5 ms·

Let's unleash the free market on the (globally) unique rights to things that save lives. What could possibly go wrong?

Fjolsvith 7y ago
> the (globally) unique rights to things that save lives This I don't understand. I don't have a right to nutritious food - I have to work to get that. Where do these rights come from?
- praptak 7y ago
  I meant the patent(s) covering the vaccine. If there was a single global patent on making nutritious food, we'd have the same problem.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  > I don't have a right to nutritious food Many, many people would disagree with that statement. Who says you don't have a right to nutritious food?
  - erulabs 7y ago
    Virtually anyone who understands positive versus negative rights. Rights -to- something are highly dubious. Rights -from- something are much more readily agreed on by Americans who value the way the constitution was written. If I have a right to good food - then someone somewhere has lost the right to refuse to serve me - either directly (I’m allowed into their store if they want or not) or indirectly (they are forced to labor in fields in terrible conditions). So - while no one has the right to keep you from creating your own nutrition- you absolutely do not have the right to other people’s nutrition. You can abstract as far as you want - but a right “to” something always boils down to implied forced labor (farmers, doctors - the list goes on and on). Many wars have been waged because people felt they had “a right” to a piece of land or a resource. To be clear I’m not saying i think we should keep good food from people - of course not. But many many people are rightfully dubious of positive rights.
    - Pfhreak 7y ago
      > then someone somewhere has lost the right to refuse to serve me - either directly (I’m allowed into their store if they want or not) or indirectly (they are forced to labor in fields in terrible conditions). There are other options than this false dichotomy. We could all chip in, relative to our means, to ensure a baseline of healthy food is available to all. I neither serve food nor labor in the fields, and yet I'm pretty sure I could be part of a solution that ensures everyone gets basic healthy food even if they cannot/do not work.
      - erulabs 7y ago
        Of course - but the implication is enough people need to willingly do that - which is a negative right - you’re allowed to spend whatever time and money you want on feeding people. But as soon as you flip it - we just need everyone to do ____ - you’re describing forced labor. Hoping everyone would be good enough citizens to want to do the forced labor does not make the labor not forced.
        praptak 7y ago
        How is it forced? In most Western countries you are free to leave the country and not pay any taxes.
        Pfhreak 7y ago
        Am I? I don't think I am. I think I'm describing a system where we take a portion of the product of the labor you choose to undertake, and use it to raise the minimum standard. You can do more labor or less labor. You can do more valuable labor or less valuable labor. You are not forced to labor, but you are required to give up a portion of what you choose to undertake.
    - jahaja 7y ago
      This lacks nuance. If we insist on enforcing private property, thus creating scarcity for most, the whole question becomes much more complex. Because now the main reason I need the right to someones else's produce is because private property excludes me from providing my own. This indirectly forces the propertyless to work for someone who has land/property.
  - thewileyone 7y ago
    Nestle doesn't believe you have a right to clean water ... that's nutritious.
  - mikeliys 7y ago
    Rights of living creatures aren't inherent in their real being, they are interpretations of the reality. In their essence they are mental constructs developed in human minds, and in practice they are social agreements. All rights you can have are those you gave yourself and those other gave you and decided to respect. So in the "immanent" sense Fjolsvith doesn't have right to nutritious food.

> the (globally) unique rights to things that save lives This I don't understand. I don't have a right to nutritious food - I have to work to get that. Where do these rights come from?

praptak 7y ago
I meant the patent(s) covering the vaccine. If there was a single global patent on making nutritious food, we'd have the same problem.
Pfhreak 7y ago
> I don't have a right to nutritious food Many, many people would disagree with that statement. Who says you don't have a right to nutritious food?
- erulabs 7y ago
  Virtually anyone who understands positive versus negative rights. Rights -to- something are highly dubious. Rights -from- something are much more readily agreed on by Americans who value the way the constitution was written. If I have a right to good food - then someone somewhere has lost the right to refuse to serve me - either directly (I’m allowed into their store if they want or not) or indirectly (they are forced to labor in fields in terrible conditions). So - while no one has the right to keep you from creating your own nutrition- you absolutely do not have the right to other people’s nutrition. You can abstract as far as you want - but a right “to” something always boils down to implied forced labor (farmers, doctors - the list goes on and on). Many wars have been waged because people felt they had “a right” to a piece of land or a resource. To be clear I’m not saying i think we should keep good food from people - of course not. But many many people are rightfully dubious of positive rights.
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    > then someone somewhere has lost the right to refuse to serve me - either directly (I’m allowed into their store if they want or not) or indirectly (they are forced to labor in fields in terrible conditions). There are other options than this false dichotomy. We could all chip in, relative to our means, to ensure a baseline of healthy food is available to all. I neither serve food nor labor in the fields, and yet I'm pretty sure I could be part of a solution that ensures everyone gets basic healthy food even if they cannot/do not work.
    - erulabs 7y ago
      Of course - but the implication is enough people need to willingly do that - which is a negative right - you’re allowed to spend whatever time and money you want on feeding people. But as soon as you flip it - we just need everyone to do ____ - you’re describing forced labor. Hoping everyone would be good enough citizens to want to do the forced labor does not make the labor not forced.
      - praptak 7y ago
        How is it forced? In most Western countries you are free to leave the country and not pay any taxes.
      - Pfhreak 7y ago
        Am I? I don't think I am. I think I'm describing a system where we take a portion of the product of the labor you choose to undertake, and use it to raise the minimum standard. You can do more labor or less labor. You can do more valuable labor or less valuable labor. You are not forced to labor, but you are required to give up a portion of what you choose to undertake.
  - jahaja 7y ago
    This lacks nuance. If we insist on enforcing private property, thus creating scarcity for most, the whole question becomes much more complex. Because now the main reason I need the right to someones else's produce is because private property excludes me from providing my own. This indirectly forces the propertyless to work for someone who has land/property.
- thewileyone 7y ago
  Nestle doesn't believe you have a right to clean water ... that's nutritious.
- mikeliys 7y ago
  Rights of living creatures aren't inherent in their real being, they are interpretations of the reality. In their essence they are mental constructs developed in human minds, and in practice they are social agreements. All rights you can have are those you gave yourself and those other gave you and decided to respect. So in the "immanent" sense Fjolsvith doesn't have right to nutritious food.