4 ms·

Virtually anyone who understands positive versus negative rights. Rights -to- something are highly dubious. Rights -from- something are much more readily agreed

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.
- erulabs 7y ago
  I do have to admit I respect anyone who can inhabit such a radical idea as abolishing private property. If I felt there was a path towards that direction that didn’t involve violent revolution and a whole lot of murder - I might consider it. Bolshevik philosophy starts interesting but turns too brutal and violent too quickly. All that said your reply is the most intellectually legitimate reply to what I posted. HN isn’t the place though. I’ve always thought if the worlds socialists and libertarians hung out for a while we’d all get along far more than the world wants us to know <3
  - jahaja 7y ago
    Thanks. I would like to clarify though that although I do see myself as a socialist, I'm not at all a bolshevik (or any variety of Marxist-Leninism). Because I agree with you on the inevitable degeneration into authoritarianism and/or state-capitalism. The British philosopher, and socialist, Bertrand Russell visited Russia just a few years after the revolution and summarized his thoughts regarding the bolsheviks in his "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism"[0], 1920, in which he basically summarizes his thoughts like this: "I am compelled to reject Bolshevism for two reasons: First, because the price mankind must pay to achieve Communism by Bolshevik methods is too terrible; and secondly because, even after paying the price, I do not believe the result would be what the Bolsheviks profess to desire." It's an interesting historical document of a turbulent time, and not socialist theory heavy, so recommended reading for the curious. It's also an example of how socialism is a broad topic, both then and now, not just another word for Bolshevism. [0] http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17350/pg17350.txt http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17350/pg17350.txt

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.

erulabs 7y ago
I do have to admit I respect anyone who can inhabit such a radical idea as abolishing private property. If I felt there was a path towards that direction that didn’t involve violent revolution and a whole lot of murder - I might consider it. Bolshevik philosophy starts interesting but turns too brutal and violent too quickly. All that said your reply is the most intellectually legitimate reply to what I posted. HN isn’t the place though. I’ve always thought if the worlds socialists and libertarians hung out for a while we’d all get along far more than the world wants us to know <3
- jahaja 7y ago
  Thanks. I would like to clarify though that although I do see myself as a socialist, I'm not at all a bolshevik (or any variety of Marxist-Leninism). Because I agree with you on the inevitable degeneration into authoritarianism and/or state-capitalism. The British philosopher, and socialist, Bertrand Russell visited Russia just a few years after the revolution and summarized his thoughts regarding the bolsheviks in his "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism"[0], 1920, in which he basically summarizes his thoughts like this: "I am compelled to reject Bolshevism for two reasons: First, because the price mankind must pay to achieve Communism by Bolshevik methods is too terrible; and secondly because, even after paying the price, I do not believe the result would be what the Bolsheviks profess to desire." It's an interesting historical document of a turbulent time, and not socialist theory heavy, so recommended reading for the curious. It's also an example of how socialism is a broad topic, both then and now, not just another word for Bolshevism. [0] http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17350/pg17350.txt http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17350/pg17350.txt