6 ms·

> I think it is a mistake to make something a human right that has to be provided by somebody else. So you don't believe in property rights; the right to an at

> I think it is a mistake to make something a human right that has to be provided by somebody else. So you don't believe in property rights; the right to an attorney; the right to a trial by jury; the right of a speedy trial; protection from unreasonable search and seizure; the right to confront your accuser? All of these things require someone else to do something they might not be paid to do or would be paid by the government to do through tax revenue.

gxti 16y ago
> So you don't believe in property rights The right to keep people OFF my property and do with it what I like. > the right to an attorney; the right to a trial by jury; the right of a speedy trial; protection from unreasonable search and seizure; the right to confront your accuser? The right NOT to be hassled or detained by the government unnecessarily. Oversimplified explanations yes, but I don't see any of those as requiring others to step up and fulfill my own rights. Police keep people off my property using the implied threat of violence not because that is the only way to fulfill it, but because the alternative -- me enforcing it with overt violence -- is less palatable both to myself and to the police. Whether the proposal by this website falls does fall under "positive rights" depends on the interpretation but I gave up on trying to read it so I can't say. If they call for the right to obtain access to the internet without interference (censorship, etc.) then I respect that although I don't necessarily stand behind it. If they call for the right to have free WiFi across every square millimeter of Earth then I don't think anyone who gave more than a cursory thought would agree.
ynniv 16y ago
Everything that you just mentioned is a limitation on what a person can do to another person. They are fulfilled by people doing less, not more, except for the right to an attorney. Free attorneys are only provided in criminal cases (which are brought by the state at great expense), and so you could say that this right is also merely a limit on the state's ability to punish individuals. Usage of the term "right" as a benefit and not a limitation comes generally from humanitarian groups. For instance, there is no "right to clean water". If you choose to live in the middle of a desert, you can't expect someone else to bring you water. The "right to use the Internet" is absurd. It implies the right to a free, usable computer, and free, well functioning communication systems, with free electricity. If you live on an island hundreds of miles off the coast, do you still have this "right"? Who will you expect to provide these for you? This makes no sense.
- gnaritas 16y ago
  > Everything that you just mentioned is a limitation on what a person can do to another person. They are fulfilled by people doing less, not more Simply not true. Property rights require someone to enforce them; police don't work for free. Jury's require jurors who very often don't want to be there. Speedy trials require judges and jurors to work efficiently, and again, not free. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it. The right to confront your accuser requires the accuser to testify. > The "right to use the Internet" is absurd. I never implied otherwise. I was objecting to your conclusion that rights shouldn't require other people when the facts are, many of your existing rights do.
  - ynniv 16y ago
    Property rights require someone to enforce them; No, property rights and enforcement of property rights are separate things. Jury's require jurors who very often don't want to be there. Speedy trials require judges and jurors to work efficiently, and again, not free. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it. The right to confront your accuser requires the accuser to testify. The inability to confront your accuser, produce jurors and promptly render a verdict results in the inability to prosecute, not the inability to have your trial heard by jury. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it. This someone is the judicial system, which is (likely) the same system conducting the searches. It is again a "safe by default" system. I was objecting to your conclusion that rights shouldn't require other people when the facts are, many of your existing rights do. It is true that you never implied that the right to the Internet was absurd. That was a comment on the discussion at large. However your arguments that rights require the actions of others is unconvincing. My argument is that rights are a limit on the actions of others, and paid for by the agressor. When they are paid for by idle bystanders (likely through taxation), they are a form of socialist benefits and not "rights".
    - gnaritas 16y ago
      > However your arguments that rights require the actions of others is unconvincing. As are your rebuttals.
jquery 16y ago
Those are all restraints on govt. Or at least primarily function as such. I don't see them as human rights. Don't confuse our society's paradigm with fundamental rights, like life and liberty. It leads to long arguments where people shout right past each other.

gxti 16y ago

> So you don't believe in property rights The right to keep people OFF my property and do with it what I like. > the right to an attorney; the right to a trial by jury; the right of a speedy trial; protection from unreasonable search and seizure; the right to confront your accuser? The right NOT to be hassled or detained by the government unnecessarily. Oversimplified explanations yes, but I don't see any of those as requiring others to step up and fulfill my own rights. Police keep people off my property using the implied threat of violence not because that is the only way to fulfill it, but because the alternative -- me enforcing it with overt violence -- is less palatable both to myself and to the police. Whether the proposal by this website falls does fall under "positive rights" depends on the interpretation but I gave up on trying to read it so I can't say. If they call for the right to obtain access to the internet without interference (censorship, etc.) then I respect that although I don't necessarily stand behind it. If they call for the right to have free WiFi across every square millimeter of Earth then I don't think anyone who gave more than a cursory thought would agree.

ynniv 16y ago

Everything that you just mentioned is a limitation on what a person can do to another person. They are fulfilled by people doing less, not more, except for the right to an attorney. Free attorneys are only provided in criminal cases (which are brought by the state at great expense), and so you could say that this right is also merely a limit on the state's ability to punish individuals. Usage of the term "right" as a benefit and not a limitation comes generally from humanitarian groups. For instance, there is no "right to clean water". If you choose to live in the middle of a desert, you can't expect someone else to bring you water. The "right to use the Internet" is absurd. It implies the right to a free, usable computer, and free, well functioning communication systems, with free electricity. If you live on an island hundreds of miles off the coast, do you still have this "right"? Who will you expect to provide these for you? This makes no sense.

gnaritas 16y ago
> Everything that you just mentioned is a limitation on what a person can do to another person. They are fulfilled by people doing less, not more Simply not true. Property rights require someone to enforce them; police don't work for free. Jury's require jurors who very often don't want to be there. Speedy trials require judges and jurors to work efficiently, and again, not free. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it. The right to confront your accuser requires the accuser to testify. > The "right to use the Internet" is absurd. I never implied otherwise. I was objecting to your conclusion that rights shouldn't require other people when the facts are, many of your existing rights do.
- ynniv 16y ago
  Property rights require someone to enforce them; No, property rights and enforcement of property rights are separate things. Jury's require jurors who very often don't want to be there. Speedy trials require judges and jurors to work efficiently, and again, not free. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it. The right to confront your accuser requires the accuser to testify. The inability to confront your accuser, produce jurors and promptly render a verdict results in the inability to prosecute, not the inability to have your trial heard by jury. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it. This someone is the judicial system, which is (likely) the same system conducting the searches. It is again a "safe by default" system. I was objecting to your conclusion that rights shouldn't require other people when the facts are, many of your existing rights do. It is true that you never implied that the right to the Internet was absurd. That was a comment on the discussion at large. However your arguments that rights require the actions of others is unconvincing. My argument is that rights are a limit on the actions of others, and paid for by the agressor. When they are paid for by idle bystanders (likely through taxation), they are a form of socialist benefits and not "rights".
  - gnaritas 16y ago
    > However your arguments that rights require the actions of others is unconvincing. As are your rebuttals.

jquery 16y ago

Those are all restraints on govt. Or at least primarily function as such. I don't see them as human rights. Don't confuse our society's paradigm with fundamental rights, like life and liberty. It leads to long arguments where people shout right past each other.