5 ms·
> "'Rights' are basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want the government to guarantee" - as I said below, the logical conclusion of tha
by ashark 10y ago
> "'Rights' are basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want the government to guarantee" - as I said below, the logical conclusion of that argument is not a world you'd want to live in.
How is that not the world we live in? What is the alternative? At some point someone's deciding what's a right and what isn't. Other people may disagree. Rights aren't a law of nature, they're a fuzzy category, subject to conditions and caveats and shifting over time.
> "is there any such thing as a government that does not force people to do things they wouldn't voluntarily do?" - no there isn't. That's why it should be limited to protecting other people's rights.
But a lot of the things government does that don't fall within that narrow limit really, really appear to make my life and the lives of the people I care about much better, at relatively little cost (for a broad definition of cost). Few or none of the OECD states seem too bad, to put it mildly. None are unqualified disasters, or even close. Meanwhile a "drown it in a bathtub" government coexisting with an advanced economy (correct me if I'm wrong) remains hypothetical—indeed, I think it's fair to call mainstream the view among experts that governments' special ability to overcome coordination problems and take action to nurture markets is vital to an advanced economy—as do the effects of such a system. So it's definitely going to be an uphill battle convincing me that our government "should be limited to protecting other people's rights", without some other state practicing that and full of citizens telling me "no, really, it's pretty great".
- Randgalt 10y ago"What is the alternative?" - a system of rights based on the nature of human beings. Human beings survive by producing the things we need to survive. We need governments to protect others from initiating force against us in opposition to our primary needs of living. Will we ever see this in reality? No. But, the closer humans have gotten in history the better off they've been.
- ashark 10y ago> "What is the alternative?" - a system of rights based on the nature of human beings. Human beings survive by producing the things we need to survive. We need governments to protect others from initiating force against us in opposition to our primary needs of living. I'm having trouble figuring out how this doesn't still boil down to people making judgement calls on what is and isn't a right, just with a level of indirection, so maybe this other question will help me see what you mean: > Will we ever see this in reality? No. But, the closer humans have gotten in history the better off they've been. Do you have an example in mind of when and where we've come especially close to this ideal?
- Randgalt 10y ago"I'm having trouble figuring out how this doesn't still boil down to people making judgement calls on what is and isn't a right" - at the end of the day we're ruled by people. But, there should be a standard by which decisions are made other than "whatever the majority decides".
- ashark 10y ago> But, there should be a standard by which decisions are made other than "whatever the majority decides". It seems like a standard is just a reason for choosing a given set of things to call rights and a given role for government, and we're all set to circle right back to where we were—the people with the power to affect government choosing those things, based on reasons (which was implicitly the case before, anyway). At some point there must be compelling evidence for selecting a given standard over any other, and one would hope that standard may change in the face of new evidence.
- Randgalt 10y ago"Do you have an example in mind of when and where we've come especially close to this ideal?" The USA of course - though it's quickly moving away. Hong Kong (though China is ruining it). England before the Fabians took over. Japan after the war. There are many others.
- ashark 10y ago> Japan after the war. arches eyebrow Is that not the poster child for extensive government intervention in markets and public/private partnership done right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_economic_miracle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_economic_miracle
- lutorm 10y agoA fair number of people would consider the right to health care a fundamental human right.
- Randgalt 10y agoHow can you logically have a right to the services of someone else? Health care is a product - doctors, hospitals, medicine, etc. These must all be produced by people.
- lutorm 10y agoYou can't divine rights out of some fundamental logic. The only ones who can decide what rights humans have are the humans themselves, and then we structure our society to make sure those rights aren't violated.
- Randgalt 10y ago"You can't divine rights out of some fundamental logic" - of course you can. This is the role of philosophy.
- lutorm 10y agoGood luck with that.
- Randgalt 10y agohttps://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471476613&sr=1-1&keywords=objectivism+the+philosophy+of+ayn+rand https://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Libra...
- lutorm 10y agoMaybe I should have been clearer: Just because you say it's derivable "from logic" doesn't mean it is. No logic system can do anything without axioms, and the adoption of those axioms is an arbitrary choice.