5 ms·

>>I could makes a similar claim about the US. How does the US do on the right to healthcare for example? Awfully. Well first and foremost Healthcare is not a r

by syshum 6y ago

>>I could makes a similar claim about the US. How does the US do on the right to healthcare for example? Awfully. Well first and foremost Healthcare is not a right. It is a Service that has to be provided based on limited resources Rights are things like Free Speech, the Right to Self Defense, the right to not have your property stolen, etc Aka Negative Rights The right to be free from abuse Things like "health care" are not Human Rights at all

nicoburns 6y ago
The fact that you don't see things like healthcare as a right is precisely my criticism of your system. Of course everything is subject to limited resources and external constraints. Enforcing property laws is subject to limits on policing resources. How is "the right to not have your property stolen" any different from "the right to not have preventable diseases from killing or harming you"? In both cases there is some external problem that is prevented through the use of resources: in one case it's the police and legal apparatus. In the other case it's healthcare providers.
- syshum 6y ago
  >> Enforcing property laws is subject to limits on policing resources. Incorrect, in the US I have no right to policing either, I have the right to defend my property myself from people that wish to take it. Our Courts have held continuously that no individual has the right to protection from the police force. We do not have Positive Rights in the US, never have and hopefully never will because in order to have positive rights one must infringe on negative rights to supply them So while I have the right to property, I must provide defense of that property myself. I can also ask the courts to mediate if there is dispute over said property. Similar with healthcare, and one area I believe government regulations today intrude on my rights. I should have the right to ACCESS to care, but I would not have the right to require someone provide me with care. So for example I should have the right to purchase any medical supply, drug, etc from any person that wants to sell those supplies free from government interference, but the government should not provide me with that care, and should not steal errr tax other people's labor to provide me with that care either
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    Courts don't just mediate. Their judgements are backed by the power of the state (otherwise a thief could simply ignore them). And this is absolutely somebody having a positive right (to have their property ownership defended) that infringes on someone else's negative right (to take their property without the state interfering). It happens to be a right that I agree with. But I don't think you can differentiate it with the positive/negative distinction like you think you can.
    - syshum 6y ago
      >>that infringes on someone else's negative right (to take their property without the state interfering) That is not a negative right, it is not a right at all. The entire concept of rights, as understood by common law, is based on Natural Rights under a Lockean philosophy of Self Ownership, that you own yourself. Under no conceptional understanding of natural rights would have have the right to take someone else's property. So if we are going to start from a completely foreign concept of negative rights then we have no basis for a conversation at all https://www.learnliberty.org/videos/positive-rights-vs-negative-rights/ https://www.learnliberty.org/videos/positive-rights-vs-negat...
      - nicoburns 6y ago
        Rights are a much broader concept than "natural rights". See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/ I certainly recognise property rights (although in principle there's no reason why one couldn't believe in rights without that being one of them), but I also recognise a lot of other rights (including "positive" rights). And don't recognise negative rights as being more fundamental than positive rights. The positive/negative distinction
        syshum 6y ago
        It is not a matter of them being more "fundamental" There is no way for a government to provide you with healthcare (positive rights) with out infringment of my negative rights to my labor (i.e they must take a part of my labor via theft what you call taxation in order to provide you with the right to a service). The only other way for a government to provide a service would be indentured servitude where they require a person to provide the service under threat of violence / imprisonment That is why I reject the concept of positive rights, because they require that other people have their labor, property, or self ceased by the government to fulfill those rights that is fundamentally unethical to me negative rights do not have this ethical problem

by syshum 6y ago

nicoburns 6y ago

The fact that you don't see things like healthcare as a right is precisely my criticism of your system. Of course everything is subject to limited resources and external constraints. Enforcing property laws is subject to limits on policing resources. How is "the right to not have your property stolen" any different from "the right to not have preventable diseases from killing or harming you"? In both cases there is some external problem that is prevented through the use of resources: in one case it's the police and legal apparatus. In the other case it's healthcare providers.

syshum 6y ago
>> Enforcing property laws is subject to limits on policing resources. Incorrect, in the US I have no right to policing either, I have the right to defend my property myself from people that wish to take it. Our Courts have held continuously that no individual has the right to protection from the police force. We do not have Positive Rights in the US, never have and hopefully never will because in order to have positive rights one must infringe on negative rights to supply them So while I have the right to property, I must provide defense of that property myself. I can also ask the courts to mediate if there is dispute over said property. Similar with healthcare, and one area I believe government regulations today intrude on my rights. I should have the right to ACCESS to care, but I would not have the right to require someone provide me with care. So for example I should have the right to purchase any medical supply, drug, etc from any person that wants to sell those supplies free from government interference, but the government should not provide me with that care, and should not steal errr tax other people's labor to provide me with that care either
- nicoburns 6y ago
  Courts don't just mediate. Their judgements are backed by the power of the state (otherwise a thief could simply ignore them). And this is absolutely somebody having a positive right (to have their property ownership defended) that infringes on someone else's negative right (to take their property without the state interfering). It happens to be a right that I agree with. But I don't think you can differentiate it with the positive/negative distinction like you think you can.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>that infringes on someone else's negative right (to take their property without the state interfering) That is not a negative right, it is not a right at all. The entire concept of rights, as understood by common law, is based on Natural Rights under a Lockean philosophy of Self Ownership, that you own yourself. Under no conceptional understanding of natural rights would have have the right to take someone else's property. So if we are going to start from a completely foreign concept of negative rights then we have no basis for a conversation at all https://www.learnliberty.org/videos/positive-rights-vs-negative-rights/ https://www.learnliberty.org/videos/positive-rights-vs-negat...
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      Rights are a much broader concept than "natural rights". See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/ I certainly recognise property rights (although in principle there's no reason why one couldn't believe in rights without that being one of them), but I also recognise a lot of other rights (including "positive" rights). And don't recognise negative rights as being more fundamental than positive rights. The positive/negative distinction
      - syshum 6y ago
        It is not a matter of them being more "fundamental" There is no way for a government to provide you with healthcare (positive rights) with out infringment of my negative rights to my labor (i.e they must take a part of my labor via theft what you call taxation in order to provide you with the right to a service). The only other way for a government to provide a service would be indentured servitude where they require a person to provide the service under threat of violence / imprisonment That is why I reject the concept of positive rights, because they require that other people have their labor, property, or self ceased by the government to fulfill those rights that is fundamentally unethical to me negative rights do not have this ethical problem