4 ms·

This is why I said does not hold for everyone. It is dependent on location of the person, income, family situation, housing, etc.

• fastball 6y ago
  Right, but maybe that's why a top-down approach like this is a bad one?
  • rapsey 6y ago
    You mean the EU ruling? What is wrong with it?
    • fastball 6y ago
      Regulation always has unintended side-effects. In this case I don't think the regulation is necessary, which effectively makes it bad by default, because it adds complication and reduces flexibility of both employers and workers. Slight tangent, but I also think governments start calling everything a "right" at their own peril. That's something I found incredibly refreshing about Andrew Yang's presidential run. Unlike every other progressive in America who has followed EU's lead by saying "we need universal healthcare because it's a human right", his take was "we should have healthcare because a safety net like that will encourage entrepreneurialism and therefore innovation."
      • MereInterest 6y ago
        I lean back and forth on the language. One emphasizes the inherent good that a policy will have, in and of itself. The other emphasizes the knock-on effects that will result from a policy. In this case, I believe both are true. First, that it is unconscionable to have lack of healthcare in a developed nation. Second, that providing healthcare will give good economic benefits. Which of these I emphasize at any given point depends on who I am talking to.
        • fastball 6y ago
          Yes, but conflating rights you are born with (freedom of speech) with rights you are granted (healthcare) does not seem like a productive way to use language. They are different things with different implications. I prefer to call the former "human rights" and the latter "societal rights". My problem with the EU and others is that they call everything "human rights" with no regard for the distinction, in what I believe to be an attempt to stall out discussion about the latter: "How can you be against this thing? It's a human right, you monster." Except they are different. The latter kind of "rights" are given to you by your society and require the labor of others on your behalf in order to work. This makes them not so simple. To my mind, every society everywhere should enshrine the former, and the latter kind need to be decided on a society-by-society basis, and also might change with time.
          • MereInterest 6y ago
            Where would you put something like "the human right not to be murdered"? On the one hand, it cannot be infringed unless there is someone else there to infringe it. On the other hand, if you exist within any society (the default position of all human beings throughout history), then this right requires active protection to maintain. Overall, I don't think it is a useful distinction to make. For either type of human right, there are cooperative agreements needed in order to maintain those rights.
            • fastball 6y ago
              Huh? Right not to be murdered is right to life, which is exactly the same as freedom of speech. You have it unless someone else infringes on it. Those are very different from healthcare, which is not something you have unless it is infringed. Healthcare needs to be actively provided for you. When you can very clearly put all "rights" into one of the two buckets, it's pretty clear there is a real distinction.
              • MereInterest 6y ago
                The point I am trying to make is that all rights, positive or negative, require social structures to maintain and protect. There isn't a point in comparing to some Hobbesian wilderness as the blank canvas on which society is drawn, because there never has been such a situation. So long as there have been humans, there has been human society, because that is what makes us human. Therefore, pretending that rights start from a perspective of a single human adrift in the wilderness is an poor starting point.