4 ms·

"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 go

"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 ago
A fair number of people would consider the right to health care a fundamental human right.
- Randgalt 10y ago
  How 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 ago
    You 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 ago
      Good luck with that.
      - Randgalt 10y ago
        https://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 ago
        Maybe 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.

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 ago

A fair number of people would consider the right to health care a fundamental human right.

Randgalt 10y ago
How 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 ago
  You 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 ago
    Good luck with that.
    - Randgalt 10y ago
      https://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 ago
        Maybe 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.