6 ms·

Of course it's not a human right. Neither are water or food, so his analogy is pointless. This is "you have a right to free speech; you don't have a right to a

Of course it's not a human right. Neither are water or food, so his analogy is pointless. This is "you have a right to free speech; you don't have a right to a printing press" for the modern age. You still have the right to free speech, and in the case of the Internet, the right to freely associate. You don't, however, have the right to have someone else pay your ISP bill. True rights require no infringement on others. You simply have them, without requiring labor, money, or time from others.

calpaterson 15y ago
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights)
- jdludlow 15y ago
  Yes, thank you. I knew there was a term for what I was trying to say, but I couldn't remember what it was called.
- gloob 15y ago
  To quote myself from a few months ago: "I am a citizen, you must hold (if you are the government) or fund (if you are a taxpayer) an election for me to vote in." What's your feeling on that positive right? I've encountered people who argue against democracy, and I've encountered people who will re-word the right as stated above and then call it a negative right. I disagree with the former, and the latter only succeed in demonstrating that the difference between positive and negative rights is one of phrasing, and not of the right itself. Do you have a different take on the matter? The idea of "negative" and "positive" rights is one way of looking at the matter, but it has flaws. Edit: I don't mean to imply the parent post is making any argument one way or the other; I'm just commenting on the idea itself. Edit 2: Other things (some completely outlandish, some more plausible) worth thinking about: - I own a square mile of land with a river running through it. You own an adjacent square mile of land downriver of mine. If I, entirely on my own property, divert the river such that it ceases to run through your property, have I aggressed against you? Do you have the right to never have the value of your property decrease? - I am fantabulously wealthy and buy up all the food in the world. Do I have the right to refuse to sell it? Have I aggressed against the other 7 billion by forcing the large majority of them to starve to death? - The local branch of the Nazis are hunting for members of unpopular minorities. I am a gay black Jew. Am I justified in trespassing on a stranger's property in order to hide and evade capture?
  - calpaterson 15y ago
    This is only a problem if you take an absolutist line, which I don't think anyone really does. Even the toughest libertarians still want a police force and law courts.
    - gaius 15y ago
      That is in fact the key difference between libertarian and anarchist.
    - rauljara 15y ago
      If a philosophy doesn't work in absolutist terms, perhaps it shouldn't be expressed in absolutist terms. The parent comment left no apparent wiggle room.
      - calpaterson 15y ago
        Meh, people are lazy with language like this all the time. Many people say "murder is always wrong", but, when you ask them, say "well, self defense is ok". Instead of assuming the worst possible case for your opponent, be charitable with his case. You'll avoid nonsense discussions much more often.
  - jimmyk 15y ago
    Voting cannot be considered a negative right. I have no more of a negative right to tell the individuals in my government what to do than they have to tell me what to do. I do have the negative right to give them the privilege of governing me and my property just the same as they have the negative right to protect me and my property and to give me the privilege of having some say in their decisions. If we come to that agreement, then I have the privilege of voting and they have the privilege of governing me.
  - tomjen3 15y ago
    - I own a square mile of land with a river running through it. You own an adjacent square mile of land downriver of mine. If I, entirely on my own property, divert the river such that it ceases to run through your property, have I aggressed against you? Do you have the right to never have the value of your property decrease? If you change the flow of the river on your property such that it affects mine, then yes you have aggressed against me (it is easier to see in the reverse, it is clearly an aggression against me if you flood my land even if you poor the water on your own land). - I am fantabulously wealthy and buy up all the food in the world. Do I have the right to refuse to sell it? Have I aggressed against the other 7 billion by forcing the large majority of them to starve to death? You have the right not to sell it, and no you haven't aggressed against anyone assuming that the food had been payed for (whomever sold you the food must have valued whatever you gave them in return more than the food) - The local branch of the Nazis are hunting for members of unpopular minorities. I am a gay black Jew. Am I justified in trespassing on a stranger's property in order to hide and evade capture? Strictly speaking no you don't have to right to hide on their property (and if the Nazies kill those suspected of hiding minorities they are in danger too) though I doubt anybody would have a much of an issue with it if you did.
_delirium 15y ago
I don't think that there are many people who really believe that access to water isn't a human right, or at least who would be willing to act consistently with that belief. Most people have at least an implicit belief that if lots of people were ending up dying of thirst, it would be a responsibility of society to do something about that.
nooneelse 15y ago
> "True rights require no infringement on others. You simply have them, without requiring labor, money, or time from others." Infants must be fed and cared for in several ways, necessarily using the resources and time of others. Therefore, within your framework, they have no right to life.

calpaterson 15y ago

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights)

jdludlow 15y ago
Yes, thank you. I knew there was a term for what I was trying to say, but I couldn't remember what it was called.
gloob 15y ago
To quote myself from a few months ago: "I am a citizen, you must hold (if you are the government) or fund (if you are a taxpayer) an election for me to vote in." What's your feeling on that positive right? I've encountered people who argue against democracy, and I've encountered people who will re-word the right as stated above and then call it a negative right. I disagree with the former, and the latter only succeed in demonstrating that the difference between positive and negative rights is one of phrasing, and not of the right itself. Do you have a different take on the matter? The idea of "negative" and "positive" rights is one way of looking at the matter, but it has flaws. Edit: I don't mean to imply the parent post is making any argument one way or the other; I'm just commenting on the idea itself. Edit 2: Other things (some completely outlandish, some more plausible) worth thinking about: - I own a square mile of land with a river running through it. You own an adjacent square mile of land downriver of mine. If I, entirely on my own property, divert the river such that it ceases to run through your property, have I aggressed against you? Do you have the right to never have the value of your property decrease? - I am fantabulously wealthy and buy up all the food in the world. Do I have the right to refuse to sell it? Have I aggressed against the other 7 billion by forcing the large majority of them to starve to death? - The local branch of the Nazis are hunting for members of unpopular minorities. I am a gay black Jew. Am I justified in trespassing on a stranger's property in order to hide and evade capture?
- calpaterson 15y ago
  This is only a problem if you take an absolutist line, which I don't think anyone really does. Even the toughest libertarians still want a police force and law courts.
  - gaius 15y ago
    That is in fact the key difference between libertarian and anarchist.
  - rauljara 15y ago
    If a philosophy doesn't work in absolutist terms, perhaps it shouldn't be expressed in absolutist terms. The parent comment left no apparent wiggle room.
    - calpaterson 15y ago
      Meh, people are lazy with language like this all the time. Many people say "murder is always wrong", but, when you ask them, say "well, self defense is ok". Instead of assuming the worst possible case for your opponent, be charitable with his case. You'll avoid nonsense discussions much more often.
- jimmyk 15y ago
  Voting cannot be considered a negative right. I have no more of a negative right to tell the individuals in my government what to do than they have to tell me what to do. I do have the negative right to give them the privilege of governing me and my property just the same as they have the negative right to protect me and my property and to give me the privilege of having some say in their decisions. If we come to that agreement, then I have the privilege of voting and they have the privilege of governing me.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  - I own a square mile of land with a river running through it. You own an adjacent square mile of land downriver of mine. If I, entirely on my own property, divert the river such that it ceases to run through your property, have I aggressed against you? Do you have the right to never have the value of your property decrease? If you change the flow of the river on your property such that it affects mine, then yes you have aggressed against me (it is easier to see in the reverse, it is clearly an aggression against me if you flood my land even if you poor the water on your own land). - I am fantabulously wealthy and buy up all the food in the world. Do I have the right to refuse to sell it? Have I aggressed against the other 7 billion by forcing the large majority of them to starve to death? You have the right not to sell it, and no you haven't aggressed against anyone assuming that the food had been payed for (whomever sold you the food must have valued whatever you gave them in return more than the food) - The local branch of the Nazis are hunting for members of unpopular minorities. I am a gay black Jew. Am I justified in trespassing on a stranger's property in order to hide and evade capture? Strictly speaking no you don't have to right to hide on their property (and if the Nazies kill those suspected of hiding minorities they are in danger too) though I doubt anybody would have a much of an issue with it if you did.

_delirium 15y ago

I don't think that there are many people who really believe that access to water isn't a human right, or at least who would be willing to act consistently with that belief. Most people have at least an implicit belief that if lots of people were ending up dying of thirst, it would be a responsibility of society to do something about that.

nooneelse 15y ago

> "True rights require no infringement on others. You simply have them, without requiring labor, money, or time from others." Infants must be fed and cared for in several ways, necessarily using the resources and time of others. Therefore, within your framework, they have no right to life.