4 ms·

> There's no right to anything that people don't stand together to say they have a right to. This is ignoring the point: positive rights should not exist. The

> There's no right to anything that people don't stand together to say they have a right to. This is ignoring the point: positive rights should not exist. They require taking rights from others, through violence, to enforce. > People shouldn't have to commute for hours so other people can live there because that impacts their health and opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness Ok. Then don't.

pbhjpbhj 5y ago
Okay then just die? I mean, it's an option, but a just society could easily do better. The majority are screwed over by an ultra-rich minority, personally I think that deserves addressing. Positive rights for all do not require violence provided those who benefit from others not having simple rights will give up their excess for the greater good. The demos may need to use violence, but that's only because those who, by no greater virtue, have acquired wealth refuse to act justly and recognise the equal dignity of man.
- alex_sf 5y ago
  > Okay then just die? Or work near where you can afford to live? If there aren't jobs that support living there, live somewhere else? You're presenting an absurd dichotomy. > The majority are screwed over by an ultra-rich minority, personally I think that deserves addressing. No, they aren't. Wealth inequality is not a real problem. It's politicized jealousy. Wealth is not zero-sum, and someone having more than someone else is irrelevant. > Positive rights for all do not require violence provided those who benefit from others not having simple rights will give up their excess for the greater good. "Right" means it must be enforced. "provided .. will give up" means taking by that same force if they choose to not turn over what they own. Taking to support a right absolutely requires violence. > but that's only because those who, by no greater virtue, have acquired wealth refuse to act justly and recognise the equal dignity of man. Why should they? What is their obligation? You have undoubtedly acquired more wealth than a subsistence farmer in rural India: why do you refuse to act justly and recognize their equal dignity?
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    Or work near where you can afford to live? That assumes that's possible. I think the point being made is that it's often very much not possible. There are serious problems with our built environment and this is one of them.
    - alex_sf 5y ago
      It is possible, and people are fine with it. Otherwise, either a) the housing would not exist, or b) there would be more local job opportunities. If there is demand for jobs locally and an economy to support it, they can start their own company. If there is no economy to support it, then the community isn’t viable. This is straightforward to understand, and not a problem to be solved. And certainly not one to be solved through stage violence.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    > Or work near where you can afford to live? If there aren't jobs that support living there, live somewhere else? You're presenting an absurd dichotomy. And what happens when there's no jos where you live, and the only places where jobs exist have extreme housing shortages? You can spend hours commuting each day, but then you're probably burning just as much money through gas - not to mention destroying the environment.
    - alex_sf 5y ago
      > And what happens when there's no jos where you live Then you start a small business, employing others and building up your community. How do you think the ‘places where jobs exist’ started? > the only places where jobs exist have extreme housing shortages? If it’s intolerable to enough people, they won’t be able to hire. They’ll have to move, or pay more to overcome the housing shortage. The fact that it isn’t, and they aren’t, shows this isn’t actually a problem.
      - Manuel_D 5y ago
        > Then you start a small business, employing others and building up your community. The idea that anyone can just start a business is seriously indicative of how our of touch this forum can be. What if there's no goods or services that are in demand in your immediate community? What if your community is impoverished and dying? What if you have no capital to start a business? > How do you think the ‘places where jobs exist’ started? Often it was because of natural resources, or geographic factors that made it conductive to establishing a population center (like river or harbour access). > If it’s intolerable to enough people, they won’t be able to hire. They’ll have to move, or pay more to overcome the housing shortage. The latter is what's happening: prices of housing are skyrocketing and locking people into poverty.
ubercow13 5y ago
> This is ignoring the point: positive rights should not exist I’m confused by this statement. You don’t have an inalienable right to keep the area around your home exactly how you want it either. That’s a positive right and requires taking the rights of others, for example by enforcement of zoning laws that affect land owned by other people.
- pandaman 5y ago
  Positive right: somebody has to do something for me. Negative right: nobody must do something to me. The right of self-governance is a negative right. I can see how it can be confusing since you can re-phrase anything as either positive or a negative action e.g. "you must stop stealing my stuff so property is a positive right" and "you should not deny my need for healthcare ergo it's a negative right" so here is a trick you can use to distinguish one from another: a negative right will remain even in the absence of all other people while a positive right will disappear in such a case. So, for this case, the right of self-governance will remain if everyone else disappears since you can still make laws, obey them and enforce them on yourself thus it's a negative right.
  - ubercow13 5y ago
    Calling changing the feeling of your neighbourhood, or indirectly reducing the market value of your land, 'doing something to you' in this context seems kind of stretching it.
  - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
    "I have the right to build apartments on the land I own." "I have the right to tell you what you can and can't build in my neighborhood." Which one is positive and which is negative?
    - pandaman 5y ago
      Neither is positive, both are negative. Also the former does not exist in reality, in fact you often don't have a right to build anything in a township thus you have to get a permission from the local government for almost any construction (with some things implicitly permitted).
geocar 5y ago
> positive rights should not exist That's like, your opinion man, and I don't know if you mean aspirationally, as in, there shouldn't be racist classist assholes out there so we shouldn't need positive rights to protect the dignity we all deserve, or you mean you so libertarian you side with the racist classist assholes like Ayn Rand, but surely if you meant to debate Kant and Shue: I wouldn't be the first to argue that a fundamental right to freedom is worthless if people aren't able to exercise that freedom, and you can just google search "criticisms of the virtue of selfishness" if you want; People write proper papers and thesis on this stuff, not internet comments. So I still won't comment on whether positive rights should or should not exist, and instead say it is undignified to have to live in fear and that a lack of equity fosters fear, and ideologically I don't care how we do it, so I believe it ethical to support things like traffic laws, minimum-wage laws, health-and-safety laws especially in farms, restaurants and hotels, and maybe even a commuter-premium to prevent companies from exploiting another way humans are willing to degrade themselves.
- alex_sf 5y ago
  > That's like, your opinion man Well, and the opinion of people that don't like slavery and theft. > I don't know if you mean aspirationally, as in, there shouldn't be racist classist assholes out there so we shouldn't need positive rights to protect the dignity we all deserve I mean positive rights cannot be established without evil. They should never exist, and any you can think of should be abolished. > I wouldn't be the first to argue that a fundamental right to freedom is worthless if people aren't able to exercise that freedom You don't need to take from others to be free. That is, in fact, the opposite of freedom. > you can just google search "criticisms of the virtue of selfishness" if you want; People write proper papers and thesis on this stuff, not internet comments. This isn't about selfishness. Well, kind of. Selfishness on the part of people demanding the positive rights, which _forces_ others under threat of violence to make their lives easier, regardless of whatever efforts they make on their own. > So I still won't comment on whether positive rights should or should not exist I maintain they should not. > and instead say it is undignified to have to live in fear So don't. > and that a lack of equity fosters fear Equity is impossible without violence and restrictions on freedom. It's not equitable that one person should be lame and another not: it only becomes equitable when we break the other person's legs. > and ideologically I don't care how we do it Neither did Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot. > so I believe it ethical to support things like traffic laws, minimum-wage laws, health-and-safety laws especially in farms, restaurants and hotels, and maybe even a commuter-premium None of those things are rights. > to prevent companies from exploiting another way humans are willing to degrade themselves. If someone is willing to 'degrade themselves', why are you preventing them from doing so?

pbhjpbhj 5y ago

Okay then just die? I mean, it's an option, but a just society could easily do better. The majority are screwed over by an ultra-rich minority, personally I think that deserves addressing. Positive rights for all do not require violence provided those who benefit from others not having simple rights will give up their excess for the greater good. The demos may need to use violence, but that's only because those who, by no greater virtue, have acquired wealth refuse to act justly and recognise the equal dignity of man.

alex_sf 5y ago
> Okay then just die? Or work near where you can afford to live? If there aren't jobs that support living there, live somewhere else? You're presenting an absurd dichotomy. > The majority are screwed over by an ultra-rich minority, personally I think that deserves addressing. No, they aren't. Wealth inequality is not a real problem. It's politicized jealousy. Wealth is not zero-sum, and someone having more than someone else is irrelevant. > Positive rights for all do not require violence provided those who benefit from others not having simple rights will give up their excess for the greater good. "Right" means it must be enforced. "provided .. will give up" means taking by that same force if they choose to not turn over what they own. Taking to support a right absolutely requires violence. > but that's only because those who, by no greater virtue, have acquired wealth refuse to act justly and recognise the equal dignity of man. Why should they? What is their obligation? You have undoubtedly acquired more wealth than a subsistence farmer in rural India: why do you refuse to act justly and recognize their equal dignity?
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  Or work near where you can afford to live? That assumes that's possible. I think the point being made is that it's often very much not possible. There are serious problems with our built environment and this is one of them.
  - alex_sf 5y ago
    It is possible, and people are fine with it. Otherwise, either a) the housing would not exist, or b) there would be more local job opportunities. If there is demand for jobs locally and an economy to support it, they can start their own company. If there is no economy to support it, then the community isn’t viable. This is straightforward to understand, and not a problem to be solved. And certainly not one to be solved through stage violence.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  > Or work near where you can afford to live? If there aren't jobs that support living there, live somewhere else? You're presenting an absurd dichotomy. And what happens when there's no jos where you live, and the only places where jobs exist have extreme housing shortages? You can spend hours commuting each day, but then you're probably burning just as much money through gas - not to mention destroying the environment.
  - alex_sf 5y ago
    > And what happens when there's no jos where you live Then you start a small business, employing others and building up your community. How do you think the ‘places where jobs exist’ started? > the only places where jobs exist have extreme housing shortages? If it’s intolerable to enough people, they won’t be able to hire. They’ll have to move, or pay more to overcome the housing shortage. The fact that it isn’t, and they aren’t, shows this isn’t actually a problem.
    - Manuel_D 5y ago
      > Then you start a small business, employing others and building up your community. The idea that anyone can just start a business is seriously indicative of how our of touch this forum can be. What if there's no goods or services that are in demand in your immediate community? What if your community is impoverished and dying? What if you have no capital to start a business? > How do you think the ‘places where jobs exist’ started? Often it was because of natural resources, or geographic factors that made it conductive to establishing a population center (like river or harbour access). > If it’s intolerable to enough people, they won’t be able to hire. They’ll have to move, or pay more to overcome the housing shortage. The latter is what's happening: prices of housing are skyrocketing and locking people into poverty.

ubercow13 5y ago

> This is ignoring the point: positive rights should not exist I’m confused by this statement. You don’t have an inalienable right to keep the area around your home exactly how you want it either. That’s a positive right and requires taking the rights of others, for example by enforcement of zoning laws that affect land owned by other people.

pandaman 5y ago
Positive right: somebody has to do something for me. Negative right: nobody must do something to me. The right of self-governance is a negative right. I can see how it can be confusing since you can re-phrase anything as either positive or a negative action e.g. "you must stop stealing my stuff so property is a positive right" and "you should not deny my need for healthcare ergo it's a negative right" so here is a trick you can use to distinguish one from another: a negative right will remain even in the absence of all other people while a positive right will disappear in such a case. So, for this case, the right of self-governance will remain if everyone else disappears since you can still make laws, obey them and enforce them on yourself thus it's a negative right.
- ubercow13 5y ago
  Calling changing the feeling of your neighbourhood, or indirectly reducing the market value of your land, 'doing something to you' in this context seems kind of stretching it.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
  "I have the right to build apartments on the land I own." "I have the right to tell you what you can and can't build in my neighborhood." Which one is positive and which is negative?
  - pandaman 5y ago
    Neither is positive, both are negative. Also the former does not exist in reality, in fact you often don't have a right to build anything in a township thus you have to get a permission from the local government for almost any construction (with some things implicitly permitted).

geocar 5y ago

> positive rights should not exist That's like, your opinion man, and I don't know if you mean aspirationally, as in, there shouldn't be racist classist assholes out there so we shouldn't need positive rights to protect the dignity we all deserve, or you mean you so libertarian you side with the racist classist assholes like Ayn Rand, but surely if you meant to debate Kant and Shue: I wouldn't be the first to argue that a fundamental right to freedom is worthless if people aren't able to exercise that freedom, and you can just google search "criticisms of the virtue of selfishness" if you want; People write proper papers and thesis on this stuff, not internet comments. So I still won't comment on whether positive rights should or should not exist, and instead say it is undignified to have to live in fear and that a lack of equity fosters fear, and ideologically I don't care how we do it, so I believe it ethical to support things like traffic laws, minimum-wage laws, health-and-safety laws especially in farms, restaurants and hotels, and maybe even a commuter-premium to prevent companies from exploiting another way humans are willing to degrade themselves.

alex_sf 5y ago
> That's like, your opinion man Well, and the opinion of people that don't like slavery and theft. > I don't know if you mean aspirationally, as in, there shouldn't be racist classist assholes out there so we shouldn't need positive rights to protect the dignity we all deserve I mean positive rights cannot be established without evil. They should never exist, and any you can think of should be abolished. > I wouldn't be the first to argue that a fundamental right to freedom is worthless if people aren't able to exercise that freedom You don't need to take from others to be free. That is, in fact, the opposite of freedom. > you can just google search "criticisms of the virtue of selfishness" if you want; People write proper papers and thesis on this stuff, not internet comments. This isn't about selfishness. Well, kind of. Selfishness on the part of people demanding the positive rights, which _forces_ others under threat of violence to make their lives easier, regardless of whatever efforts they make on their own. > So I still won't comment on whether positive rights should or should not exist I maintain they should not. > and instead say it is undignified to have to live in fear So don't. > and that a lack of equity fosters fear Equity is impossible without violence and restrictions on freedom. It's not equitable that one person should be lame and another not: it only becomes equitable when we break the other person's legs. > and ideologically I don't care how we do it Neither did Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot. > so I believe it ethical to support things like traffic laws, minimum-wage laws, health-and-safety laws especially in farms, restaurants and hotels, and maybe even a commuter-premium None of those things are rights. > to prevent companies from exploiting another way humans are willing to degrade themselves. If someone is willing to 'degrade themselves', why are you preventing them from doing so?