Your right to leave it through your estate is neither.

Think about this for a minute. There are MAJOR restrictions and limitations on your right to make a Will and what you may do with your estate, not to mention really high taxes on those few estates subject to the estate tax.

 

(1) True, the dead have no physical power to force their children to divvy up their property as directed. However, if the parents actually raised their kids right in the first place, the deceased parents would have a certain emotional, psychological, religious, or reverential power over their children. Ever noticed how, even after the boys are all grown, Mommy still has the power of just giving that "certain look"?

(2) For many centuries of European history land ownership carried with it military obligations. Hence, Nosborne, if you were Emperor of America and if you were to appoint me Duke of Ohio (gasp!), my right to transmit the Duchy of Ohio to an heir of my choosing depends on that heir's ability to carry out the military obligations thereof. Hence, a son should be grown and trained as a knight (or a ward will be appointed for him until he reaches the age of majority) or a daughter should be married, presumably to a competent nobleman trained as a knight (or a ward will be appointed for her until a suitable husband is found).

(3) Feudalism is dead now (thank God) and private individuals now have much greater control over the disposition of their property upon death. Having never taken any courses on History of Estate Law, I'm not sure I can speak to the (un)historicness or (un)constitutionality of the right to dispose of one's property through a last will and testament. However, if it was a development of canon law, I'm sure there was a good deal of natural law theory therein.

(4) Exactly what restrictions are there on my right to dispose of my estate through a will? Are we saying that even if I were to sire a son who turned out to be as worthless as Prince Charles, I couldn't disown the spoiled brat?

 

I don't think there is any Constitutional proscription on willing property.

 

Let's see here. We've already discussed the notion that the right to own property in the state of nature consists in having mixed one's labor power with the thing? How would I go about leaving property to heirs in the state of nature? In the state of nature, by the time I die, I have already taught my grown sons how to hunt down wooly mammoth burgers and brontoburgers and those grown sons probably have their own caves by now. My grown daughters will probably have married successful hunters, possibly younger guys from my hunting group. This leaves the question of providing for my wife and minor children. As the family is the smallest unit of society and government, there is probably some religiously-based notion of providing for one's parents in old age. And, in due time, the older brothers (and brothers-in-law, possibly) will teach the younger brothers how to hunt (and how to go get their own cave) and help to marry off the younger sisters.

 

We've all heard stories of the bereaved family that gathers to hear the reading of the last will and testament of good ol' Aunt Biddy (or Grandpa Mortimer or whoever) only to find that the entire estate has been left to the cat. I believe that if the will is properly drawn up then such a disposition is legal and it is what ultimately happens. You can do what you want with your stuff.
Jack