20 ms·

I have sympathy with your argument, but I'm not 100% convinced. If controlling your own capital means having access to the economy so that you can buy food and

I have sympathy with your argument, but I'm not 100% convinced. If controlling your own capital means having access to the economy so that you can buy food and housing, then it becomes a prerequisite for basic human rights like actually living; doesn't that at a certain point put it on the same level? It's sort of like countries that take steps to ensure everyone has access to the internet as a basic right: they acknowledge that participating in the modern economy, and the things that flow from that participation (security, dignity, basic sustenance) require internet access to do it meaningfully. How else are you going to apply for jobs, when companies no longer sort through CVs sent in by post? (As an aside, this is one reason I rage at people -- and this has been a strain of thought popular in Britain recently -- that make negative comments about the homeless having "luxuries" like smartphones. How else are they supposed to find work, be contactable to do that work, etc.? Being able to make and receive phone calls, SMSes, and emails is essential in 2017, at least in Europe. Madness.) Anyway, point is, it's not enough to say that "everyone has the right to life and not be tourtured" and other abstract concepts. Having a right, truly, means being able to exercise it meaningfully -- just having it under the law is not enough. Therefore, the prerequisites to exercising those rights need to also be in place, and form at the very least a part of those basic rights, even if you do not want to classify them as seperate, also basic rights. (But I think arguing about Linnean distinctions is a little pointless.)

richmarr 10y ago
> ... doesn't that at a certain point put it on the same level? I don't think so, no. Basic human rights are something that we agree shouldn't be taken away, from anyone, even from prisoners. Control of wealth is not one of those things, I don't think. There are times when it's fair for your country to take your money from you against your will. There are times when it's fair for your country to audit or freeze your finances against your will, or simply stop you accessing them. Is control of money & access to the economy important? Sure. It's important enough to be in the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are expected to be paid, and have access to a shop. Is it a basic human right? I don't think so.
- narag 10y ago
  There are times when it's fair for your country to take your money from you against your will And there are times when you can be jailed against your will. There is a huge gray area between absolute private property and absolute state property that's where every country in the world is, including worst tiranies. Also free societies are more on the more private property half of that area.
  - richmarr 10y ago
    Sorry I'm not sure what your point is here. You seem to be suggesting a positive correlation between private property and freedom, but I think that's a far more complicated relationship than an implied correlation allows... as shown by the fact that 'socialist' democracies like New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, etc. consistently rank highest on indices of freedom (e.g. Cato) and laissez-faire democracies like the US tend to trail them.
    - narag 10y ago
      So no pp for nz??? Edit: BTW, my point was that your previous point is nonsensical. The fact that the State can suspend one right doesn't mean that right is less important. Also you don't seem to understand that "social democracy" is actually what happens in every western country, even the USA. The goverment seizes at least half the production of the country. Maybe USA spends a lot in the military while other countries spends more on public health. But that's how they spend the money. The fact that money is collected and percentage of wealth seized is the same. What (hopefully) we're talking about here is the legal safety that you have for the money that you have after taxes. If the State can arbitrarily seize money, raise the taxes to confiscatory levels or use another trick to crush you, that's lack of control. I don't think that's worse in NZ than in the USA. Actually I believe it to be the other way around.
      - richmarr 10y ago
        > Edit: BTW, my point was that your previous point is nonsensical. The fact that the State can suspend one right doesn't mean that right is less important. You're analysing my point backwards. Fundamental right aren't more important because the state can't suspect them... they are more important, so the state shouldn't suspend them. Do we now agree, or do you still disagree even with the order corrected? > Also you don't seem to understand that "social democracy" is actually what happens in every western country, even the USA. Okay, slow down and take the time to read what I actually wrote, because you're quoting and arguing against something I didn't say... and being kinda rude with it. I'm fine being easy-going about your manners, but if you're not going to bother reading what I wrote then writing more is kinda pointless.
aninhumer 10y ago
>doesn't that at a certain point put it on the same level? No, it's only a prerequisite as a result of the existing economic model. Human rights should transcend that. I think capitalism is mostly effective at producing good outcomes, and as such it should be supported in as far as it does. But the important thing is the outcomes, not the capitalism.
- sametmax 10y ago
  Exactly. "Human rights" should be universal. "controlling your own wealth" is not. Because it implies: - control - wealth - ownership 3 concepts that are tied too our current society. You can imagine other societies where those don't hold anymore, but where human right should still hold.
  - programmarchy 10y ago
    It's universal when applied as a negative right e.g. nobody has the right to steal from or enslave another.
    - deong 10y ago
      The problem is that there's a certain segment of the population that views that right so broadly that it encompasses a bunch of stuff I and most others don't agree with. Property rights are weird. We all mostly agree that no one should be able to steal your phone off your desk at work. We very much don't agree that governments should not be able to tax income. When someone says "controlling your own wealth should be a basic human right", I don't know whether I agree or not until I know quite a lot more about what that person means. Which probably means I disagree that it's a basic human right.
      - aminok 10y ago
        >Property rights are weird. We all mostly agree that no one should be able to steal your phone off your desk at work. We very much don't agree that governments should not be able to tax income. Stealing your phone or taxing your income is fundamentally the same. And it doesn't matter how many agree that it's acceptable. In a lot of countries, a lot of people agree that those who make blasphemous statements should be imprisoned or put to death. They do not see any inherent right to free speech. By your logic, if a lot of people agree that blasphemy should be punishable by the state, free speech is not necessarily a human right.
vidarh 10y ago
Consider Proudhons famous "property is theft" for a moment. His point is that enforcing property rights explicitly deprives others. If something is scarce, then the moment I wall it off, others become poorer for it. Sometimes that may be worth it: the deprivation of others may be small, and the benefits to the individual of being able to wall something off might be high. Even the vast majority of anarchists and communists would draw a sharp line between private property + the "means of production" vs. personal property. To put it rather pointedly: Pretty much everyone agrees that granting every random stranger the right to use your toothbrush deprives us of more rights than it provides us. Where exactly the line goes on what should be shared and what should not is one of the major differentiating factors of political ideologies, but that there is a line is recognised by every present-day government in the world. The enforcement of exclusionary property rights might enhance everyones rights and freedoms when what is walled off is so common that there is no perceptable increase in freedom from protecting part of it or when the benefits of exclusionary access are large enough to overcome the downsides, and it might enhance some peoples rights all the time, but it may also cause a drastic, profound reduction in the rights of many once something is scarce enough that allowing some people exclusionary control of it has the potential to significantly deprive others. To take an extreme example: If all the resources you could have used to obtain food belongs to someone else, you've just de facto lost the right to live and having a de jure right to life does not help you. This also acts as its own counter-example: If you don't have right to control your own wealth, then the ability to eat depends on the willingness of socity to let you. And therein lies the problem with looking at a right to controlling your own wealth: Depending on how the society you happen to live in today is structured in terms of your ability to obtain wealth, and who has ownership, you may have more de facto rights with a right to control your own wealth or more without it. And that structure can change, and suddenly reverse the effect. In other words, a "right to control your own wealth" does not provide a universal good, but one that is conditional on circumstances. That is my biggest problem with considering it as suitable to be a human right.
- aminok 10y ago
  >His point is that enforcing property rights explicitly deprives others. If something is scarce, then the moment I wall it off, others become poorer for it. That makes absolutely no sense. That's like saying preventing people from feasting on your flesh makes them all poorer. I'm using an extreme example to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that enforcing exclusive control over abundant and practically free natural resources that you've appropriated and applied work to in order to turn it into something highly valuable (whether that be soil, water CO^2 and sunlight that you converted into food and then into bodily mass, or sand that you melted into silicon and turned into a microprocessor), deprives others of their rights.
pc86 10y ago
I think the point was that "prerequisite for basic human rights" is not the same thing as "basic human rights." I want everyone to have access to fast, affordable internet. I think it makes the exercising of your basic human rights much easier! That doesn't make the internet a right, and it's certainly not a basic human right on the same level as your right not to be enslaved or murdered.
- narag 10y ago
  it's certainly not a basic human right on the same level as your right not to be enslaved or murdered. You are forgetting that you can be enslaved in a lot of indirect insidious ways that doesn't involve chains or swords. Most people in absolutist societies weren't murdered or technically slaves. But we considered them not free. Also free expression is a basic human right and we should consider private property the same. Of course every right has limitations, but freedom is a whole, either you are free or you aren't.
  - pc86 10y ago
    I agree free expression is also a basic human right - I'm not sure exactly what you mean by private property. I believe the concept is a basic human right but that doesn't mean every person has the right to a specific piece of property unless you mean something like food or shelter.
BeetleB 10y ago
>If controlling your own capital means having access to the economy so that you can buy food and housing, then it becomes a prerequisite for basic human rights like actually living; doesn't that at a certain point put it on the same level? Nope. I think the OP is talking about universal human rights (which are universal in space and time). Given the current structure of society, controlling your own capital is a means to obtain your basic human rights, and it's totally fine to view it that way, and enforce laws related to it. However, it is not a human right in itself - it is the path to one. If we made it a basic (universal) human right, then we are putting ourselves in handcuffs - not allowing for a society that could potentially give all the basic human rights, simply because this one human right is forcing us to structure society in a capital oriented way.

richmarr 10y ago

> ... doesn't that at a certain point put it on the same level? I don't think so, no. Basic human rights are something that we agree shouldn't be taken away, from anyone, even from prisoners. Control of wealth is not one of those things, I don't think. There are times when it's fair for your country to take your money from you against your will. There are times when it's fair for your country to audit or freeze your finances against your will, or simply stop you accessing them. Is control of money & access to the economy important? Sure. It's important enough to be in the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are expected to be paid, and have access to a shop. Is it a basic human right? I don't think so.

narag 10y ago
There are times when it's fair for your country to take your money from you against your will And there are times when you can be jailed against your will. There is a huge gray area between absolute private property and absolute state property that's where every country in the world is, including worst tiranies. Also free societies are more on the more private property half of that area.
- richmarr 10y ago
  Sorry I'm not sure what your point is here. You seem to be suggesting a positive correlation between private property and freedom, but I think that's a far more complicated relationship than an implied correlation allows... as shown by the fact that 'socialist' democracies like New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, etc. consistently rank highest on indices of freedom (e.g. Cato) and laissez-faire democracies like the US tend to trail them.
  - narag 10y ago
    So no pp for nz??? Edit: BTW, my point was that your previous point is nonsensical. The fact that the State can suspend one right doesn't mean that right is less important. Also you don't seem to understand that "social democracy" is actually what happens in every western country, even the USA. The goverment seizes at least half the production of the country. Maybe USA spends a lot in the military while other countries spends more on public health. But that's how they spend the money. The fact that money is collected and percentage of wealth seized is the same. What (hopefully) we're talking about here is the legal safety that you have for the money that you have after taxes. If the State can arbitrarily seize money, raise the taxes to confiscatory levels or use another trick to crush you, that's lack of control. I don't think that's worse in NZ than in the USA. Actually I believe it to be the other way around.
    - richmarr 10y ago
      > Edit: BTW, my point was that your previous point is nonsensical. The fact that the State can suspend one right doesn't mean that right is less important. You're analysing my point backwards. Fundamental right aren't more important because the state can't suspect them... they are more important, so the state shouldn't suspend them. Do we now agree, or do you still disagree even with the order corrected? > Also you don't seem to understand that "social democracy" is actually what happens in every western country, even the USA. Okay, slow down and take the time to read what I actually wrote, because you're quoting and arguing against something I didn't say... and being kinda rude with it. I'm fine being easy-going about your manners, but if you're not going to bother reading what I wrote then writing more is kinda pointless.

aninhumer 10y ago

>doesn't that at a certain point put it on the same level? No, it's only a prerequisite as a result of the existing economic model. Human rights should transcend that. I think capitalism is mostly effective at producing good outcomes, and as such it should be supported in as far as it does. But the important thing is the outcomes, not the capitalism.

sametmax 10y ago
Exactly. "Human rights" should be universal. "controlling your own wealth" is not. Because it implies: - control - wealth - ownership 3 concepts that are tied too our current society. You can imagine other societies where those don't hold anymore, but where human right should still hold.
- programmarchy 10y ago
  It's universal when applied as a negative right e.g. nobody has the right to steal from or enslave another.
  - deong 10y ago
    The problem is that there's a certain segment of the population that views that right so broadly that it encompasses a bunch of stuff I and most others don't agree with. Property rights are weird. We all mostly agree that no one should be able to steal your phone off your desk at work. We very much don't agree that governments should not be able to tax income. When someone says "controlling your own wealth should be a basic human right", I don't know whether I agree or not until I know quite a lot more about what that person means. Which probably means I disagree that it's a basic human right.
    - aminok 10y ago
      >Property rights are weird. We all mostly agree that no one should be able to steal your phone off your desk at work. We very much don't agree that governments should not be able to tax income. Stealing your phone or taxing your income is fundamentally the same. And it doesn't matter how many agree that it's acceptable. In a lot of countries, a lot of people agree that those who make blasphemous statements should be imprisoned or put to death. They do not see any inherent right to free speech. By your logic, if a lot of people agree that blasphemy should be punishable by the state, free speech is not necessarily a human right.

vidarh 10y ago

Consider Proudhons famous "property is theft" for a moment. His point is that enforcing property rights explicitly deprives others. If something is scarce, then the moment I wall it off, others become poorer for it. Sometimes that may be worth it: the deprivation of others may be small, and the benefits to the individual of being able to wall something off might be high. Even the vast majority of anarchists and communists would draw a sharp line between private property + the "means of production" vs. personal property. To put it rather pointedly: Pretty much everyone agrees that granting every random stranger the right to use your toothbrush deprives us of more rights than it provides us. Where exactly the line goes on what should be shared and what should not is one of the major differentiating factors of political ideologies, but that there is a line is recognised by every present-day government in the world. The enforcement of exclusionary property rights might enhance everyones rights and freedoms when what is walled off is so common that there is no perceptable increase in freedom from protecting part of it or when the benefits of exclusionary access are large enough to overcome the downsides, and it might enhance some peoples rights all the time, but it may also cause a drastic, profound reduction in the rights of many once something is scarce enough that allowing some people exclusionary control of it has the potential to significantly deprive others. To take an extreme example: If all the resources you could have used to obtain food belongs to someone else, you've just de facto lost the right to live and having a de jure right to life does not help you. This also acts as its own counter-example: If you don't have right to control your own wealth, then the ability to eat depends on the willingness of socity to let you. And therein lies the problem with looking at a right to controlling your own wealth: Depending on how the society you happen to live in today is structured in terms of your ability to obtain wealth, and who has ownership, you may have more de facto rights with a right to control your own wealth or more without it. And that structure can change, and suddenly reverse the effect. In other words, a "right to control your own wealth" does not provide a universal good, but one that is conditional on circumstances. That is my biggest problem with considering it as suitable to be a human right.

aminok 10y ago
>His point is that enforcing property rights explicitly deprives others. If something is scarce, then the moment I wall it off, others become poorer for it. That makes absolutely no sense. That's like saying preventing people from feasting on your flesh makes them all poorer. I'm using an extreme example to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that enforcing exclusive control over abundant and practically free natural resources that you've appropriated and applied work to in order to turn it into something highly valuable (whether that be soil, water CO^2 and sunlight that you converted into food and then into bodily mass, or sand that you melted into silicon and turned into a microprocessor), deprives others of their rights.

pc86 10y ago

I think the point was that "prerequisite for basic human rights" is not the same thing as "basic human rights." I want everyone to have access to fast, affordable internet. I think it makes the exercising of your basic human rights much easier! That doesn't make the internet a right, and it's certainly not a basic human right on the same level as your right not to be enslaved or murdered.

narag 10y ago
it's certainly not a basic human right on the same level as your right not to be enslaved or murdered. You are forgetting that you can be enslaved in a lot of indirect insidious ways that doesn't involve chains or swords. Most people in absolutist societies weren't murdered or technically slaves. But we considered them not free. Also free expression is a basic human right and we should consider private property the same. Of course every right has limitations, but freedom is a whole, either you are free or you aren't.
- pc86 10y ago
  I agree free expression is also a basic human right - I'm not sure exactly what you mean by private property. I believe the concept is a basic human right but that doesn't mean every person has the right to a specific piece of property unless you mean something like food or shelter.

BeetleB 10y ago

>If controlling your own capital means having access to the economy so that you can buy food and housing, then it becomes a prerequisite for basic human rights like actually living; doesn't that at a certain point put it on the same level? Nope. I think the OP is talking about universal human rights (which are universal in space and time). Given the current structure of society, controlling your own capital is a means to obtain your basic human rights, and it's totally fine to view it that way, and enforce laws related to it. However, it is not a human right in itself - it is the path to one. If we made it a basic (universal) human right, then we are putting ourselves in handcuffs - not allowing for a society that could potentially give all the basic human rights, simply because this one human right is forcing us to structure society in a capital oriented way.