3 ms·

It seems likely that you don't believe in the rights, the negative individual rights, that these Americans believe in; rather, you are willing to subordinate th

It seems likely that you don't believe in the rights, the negative individual rights, that these Americans believe in; rather, you are willing to subordinate them to a cause which you believe is a good cause. (It might even be a good cause in fact.) If this is the case, then it is "tiresome" because, old as these ideas are, they are working exactly as intended: they are presenting a stumbling block to your utopian designs. Modern history is full of movements promising utopias by systematically violating human rights.

brnt 5y ago
> It seems likely Well, you can imagine all you want about my beliefs, but let's establish upfront that thus far you've described no more than just that: your own imagination.
- lowkey_ 5y ago
  While you may disagree with the parent comment's assessment, I don't see a logic where you can agree with Americans on their 1776-era negative rights and argue that human rights should include a lot of positive rights. If you're not willing to subordinate negative rights, then how can you claim positive rights as human rights? As someone validly mentioned, they are directly at odds with one another.
  - brnt 5y ago
    If you're not willing to subordinate negative rights, then you should understand 1. why exactly you hold that believe, 2. conduct research into what sort of groups benefit the most from the particular set of negative rights chosen, 3. assess how the particular negative rights of your choosing conflict or contradict, and address how you will solve such cases, 4. get acquainted with the motivation for violating particular negative rights anyway. As an example, in case you're up for some literature study, property rights supremacy is well documented to be intricately tied to racism, and thus a good (great) case can be made for balancing that negative right with some other (positive) rights.
    - lowkey_ 5y ago
      > It seems likely that you don't believe in the rights, the negative individual rights, that these Americans believe in; rather, you are willing to subordinate them to a cause which you believe is a good cause. (It might even be a good cause in fact. > If this is the case, then it is "tiresome" because, old as these ideas are, they are working exactly as intended: they are presenting a stumbling block to your utopian designs. Modern history is full of movements promising utopias by systematically violating human rights. That comment directly applies to this situation and proves it. You're against property rights (a negative individual right) for a 'good cause' (anti-racism), and in favor of letting it be subordinate to positive rights. A history of property rights being 'tied' to racism doesn't mean that we should repeal or lessen property rights; we should ensure property rights apply to everyone. The only issue with America's human rights was that they were not equally applied to everyone. My ancestors were essentially enslaved for several hundred years and now my grandmother, father, and mother all own a bit of property. We won't be letting anyone take that, or any part of property rights, away from us. I appreciate that you're in favor of this for a noble reason but nobody needs a savior to take away others' rights.
      - brnt 5y ago
        You decontextualize my statement into a categorical disregard of negative rights. That proves nothing, just that you did not consider the context and limitation of the incursion. Or that you didn't consider one of the other points, the inevitable balancing of rights that needs to take place in any system of rights. You can't simplify this sort of issue, you fundamentally can't. Not every nuance is a slippery slope.
throwaway34241 5y ago
> It seems likely that you don't believe in the rights, the negative individual rights, that these Americans believe in I’m probably also on the other side of this issue, but my take is a bit nuanced here. The government keeps the cost of healthcare high via a myriad of factors (long approval processes, requiring overtraining (years of calculus etc) for many tasks that don’t require it, having a certificate of need required to open a hospital, centrally planning the number of doctors via number of medicare funded residency slots, etc). I think there is a moral case for a negative-rights oriented Milton Friedman style libertarian state that also addresses those issues (although even Friedman made a concession to utilitarian concerns with his negative income tax). But there doesn’t seem to be a major US political faction making that case, or willing to spend the political capital or do the advocacy required to get there to any significant degree. Instead, the debate is mostly over the tax rates. I feel focusing primarily on the subsidies without the radical deregulation produces a system that is neither particularly libertarian or utilitarian, although it serves the interests of some fraction of voters. > Modern history is full of movements promising utopias You may be surprised but I agree pretty strongly here on the dangers of utopianism. I suspect where we differ is I view the movement to go back before the welfare state as in itself utopian. I think it is putting rose-colored glasses on the political economy of the industrial revolution, when that system fell to various forms of authoritarianism all over the world. In my view we would be better off with a political faction that accepted the fundamental logic of the welfare state while attempting to minimize the regulatory burden, although at this point it’s hard to see how we get there from here.

brnt 5y ago

> It seems likely Well, you can imagine all you want about my beliefs, but let's establish upfront that thus far you've described no more than just that: your own imagination.

lowkey_ 5y ago
While you may disagree with the parent comment's assessment, I don't see a logic where you can agree with Americans on their 1776-era negative rights and argue that human rights should include a lot of positive rights. If you're not willing to subordinate negative rights, then how can you claim positive rights as human rights? As someone validly mentioned, they are directly at odds with one another.
- brnt 5y ago
  If you're not willing to subordinate negative rights, then you should understand 1. why exactly you hold that believe, 2. conduct research into what sort of groups benefit the most from the particular set of negative rights chosen, 3. assess how the particular negative rights of your choosing conflict or contradict, and address how you will solve such cases, 4. get acquainted with the motivation for violating particular negative rights anyway. As an example, in case you're up for some literature study, property rights supremacy is well documented to be intricately tied to racism, and thus a good (great) case can be made for balancing that negative right with some other (positive) rights.
  - lowkey_ 5y ago
    > It seems likely that you don't believe in the rights, the negative individual rights, that these Americans believe in; rather, you are willing to subordinate them to a cause which you believe is a good cause. (It might even be a good cause in fact. > If this is the case, then it is "tiresome" because, old as these ideas are, they are working exactly as intended: they are presenting a stumbling block to your utopian designs. Modern history is full of movements promising utopias by systematically violating human rights. That comment directly applies to this situation and proves it. You're against property rights (a negative individual right) for a 'good cause' (anti-racism), and in favor of letting it be subordinate to positive rights. A history of property rights being 'tied' to racism doesn't mean that we should repeal or lessen property rights; we should ensure property rights apply to everyone. The only issue with America's human rights was that they were not equally applied to everyone. My ancestors were essentially enslaved for several hundred years and now my grandmother, father, and mother all own a bit of property. We won't be letting anyone take that, or any part of property rights, away from us. I appreciate that you're in favor of this for a noble reason but nobody needs a savior to take away others' rights.
    - brnt 5y ago
      You decontextualize my statement into a categorical disregard of negative rights. That proves nothing, just that you did not consider the context and limitation of the incursion. Or that you didn't consider one of the other points, the inevitable balancing of rights that needs to take place in any system of rights. You can't simplify this sort of issue, you fundamentally can't. Not every nuance is a slippery slope.

throwaway34241 5y ago

> It seems likely that you don't believe in the rights, the negative individual rights, that these Americans believe in I’m probably also on the other side of this issue, but my take is a bit nuanced here. The government keeps the cost of healthcare high via a myriad of factors (long approval processes, requiring overtraining (years of calculus etc) for many tasks that don’t require it, having a certificate of need required to open a hospital, centrally planning the number of doctors via number of medicare funded residency slots, etc). I think there is a moral case for a negative-rights oriented Milton Friedman style libertarian state that also addresses those issues (although even Friedman made a concession to utilitarian concerns with his negative income tax). But there doesn’t seem to be a major US political faction making that case, or willing to spend the political capital or do the advocacy required to get there to any significant degree. Instead, the debate is mostly over the tax rates. I feel focusing primarily on the subsidies without the radical deregulation produces a system that is neither particularly libertarian or utilitarian, although it serves the interests of some fraction of voters. > Modern history is full of movements promising utopias You may be surprised but I agree pretty strongly here on the dangers of utopianism. I suspect where we differ is I view the movement to go back before the welfare state as in itself utopian. I think it is putting rose-colored glasses on the political economy of the industrial revolution, when that system fell to various forms of authoritarianism all over the world. In my view we would be better off with a political faction that accepted the fundamental logic of the welfare state while attempting to minimize the regulatory burden, although at this point it’s hard to see how we get there from here.