5 ms·

People love to say everything is a "human right" - IMO human rights should delineate what you can't be deprived of - not what you have the "right" to force othe

People love to say everything is a "human right" - IMO human rights should delineate what you can't be deprived of - not what you have the "right" to force others to provide to you if you do not have the capacity to be self sufficient

heyitsguay 5y ago
There is no possible delineation. Anything you can't be deprived of is a thing that others are forced to provide you under state compulsion. What falls under that category is up to social consensus, and is subject to change and debate, as we're seeing with housing now in response to skyrocketing prices and the perverse incentives of the prominence of a house as a reliable investment vehicle.
- dabbledash 5y ago
  >> Anything you can't be deprived of is a thing that others are forced to provide you under state compulsion. The state can’t take away my guns. The state doesn’t have to buy me any guns.
  - anm89 5y ago
    Right. Not only is it not complicated, it couldn't be any more simple.
- anm89 5y ago
  Absolutely not, the delineation is dead simple. If someone else gets an obligation because of my right it's not a right. My right to own a gun, have free speech, against self incriminating, or against unlawful search and seizure require Absolutely no action on any person's part but mine besides the court to uphold them (which is true of all systems of rights. Having a court does not negate any of this). The people who wrote the bill of rights were very aware of this delineation because they stayed exclusively on one side of it. So you can disagree but to say the idea simply doesn't exist is nonsense.
  - heyitsguay 5y ago
    You're right, it's the negative vs positive rights thing. So there for sure is a difference, and the stance that the government's purpose is to protect the rights of the empowered and to hell with anything that helps anyone else is a consistent viewpoint that I just strongly disagree with.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - dabbledash 5y ago
      I dunno. Seems like the 4th amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure, the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, and the 1st amendment rights for speech and religion (just to name a few) do more than just protect the empowered. Do you disagree?
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    I don't think any of those rights you mention avoid obligating other people. What if you're my neighbor, exercising your free speech in person, and I don't want to hear it? Your sound waves don't stop at my property line. But there are definite limits on what I could do in response. https://nypost.com/2020/10/26/bill-gross-accused-of-tormenting-neighbor-with-gilligans-island-theme-song/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/26/bill-gross-accused-of-tormenti... Hunters go traipsing across private property. Someone with a gun could shoot your dog, or mistake you for a deer. Living around people like that is a huge infringement or obligation of property owners. Water rights.
rufus_foreman 5y ago
So you would argue that the right to have a lawyer when accused of a crime is not a human right?

heyitsguay 5y ago

There is no possible delineation. Anything you can't be deprived of is a thing that others are forced to provide you under state compulsion. What falls under that category is up to social consensus, and is subject to change and debate, as we're seeing with housing now in response to skyrocketing prices and the perverse incentives of the prominence of a house as a reliable investment vehicle.

dabbledash 5y ago
>> Anything you can't be deprived of is a thing that others are forced to provide you under state compulsion. The state can’t take away my guns. The state doesn’t have to buy me any guns.
- anm89 5y ago
  Right. Not only is it not complicated, it couldn't be any more simple.
anm89 5y ago
Absolutely not, the delineation is dead simple. If someone else gets an obligation because of my right it's not a right. My right to own a gun, have free speech, against self incriminating, or against unlawful search and seizure require Absolutely no action on any person's part but mine besides the court to uphold them (which is true of all systems of rights. Having a court does not negate any of this). The people who wrote the bill of rights were very aware of this delineation because they stayed exclusively on one side of it. So you can disagree but to say the idea simply doesn't exist is nonsense.
- heyitsguay 5y ago
  You're right, it's the negative vs positive rights thing. So there for sure is a difference, and the stance that the government's purpose is to protect the rights of the empowered and to hell with anything that helps anyone else is a consistent viewpoint that I just strongly disagree with.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dabbledash 5y ago
    I dunno. Seems like the 4th amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure, the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, and the 1st amendment rights for speech and religion (just to name a few) do more than just protect the empowered. Do you disagree?
- perl4ever 5y ago
  I don't think any of those rights you mention avoid obligating other people. What if you're my neighbor, exercising your free speech in person, and I don't want to hear it? Your sound waves don't stop at my property line. But there are definite limits on what I could do in response. https://nypost.com/2020/10/26/bill-gross-accused-of-tormenting-neighbor-with-gilligans-island-theme-song/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/26/bill-gross-accused-of-tormenti... Hunters go traipsing across private property. Someone with a gun could shoot your dog, or mistake you for a deer. Living around people like that is a huge infringement or obligation of property owners. Water rights.

rufus_foreman 5y ago

So you would argue that the right to have a lawyer when accused of a crime is not a human right?