5 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

by 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
    I think your notion of freedom is overly simplistic. A freedom is the ability to choose to do something. But choosing to do some things will limit the choices of others. Therefore we must inevitably trade some freedoms against others. Generally we agree on certain trade-offs. We agree that freedom from murder is more important than freedom to kill. We agree that freedom from slavery is more important than freedom to enslave. But there are many cases where people do not agree on the trade-offs. If you respond to these cases by insisting that your preferred trade-offs are somehow correct by definition, you're avoiding the argument. Why are those freedoms preferable? And freedom to control property is one of case where people disagree. In order to own property, you must deny others the ability to use that property, and in extreme cases that means denying the starving the ability to eat. Many people believe that in such cases, the freedom to survive is more important than the freedom to control property.
    - narag 10y ago
      This is not my notion of freedom. This is what political thought looks like since the liberal revolutions and for good reasons. At the time there were very real obstacles to freedom in european countries: absolutist regimes with a strong intellectual support. The liberals realized that the tyranny had many tentacles and that the fight for freedom should address every one of them. And make no mistake: that's also true for modern tyrannies, communism, right wing dictatorships or theocratic regimens. My point is very simple and I'm sad to see people answering to my comments are not properly addressing it. My point is that there is not a single country that can be considered free where you cannot safely own wealth. This is not just an idea: it's a fact that you can easily check. If you come to think about it, it's a very similar reasoning to the one that originated socialism. You can't be free if you're starving or if you're so poor that you can't get out of poverty, or you can't afford proper healthcare, or you can't give your children an education. In the same way, you can't be free if the State has arbitrary power to ruin your life. There must be some safety, a rule of law that assures that reasonable expectatives are met.
      - aninhumer 10y ago

by narag 10y ago

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
  I think your notion of freedom is overly simplistic. A freedom is the ability to choose to do something. But choosing to do some things will limit the choices of others. Therefore we must inevitably trade some freedoms against others. Generally we agree on certain trade-offs. We agree that freedom from murder is more important than freedom to kill. We agree that freedom from slavery is more important than freedom to enslave. But there are many cases where people do not agree on the trade-offs. If you respond to these cases by insisting that your preferred trade-offs are somehow correct by definition, you're avoiding the argument. Why are those freedoms preferable? And freedom to control property is one of case where people disagree. In order to own property, you must deny others the ability to use that property, and in extreme cases that means denying the starving the ability to eat. Many people believe that in such cases, the freedom to survive is more important than the freedom to control property.
  - narag 10y ago
    This is not my notion of freedom. This is what political thought looks like since the liberal revolutions and for good reasons. At the time there were very real obstacles to freedom in european countries: absolutist regimes with a strong intellectual support. The liberals realized that the tyranny had many tentacles and that the fight for freedom should address every one of them. And make no mistake: that's also true for modern tyrannies, communism, right wing dictatorships or theocratic regimens. My point is very simple and I'm sad to see people answering to my comments are not properly addressing it. My point is that there is not a single country that can be considered free where you cannot safely own wealth. This is not just an idea: it's a fact that you can easily check. If you come to think about it, it's a very similar reasoning to the one that originated socialism. You can't be free if you're starving or if you're so poor that you can't get out of poverty, or you can't afford proper healthcare, or you can't give your children an education. In the same way, you can't be free if the State has arbitrary power to ruin your life. There must be some safety, a rule of law that assures that reasonable expectatives are met.
    - aninhumer 10y ago