3 ms·

This is true, and that's why you should advocate for charity - which is based on free will decision on controlling your own property and resources, just as all

This is true, and that's why you should advocate for charity - which is based on free will decision on controlling your own property and resources, just as all the interactions that make up modern world that you so thoroughly describe. The "human right" concept, however, is entirely different: it is referring to use of the mechanism that has monopoly on violence, the state, to redistribute these resources, by the use of or threat of use of said violence, without any free will involved. This mechanism completely removes individual capability of making a moral decision, and uses morality as a pretext to obtain monopolistic, bureaucratic power. In my view, this monstrous mechanism, which is capable of despotism thousands as bad as any other, should be only used for things that cannot be achieved without it, such as rule of law. Charity and helping others is a noble thing, but since it can be achieved without it, just through free individuals decisions, it should.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
There's always a state in one form or another. Always. The question is who controls it and who benefits from it, not whether or not it exists.
- golergka 7y ago
  > not whether or not it exists It seems that you're trying to frame my argument as if I wanted to abolish the state completely, but I have said nothing of the sort. Just as you're saying, the question is, in what form should the sate exist. And my answer is, in the most minimal form required to uphold the things that no other institution can.
  - SantalBlush 7y ago
    The state corrects for market failures, which no other institution can. It can also pool risk much more efficiently than a corporation can. I'd say the current state (US or UK) isn't far off from what you describe.
qntty 7y ago
Using violence to collect taxes is monstrous but using violence to protect the property of rich people is right and just? In nature, a person cannot have infinite wealth. The idea that someone can have as much wealth as they want is a creation of the state and is enforced by violence.
- golergka 7y ago
  > In nature, a person cannot have infinite wealth. In nature, most of children die in infancy, might makes right, murder rates are sky-high and starvation is a constant threat. So, if anything, using "in nature" is working against your case, not for it. > The idea that someone can have as much wealth as they want Nobody can have as much as they "want" - but everybody should be able as much wealth as they have acquired through any kind of lawful exchange.
  - qntty 7y ago
    > In nature, most of children die in infancy, might makes right, murder rates are sky-high and starvation is a constant threat. > So, if anything, using "in nature" is working against your case, not for it. Total non-sequitur. The point is that the idea of unlimited wealth is an artificial construction. > everybody should be able as much wealth as they have acquired through any kind of lawful exchange. Any state that protects the property of wealthy people through violence can surely also put obligations on those people. In exchange for the state's violence, they must support a social safety net which gives the people who wealthy people are being protected from basic human necessities and dignity. The state who gives an artificially constructed right to wealthy people (the institution of private property) can also give an artificially constructed right to poor people (basic needs and dignity).
    - golergka 7y ago
      > Total non-sequitur. The point is that the idea of unlimited wealth is an artificial construction. But you're trying to reach some kind of value judgement from this point - as if "artifical construction" means it's bad in some way. It is not. On the opposite, these completely virtual notions of money and finance helped achieve modern-day prosperity that humanity enjoys. So, yes, it is artificial, which makes it good. > which gives the people who wealthy people are being protected from basic human necessities and dignity So, pay off the potential looters and thieves to sooth them? You do understand that this is basically "might makes right" moral imperative and nothing more? > The state who gives an artificially constructed right to wealthy people (the institution of private property) can also give an artificially constructed right to poor people (basic needs and dignity). First of all, the artificially constructed right of private property is given to all, equally. And second of all, while both of these rights are artificially constructed, one is moral, while the other is not.
danaris 7y ago
Charity has been proven, time and again, to be completely inadequate to the task of providing for the poor and needy. We live in a society. The rich benefit hugely from that society. It is their duty and responsibility to give back enough to help maintain and improve that society. To say otherwise is, effectively, to say that it's OK to want everyone beyond the walls of your castle to starve.
- golergka 7y ago
  > It is their duty and responsibility to give back You cannot decide what other people's legal duty or responsibility is if they hadn't entered a voluntarily agreement with you. And moral duty should never be imposed by violence - it's always up to individual moral choice. > To say otherwise is, effectively, to say that it's OK to want everyone beyond the walls of your castle to starve. No. To say otherwise is to value individual choice and responsibility over the dictate of the masses.
  - danaris 7y ago
    > You cannot decide what other people's legal duty or responsibility is if they hadn't entered a voluntarily agreement with you. You appear to be one of those who worship at the altar of inviolable individual self-determination. That concept is antithetical to a functioning society. I understand its allure—it seems to be a logical and empowering thing. But it's fatally flawed, because humans are not individual creatures, evolved to live out solitary lives creating our own path. We are social creatures. Thus, any philosophy that puts the will of the individual above all else will inevitably fail. In my experience in practice, people espousing such a philosophy generally either are or believe they will be in a position to impose their will on others, and want a philosophical basis for claiming that as moral and just. Note, please, that I'm not saying that individual self-determination must always bow to the will of the majority. That's also deeply problematic. Instead, I'm saying that no absolutist philosophy will provide you with the tools you need to create a world that's worth living in for everyone.
    - golergka 7y ago

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

There's always a state in one form or another. Always. The question is who controls it and who benefits from it, not whether or not it exists.

golergka 7y ago
> not whether or not it exists It seems that you're trying to frame my argument as if I wanted to abolish the state completely, but I have said nothing of the sort. Just as you're saying, the question is, in what form should the sate exist. And my answer is, in the most minimal form required to uphold the things that no other institution can.
- SantalBlush 7y ago
  The state corrects for market failures, which no other institution can. It can also pool risk much more efficiently than a corporation can. I'd say the current state (US or UK) isn't far off from what you describe.

qntty 7y ago

Using violence to collect taxes is monstrous but using violence to protect the property of rich people is right and just? In nature, a person cannot have infinite wealth. The idea that someone can have as much wealth as they want is a creation of the state and is enforced by violence.

golergka 7y ago
> In nature, a person cannot have infinite wealth. In nature, most of children die in infancy, might makes right, murder rates are sky-high and starvation is a constant threat. So, if anything, using "in nature" is working against your case, not for it. > The idea that someone can have as much wealth as they want Nobody can have as much as they "want" - but everybody should be able as much wealth as they have acquired through any kind of lawful exchange.
- qntty 7y ago
  > In nature, most of children die in infancy, might makes right, murder rates are sky-high and starvation is a constant threat. > So, if anything, using "in nature" is working against your case, not for it. Total non-sequitur. The point is that the idea of unlimited wealth is an artificial construction. > everybody should be able as much wealth as they have acquired through any kind of lawful exchange. Any state that protects the property of wealthy people through violence can surely also put obligations on those people. In exchange for the state's violence, they must support a social safety net which gives the people who wealthy people are being protected from basic human necessities and dignity. The state who gives an artificially constructed right to wealthy people (the institution of private property) can also give an artificially constructed right to poor people (basic needs and dignity).
  - golergka 7y ago
    > Total non-sequitur. The point is that the idea of unlimited wealth is an artificial construction. But you're trying to reach some kind of value judgement from this point - as if "artifical construction" means it's bad in some way. It is not. On the opposite, these completely virtual notions of money and finance helped achieve modern-day prosperity that humanity enjoys. So, yes, it is artificial, which makes it good. > which gives the people who wealthy people are being protected from basic human necessities and dignity So, pay off the potential looters and thieves to sooth them? You do understand that this is basically "might makes right" moral imperative and nothing more? > The state who gives an artificially constructed right to wealthy people (the institution of private property) can also give an artificially constructed right to poor people (basic needs and dignity). First of all, the artificially constructed right of private property is given to all, equally. And second of all, while both of these rights are artificially constructed, one is moral, while the other is not.

danaris 7y ago

Charity has been proven, time and again, to be completely inadequate to the task of providing for the poor and needy. We live in a society. The rich benefit hugely from that society. It is their duty and responsibility to give back enough to help maintain and improve that society. To say otherwise is, effectively, to say that it's OK to want everyone beyond the walls of your castle to starve.

golergka 7y ago
> It is their duty and responsibility to give back You cannot decide what other people's legal duty or responsibility is if they hadn't entered a voluntarily agreement with you. And moral duty should never be imposed by violence - it's always up to individual moral choice. > To say otherwise is, effectively, to say that it's OK to want everyone beyond the walls of your castle to starve. No. To say otherwise is to value individual choice and responsibility over the dictate of the masses.
- danaris 7y ago
  > You cannot decide what other people's legal duty or responsibility is if they hadn't entered a voluntarily agreement with you. You appear to be one of those who worship at the altar of inviolable individual self-determination. That concept is antithetical to a functioning society. I understand its allure—it seems to be a logical and empowering thing. But it's fatally flawed, because humans are not individual creatures, evolved to live out solitary lives creating our own path. We are social creatures. Thus, any philosophy that puts the will of the individual above all else will inevitably fail. In my experience in practice, people espousing such a philosophy generally either are or believe they will be in a position to impose their will on others, and want a philosophical basis for claiming that as moral and just. Note, please, that I'm not saying that individual self-determination must always bow to the will of the majority. That's also deeply problematic. Instead, I'm saying that no absolutist philosophy will provide you with the tools you need to create a world that's worth living in for everyone.
  - golergka 7y ago