4 ms·

>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 transce

>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.
  - tombone12 10y ago
    "Nobody has the right to steal" is a tautology: theft is by definition the unsanctioned removal of something, so all theft implies the violation of some right. All property rights accomplishes in this sense is making stealing easier by extending the human rights to encompass basically anything, making it easier to find a means to violate someones right.
gm-conspiracy 10y ago
Producing good outcomes for who? Precious metal miners? I appreciate my smartphone, but understand a trail of human misery was used in its creation.
- hueving 10y ago
  >Precious metal miners? >I appreciate my smartphone, but understand a trail of human misery was used in its creation. Are you implying all mining produces human misery? I suggest you look into how a modern mine works in a developed country. A mine that kills people is a reflection of the country, not the act of mining itself.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Mining still kills people in developed countries. It's also associated with long term heath issues like black lung, which is vastly under reported in the US.
    - hueving 10y ago
      Maybe underground coal mining. But that has little relationship to mining precious metals. I suggest you take a look at how open pit ore mines are operated to understand how silly your suggestion is of issues with black lung.
      - Retric 10y ago
        People working around coal get black lung not just underground miners. In 2013 CWP resulted in 25,000 deaths down from 29,000 deaths in 1990. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker's_pneumoconiosis#cite_note-GDB2013-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker's_pneumoconiosis#ci... Considering the total number of people globally working with coal it's still a significant issue. PS: Spraying it with water can help with transportation, but you can't do that right before burning.
narag 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. Not very convincing. Do you have some alternative to the "existing economic model"? I ask because I can't think of a single example of a free society where there's no private property. The people that think such things as the State having no right to collect taxes are terribly naive. But it's equally naive to think that you can be free in a society where you don't have economic freedoms.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >Do you have some alternative to the "existing economic model"? I ask because I can't think of a single example of a free society where there's no private property. I don't know if there is a viable alternative economic model, but I can certainly conceive of them, and I don't think "Human Rights" should preclude those models, nor do I think they need to. If the current economic system requires certain prerequisites to meet our Human Rights, then those prerequisites are implied by those rights in the context of that system. >But it's equally naive to think that you can be free in a society where you don't have economic freedoms. To "be free" is a nebulous concept. There are many possible freedoms one can have, and many of them conflict with each other. To some, economic freedoms mean the freedom to deny food to the starving. Many people disagree on whether this is a freedom worth defending.
  - narag 10y ago
    I don't know if there is a viable alternative economic model, but I can certainly conceive of them So you neither know nor you acknowledge that's absurd. To "be free" is a nebulous concept. There are many possible freedoms one can have, and many of them conflict with each other. That is terribly wrong. Freedom is not some abstract idea, it's freedom from tirants that try to keep you enslaved using a variety of means. That's why freedom is a whole. Come on, that's like politics fundamentals. Is this really news to you?
    - aninhumer 10y ago

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.
- tombone12 10y ago
  "Nobody has the right to steal" is a tautology: theft is by definition the unsanctioned removal of something, so all theft implies the violation of some right. All property rights accomplishes in this sense is making stealing easier by extending the human rights to encompass basically anything, making it easier to find a means to violate someones right.

gm-conspiracy 10y ago

Producing good outcomes for who? Precious metal miners? I appreciate my smartphone, but understand a trail of human misery was used in its creation.

hueving 10y ago
>Precious metal miners? >I appreciate my smartphone, but understand a trail of human misery was used in its creation. Are you implying all mining produces human misery? I suggest you look into how a modern mine works in a developed country. A mine that kills people is a reflection of the country, not the act of mining itself.
- Retric 10y ago
  Mining still kills people in developed countries. It's also associated with long term heath issues like black lung, which is vastly under reported in the US.
  - hueving 10y ago
    Maybe underground coal mining. But that has little relationship to mining precious metals. I suggest you take a look at how open pit ore mines are operated to understand how silly your suggestion is of issues with black lung.
    - Retric 10y ago
      People working around coal get black lung not just underground miners. In 2013 CWP resulted in 25,000 deaths down from 29,000 deaths in 1990. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker's_pneumoconiosis#cite_note-GDB2013-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker's_pneumoconiosis#ci... Considering the total number of people globally working with coal it's still a significant issue. PS: Spraying it with water can help with transportation, but you can't do that right before burning.

narag 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. Not very convincing. Do you have some alternative to the "existing economic model"? I ask because I can't think of a single example of a free society where there's no private property. The people that think such things as the State having no right to collect taxes are terribly naive. But it's equally naive to think that you can be free in a society where you don't have economic freedoms.

aninhumer 10y ago
>Do you have some alternative to the "existing economic model"? I ask because I can't think of a single example of a free society where there's no private property. I don't know if there is a viable alternative economic model, but I can certainly conceive of them, and I don't think "Human Rights" should preclude those models, nor do I think they need to. If the current economic system requires certain prerequisites to meet our Human Rights, then those prerequisites are implied by those rights in the context of that system. >But it's equally naive to think that you can be free in a society where you don't have economic freedoms. To "be free" is a nebulous concept. There are many possible freedoms one can have, and many of them conflict with each other. To some, economic freedoms mean the freedom to deny food to the starving. Many people disagree on whether this is a freedom worth defending.
- narag 10y ago
  I don't know if there is a viable alternative economic model, but I can certainly conceive of them So you neither know nor you acknowledge that's absurd. To "be free" is a nebulous concept. There are many possible freedoms one can have, and many of them conflict with each other. That is terribly wrong. Freedom is not some abstract idea, it's freedom from tirants that try to keep you enslaved using a variety of means. That's why freedom is a whole. Come on, that's like politics fundamentals. Is this really news to you?
  - aninhumer 10y ago