2 ms·

> In a battle between property rights and human rights, at some point human rights takes precedence. Property rights are human rights. I have a human right to

> In a battle between property rights and human rights, at some point human rights takes precedence. Property rights are human rights. I have a human right to be secure in my person and personal effects, and a human right to enforce that security against transgressors.

kibwen 4y ago
> Property rights are human rights. Sure, then we can consider the category of human rights may contain (among other things) the right to personal property, as well as the right to be assured of your next meal, and there is no law of nature that says that rights cannot be in conflict. In a society of extreme scarcity, the latter may be unachievable. In a prosperous society like the one that I live in, the latter is entirely achievable, although sabotaged by short-sighted people who have yet to understand that treating crime at the source--human desperation--is more effective and efficient than treating the symptoms of crime.
- tristor 4y ago
  > as well as the right to be assured of your next meal No such right seems to exist, in my view. That said, we have a duty and obligation as a society to help out those in need, but this is not the same thing as this being a human right. That meal requires the labor of another, and there is no human right in my viewpoint that causes the enslavement of someone else.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    > No such right seems to exist, in my view Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether or not we believe it to exist. If given the choice between crime and starvation, people will choose crime. One can believe in the inviolability of personal property all they want; they'll change their tune when hunger sets in. > That meal requires the labor of another, and there is no human right in my viewpoint that causes the enslavement of someone else. Sure. But nature is not so kind. You have food, and someone is coming for it. Your option is to either kill them or give it to them. If you would die without that food, then the moral choice is obvious. If you have so much food that it would be physically impossible for you to notice the loss of any of it, then the alternative is true.

kibwen 4y ago

> Property rights are human rights. Sure, then we can consider the category of human rights may contain (among other things) the right to personal property, as well as the right to be assured of your next meal, and there is no law of nature that says that rights cannot be in conflict. In a society of extreme scarcity, the latter may be unachievable. In a prosperous society like the one that I live in, the latter is entirely achievable, although sabotaged by short-sighted people who have yet to understand that treating crime at the source--human desperation--is more effective and efficient than treating the symptoms of crime.

tristor 4y ago
> as well as the right to be assured of your next meal No such right seems to exist, in my view. That said, we have a duty and obligation as a society to help out those in need, but this is not the same thing as this being a human right. That meal requires the labor of another, and there is no human right in my viewpoint that causes the enslavement of someone else.
- kibwen 4y ago
  > No such right seems to exist, in my view Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether or not we believe it to exist. If given the choice between crime and starvation, people will choose crime. One can believe in the inviolability of personal property all they want; they'll change their tune when hunger sets in. > That meal requires the labor of another, and there is no human right in my viewpoint that causes the enslavement of someone else. Sure. But nature is not so kind. You have food, and someone is coming for it. Your option is to either kill them or give it to them. If you would die without that food, then the moral choice is obvious. If you have so much food that it would be physically impossible for you to notice the loss of any of it, then the alternative is true.