3 ms·

> 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 sho

> 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?

geocar 5y ago
> You don't need to take from others to be free. That is, in fact, the opposite of freedom. But irrelevant: Things have already taken from others and they want it back. > Equity is impossible without violence and restrictions on freedom. Agreed, so because violence was used to obtain an UN-equitable position, they want it back. (I feel a little bit like I'm repeating myself; what's another way to say this?) People the color of your skin used violence to take people with different skin-colors freedoms and property, and they used it to finance schools and police forces that resulting in you opportunities or advantages that other people with other skin-colors no longer had the possibility of as a result. You don't deserve that advantage, and so they want it back. > I mean positive rights cannot be established without evil. They should never exist, and any you can think of should be abolished. If "positive rights" can also be established in response to evil, then I don't see why they cannot be used to correct for equity. Property-rights are enforced by taxes, so on some level, if these are "positive rights" then they're just like a minimum-wage law designed to correct previous evils. Maybe one day they will not be necessary and can be abolished, but in the meantime, I think we need them and I support them in that aim. > 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. I think that's fair. Your parents poison them which makes it more likely for them to be born lame, so I think it's perfectly fair to break your legs if you can't find another way to make that right. I'd like to think I'm just trying to find another way that doesn't involve more violence; surely an expansion of minimum-wage is less violent than breaking your legs? > If someone is willing to 'degrade themselves', why are you preventing them from doing so? Why do I tell a slave that they do not need to be a slave? Gosh, again, people write papers on this stuff. We tell people they don't need to be slaves because that's how we stop slavery -- by making it so nobody believes they need to be a slave in order to survive. The only rights we have are the ones we can convince other people we have. I already said this, but you chose to narrowly interpret rights which will make it hard to understand why I can't help myself: I don't want to be a slave, I don't know what kinds of torture I would be able to refuse, but I don't think that would be a life worth living, so I tell anyone who will listing they don't need to be a slave. > Well, and the opinion of people that don't like slavery and theft. And yet here is someone who does not like slavery or theft, who does not have that opinion because I'm not a racist asshole. See how that works? Don't characterize me. I don't deserve to have my supporting of taxation to be equated with supporting theft just because you don't like to pay taxes, any more than you deserve to be equated with other racist assholes just because you're quoting racist assholes. You want me to take you seriously? You have to do the same.
- alex_sf 5y ago
  > But irrelevant: Things have already taken from others and they want it back. Who took what, from who, when? > Agreed, so because violence was used to obtain an UN-equitable position, they want it back. Again: what, from who, when? There are two answers to this: something that isn't actually violence (agreeing to employment), or something from hundreds of years ago ('stolen land'). Neither are good arguments, in any way. > People the color of your skin used violence ... I'm brown. Want to try again? Maybe without criticizing someone's position based on their race? > If "positive rights" can also be established in response to evil, then I don't see why they cannot be used to correct for equity. I don't think you read that sentence correctly. Three things: 1) Positive rights should not exist, because: 2) Positive rights cannot exist without violence and slavery 3) Equity, and demands for it, are inherently evil. > Property-rights are enforced by taxes No, they aren't. Property rights are _usually_ enforced by the state, because of their monopoly on violence. There is nothing stopping me from defending my property myself. > on some level, if these are "positive rights" ... They aren't. As I explained. > Your parents poison them which makes it more likely for them to be born lame, so I think it's perfectly fair to break your legs if you can't find another way to make that right. Sins of the father, huh? Maybe we should punish out to 3 generations? Seems like you'd love the DPRK. > Why do I tell a slave that they do not need to be a slave? There are more slaves alive now than there have ever been in history. Someone working a minimum wage job in the US is very much not that, and it's patently absurd. Comparing a retail job to chattel slavery is disgusting. > who does not have that opinion because I'm not a racist asshole. Are you sure? You supported breaking my legs when you thought I was white. Now that you know I'm not, what now? I mean, I know the answer: break them anyway, he's probably a counter-revolutionary. This is exactly what's wrong with your entire philosophy. It's based on violence to get what you want, because you're incapable of achieving it any other way. Try harder.
  - geocar 5y ago
    > I don't think you read that sentence correctly. Three things: > 1) Positive rights should not exist, because: 2) Positive rights cannot exist without violence and slavery Violence exists regardless of whether "positive rights" exist. You are stating this again, but you haven't proven any kind of relationship beyond the tautological one. I can't move on to the third point until you clear this up. Everything else seems like a distraction: If we can agree that violence and slavery is bad, why can't we agree that some kind of retribution is required? Maybe this is why: > something that isn't actually violence (agreeing to employment), or something from hundreds of years ago ('stolen land'). Neither are good arguments, in any way. They're excellent arguments. Even agreeing to be "employed" for room-and-board in exchange for work could be slavery, especially if the person agreeing doesn't know if they have other choices. "Stolen land" was still stolen. What's the good reason for a statute-of-limitations on this? I think you are dismissing these out-of-hand, and if you can't address them, maybe this is what is wrong with your entire philosophy? > There is nothing stopping me from defending my property myself. Of course there is. What are you going to use to defend your property besides violence?

geocar 5y ago

> You don't need to take from others to be free. That is, in fact, the opposite of freedom. But irrelevant: Things have already taken from others and they want it back. > Equity is impossible without violence and restrictions on freedom. Agreed, so because violence was used to obtain an UN-equitable position, they want it back. (I feel a little bit like I'm repeating myself; what's another way to say this?) People the color of your skin used violence to take people with different skin-colors freedoms and property, and they used it to finance schools and police forces that resulting in you opportunities or advantages that other people with other skin-colors no longer had the possibility of as a result. You don't deserve that advantage, and so they want it back. > I mean positive rights cannot be established without evil. They should never exist, and any you can think of should be abolished. If "positive rights" can also be established in response to evil, then I don't see why they cannot be used to correct for equity. Property-rights are enforced by taxes, so on some level, if these are "positive rights" then they're just like a minimum-wage law designed to correct previous evils. Maybe one day they will not be necessary and can be abolished, but in the meantime, I think we need them and I support them in that aim. > 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. I think that's fair. Your parents poison them which makes it more likely for them to be born lame, so I think it's perfectly fair to break your legs if you can't find another way to make that right. I'd like to think I'm just trying to find another way that doesn't involve more violence; surely an expansion of minimum-wage is less violent than breaking your legs? > If someone is willing to 'degrade themselves', why are you preventing them from doing so? Why do I tell a slave that they do not need to be a slave? Gosh, again, people write papers on this stuff. We tell people they don't need to be slaves because that's how we stop slavery -- by making it so nobody believes they need to be a slave in order to survive. The only rights we have are the ones we can convince other people we have. I already said this, but you chose to narrowly interpret rights which will make it hard to understand why I can't help myself: I don't want to be a slave, I don't know what kinds of torture I would be able to refuse, but I don't think that would be a life worth living, so I tell anyone who will listing they don't need to be a slave. > Well, and the opinion of people that don't like slavery and theft. And yet here is someone who does not like slavery or theft, who does not have that opinion because I'm not a racist asshole. See how that works? Don't characterize me. I don't deserve to have my supporting of taxation to be equated with supporting theft just because you don't like to pay taxes, any more than you deserve to be equated with other racist assholes just because you're quoting racist assholes. You want me to take you seriously? You have to do the same.

alex_sf 5y ago
> But irrelevant: Things have already taken from others and they want it back. Who took what, from who, when? > Agreed, so because violence was used to obtain an UN-equitable position, they want it back. Again: what, from who, when? There are two answers to this: something that isn't actually violence (agreeing to employment), or something from hundreds of years ago ('stolen land'). Neither are good arguments, in any way. > People the color of your skin used violence ... I'm brown. Want to try again? Maybe without criticizing someone's position based on their race? > If "positive rights" can also be established in response to evil, then I don't see why they cannot be used to correct for equity. I don't think you read that sentence correctly. Three things: 1) Positive rights should not exist, because: 2) Positive rights cannot exist without violence and slavery 3) Equity, and demands for it, are inherently evil. > Property-rights are enforced by taxes No, they aren't. Property rights are _usually_ enforced by the state, because of their monopoly on violence. There is nothing stopping me from defending my property myself. > on some level, if these are "positive rights" ... They aren't. As I explained. > Your parents poison them which makes it more likely for them to be born lame, so I think it's perfectly fair to break your legs if you can't find another way to make that right. Sins of the father, huh? Maybe we should punish out to 3 generations? Seems like you'd love the DPRK. > Why do I tell a slave that they do not need to be a slave? There are more slaves alive now than there have ever been in history. Someone working a minimum wage job in the US is very much not that, and it's patently absurd. Comparing a retail job to chattel slavery is disgusting. > who does not have that opinion because I'm not a racist asshole. Are you sure? You supported breaking my legs when you thought I was white. Now that you know I'm not, what now? I mean, I know the answer: break them anyway, he's probably a counter-revolutionary. This is exactly what's wrong with your entire philosophy. It's based on violence to get what you want, because you're incapable of achieving it any other way. Try harder.
- geocar 5y ago
  > I don't think you read that sentence correctly. Three things: > 1) Positive rights should not exist, because: 2) Positive rights cannot exist without violence and slavery Violence exists regardless of whether "positive rights" exist. You are stating this again, but you haven't proven any kind of relationship beyond the tautological one. I can't move on to the third point until you clear this up. Everything else seems like a distraction: If we can agree that violence and slavery is bad, why can't we agree that some kind of retribution is required? Maybe this is why: > something that isn't actually violence (agreeing to employment), or something from hundreds of years ago ('stolen land'). Neither are good arguments, in any way. They're excellent arguments. Even agreeing to be "employed" for room-and-board in exchange for work could be slavery, especially if the person agreeing doesn't know if they have other choices. "Stolen land" was still stolen. What's the good reason for a statute-of-limitations on this? I think you are dismissing these out-of-hand, and if you can't address them, maybe this is what is wrong with your entire philosophy? > There is nothing stopping me from defending my property myself. Of course there is. What are you going to use to defend your property besides violence?