4 ms·

I respect your intensity, but if you were to come home one day finding your home has been broken into by a unfortunate soul demanding that you house and feed hi

by bko 11y ago

I respect your intensity, but if you were to come home one day finding your home has been broken into by a unfortunate soul demanding that you house and feed him, would you oblige? He may see you as depriving him of food and shelter by not opening your home. Would you be willing to bare this burden?

knieveltech 11y ago
Would you? This is a ludicrous hypothetical in response to a very simple question: do you or do you not believe all people have a right to the basics of survival and some element of dignity?
- codyb 11y ago
  I, personally, would like to think, given a nonthreatening human being being discovered in my home, that I would help said person. I was arrested once, way too fucked up, in someones car. They eventually lended me sandals because I had no shoes or socks. I am, of course, far more understanding of those in ridiculous situations, having been in many myself. I've calmed down a lot, but unless someone is threatening to kill me, I'll treat a person as someone who has had decades of experiences I have not had. One day, I hope we can all do that for eachother. We're all human beings. We're all animals. We all deserve to be able to eat, sleep, and have social contact.
  - knieveltech 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...
chongli 11y ago
Good analogy. You've framed it in a way that makes it sound like this person has infringed my rights. But what right of mine is he infringing, specifically? The right to own property and keep it secure when I am not around? That's a positive right, not a negative one.
- evanpw 11y ago
  Property rights are the prototypical example of a negative right, so you seem to be defining the concept in a non-standard way. I think the names are poorly chosen, though. A "negative" right is one for which a specific "violater" can always be identified. If you are stolen from, then someone stole from you. A "positive" right is one in which the only identifiable culprit is "everyone" or "society". If you don't have enough to eat, it's because society didn't provide a way for you to feed yourself; it's not that specific person's fault because they didn't hand over their sandwich. This seems to be the main point of disagreement between us. You seem to be saying that if someone doesn't have enough to eat, then it is everyone else's fault individually. My point of view is that it's possible for someone to go hungry without it being anyone's fault in particular; it's just the result of a bad system. Maybe you're morally obligated to try to improve the system, but you're not morally obligated to give away everything you have to anyone who asks.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Property rights are the prototypical example of a negative right That property rights -- which are the state-protected privilege to exercise exclusive control of some abstract or concrete thing and restrict others freedom of action with regard to that abstract or concrete thing -- are often cast as a negative right is a perfect illustration of the fact that the distinction between "positive" and "negative" rights is far less fundamental than many people try to portray it, and is in many cases purely an artifact of the language chosen in a particular description of the right. > If you don't have enough to eat, it's because society didn't provide a way for you to feed yourself; it's not that specific person's fault because they didn't hand over their sandwich. Conversely, if I have a right to acquire the necessities of survival, I can identify a specific violator: whoever it is that actively prevented me from acquiring the existing thing that was necessary. The positive/negative right distinction, even recast as a "specific identifiable violator" distinction, isn't really all that useful: you still have to define which rights exist (even if you've decided which classes of descriptions of rights are acceptable, whether its "only negative" or "only those with specific identifiable violators"), and you still have to deal with the fact whichever rights you decide should exist are likely going to conflict. > This seems to be the main point of disagreement between us. You seem to be saying that if someone doesn't have enough to eat, then it is everyone else's fault individually. My point of view is that it's possible for someone to go hungry without it being anyone's fault in particular; it's just the result of a bad system. Unless there doesn't exist enough food to eat, the only reason somebody doesn't have enough to eat is because someone else -- either individually or collectively -- has actively taken steps that deny that person access to the food that exists.

by bko 11y ago

knieveltech 11y ago

Would you? This is a ludicrous hypothetical in response to a very simple question: do you or do you not believe all people have a right to the basics of survival and some element of dignity?

codyb 11y ago
I, personally, would like to think, given a nonthreatening human being being discovered in my home, that I would help said person. I was arrested once, way too fucked up, in someones car. They eventually lended me sandals because I had no shoes or socks. I am, of course, far more understanding of those in ridiculous situations, having been in many myself. I've calmed down a lot, but unless someone is threatening to kill me, I'll treat a person as someone who has had decades of experiences I have not had. One day, I hope we can all do that for eachother. We're all human beings. We're all animals. We all deserve to be able to eat, sleep, and have social contact.
- knieveltech 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...

chongli 11y ago

Good analogy. You've framed it in a way that makes it sound like this person has infringed my rights. But what right of mine is he infringing, specifically? The right to own property and keep it secure when I am not around? That's a positive right, not a negative one.

evanpw 11y ago
Property rights are the prototypical example of a negative right, so you seem to be defining the concept in a non-standard way. I think the names are poorly chosen, though. A "negative" right is one for which a specific "violater" can always be identified. If you are stolen from, then someone stole from you. A "positive" right is one in which the only identifiable culprit is "everyone" or "society". If you don't have enough to eat, it's because society didn't provide a way for you to feed yourself; it's not that specific person's fault because they didn't hand over their sandwich. This seems to be the main point of disagreement between us. You seem to be saying that if someone doesn't have enough to eat, then it is everyone else's fault individually. My point of view is that it's possible for someone to go hungry without it being anyone's fault in particular; it's just the result of a bad system. Maybe you're morally obligated to try to improve the system, but you're not morally obligated to give away everything you have to anyone who asks.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Property rights are the prototypical example of a negative right That property rights -- which are the state-protected privilege to exercise exclusive control of some abstract or concrete thing and restrict others freedom of action with regard to that abstract or concrete thing -- are often cast as a negative right is a perfect illustration of the fact that the distinction between "positive" and "negative" rights is far less fundamental than many people try to portray it, and is in many cases purely an artifact of the language chosen in a particular description of the right. > If you don't have enough to eat, it's because society didn't provide a way for you to feed yourself; it's not that specific person's fault because they didn't hand over their sandwich. Conversely, if I have a right to acquire the necessities of survival, I can identify a specific violator: whoever it is that actively prevented me from acquiring the existing thing that was necessary. The positive/negative right distinction, even recast as a "specific identifiable violator" distinction, isn't really all that useful: you still have to define which rights exist (even if you've decided which classes of descriptions of rights are acceptable, whether its "only negative" or "only those with specific identifiable violators"), and you still have to deal with the fact whichever rights you decide should exist are likely going to conflict. > This seems to be the main point of disagreement between us. You seem to be saying that if someone doesn't have enough to eat, then it is everyone else's fault individually. My point of view is that it's possible for someone to go hungry without it being anyone's fault in particular; it's just the result of a bad system. Unless there doesn't exist enough food to eat, the only reason somebody doesn't have enough to eat is because someone else -- either individually or collectively -- has actively taken steps that deny that person access to the food that exists.