3 ms·

We need a new word for this sort of thing. These things are absolutely not human rights in the “inalienable” or “fundamental” sense of being entitled to them ju

We need a new word for this sort of thing. These things are absolutely not human rights in the “inalienable” or “fundamental” sense of being entitled to them just by a being human. It should be sufficient just to say that as a society we agree that we need to create bills, taxation appropriations, and infrastructure to guarantee societal privileges to its people. This sort of language is important lest entire generations of people think that the millions and billions of dollars required to process and clean water, and grow produce and make access to food possible, and have other human being labor for our benefit as being “entitled rights” simply be being a human being. Should we have these things? Absolutely. But someone had to pay for them, us collectively, and others have to perform the actual labor. At which point there becomes a government funded market for these things unless they’re state owned, which still leaves laborers subject to market compensation.

krapp 3y ago
>We need a new word for this sort of thing. These things are absolutely not human rights in the “inalienable” or “fundamental” sense of being entitled to them just by a being human. These things are absolutely considered human rights everywhere in the modern world... except the United States. Only in the US would a new word be needed, because Americans can't wrap their heads around the premise of human life having value beyond its transactional value under capitalism, or of governments having any kind of social obligation to provide for the welfare of their citizens. Saying we as a society need to create bills, taxes and infrastructure to guarantee these things is equivalent to considering them rights. That's what rights are - things governments have to allow and provide for. Just like the right to keep and bear arms requires accepting gun violence, more work for EMTs and law enforcement, legal infrastructure and any number of negative societal costs. But Americans are willing to tolerate mass shootings becoming so commonplace you can't even remember the latest one because shooting people is as fundamental to Americans as the law of gravity, it's a right granted by God, it just is. Yet feeding people? Housing people? Access to medical care? Education? Women can't even get an abortion in the case of rape, incest or fetal death in nearly a dozen states, because even bodily autonomy and privacy are up for grabs now. Suggest that Americans deserve any of these things and a lot of them get nervous and reach for their revolvers. But Americans should want these things. The richest country in the world should want to be willing to pay the cost of a society worth living in. We should want our government to be effective at something more than violence. The country that built Hoover Dam and created the Manhattan Project and put a man on the moon should be eager to put resources towards improving the quality of life all of its citizens. But we aren't willing, and the implication that we need new language to even discuss it is depressing as hell.
- andrewmcwatters 3y ago
  My conflict with thinking like yours is that it conflates and confuses moral dignities with production obligations.
- loki49152 3y ago
  You can't have an ideology that claims both "people have a right to things that others must produce" and "bodily autonomy". This isn't a potluck dinner. You can't just mix and match contradictory beliefs because it pleases you.
EMIRELADERO 3y ago
What you're thinking of already has a name, it's called a "positive right". Negative rights are things you're entitled to do. Positive rights are what you're entitled to.
jrflowers 3y ago
>We need a new word for this sort of thing […] lest entire generations of people think that the millions and billions of dollars required to process and clean water, and grow produce and make access to food possible, and have other human being labor for our benefit as being “entitled rights” simply be being a human being. I’m curious about this. My response to this statement is “So what?” Aside from the implicit assumption that “entire generations of people” would never bother to learn how society functions if the word “right” were used in a more relaxed sense when it comes to healthcare, what harm comes to society if citizens are comfortable considering healthcare to be a right? I use the phrase “what harm comes” in the present tense because many people that live in countries with socialized medicine happily call healthcare a right. What harm are they undergoing presently?

krapp 3y ago

>We need a new word for this sort of thing. These things are absolutely not human rights in the “inalienable” or “fundamental” sense of being entitled to them just by a being human. These things are absolutely considered human rights everywhere in the modern world... except the United States. Only in the US would a new word be needed, because Americans can't wrap their heads around the premise of human life having value beyond its transactional value under capitalism, or of governments having any kind of social obligation to provide for the welfare of their citizens. Saying we as a society need to create bills, taxes and infrastructure to guarantee these things is equivalent to considering them rights. That's what rights are - things governments have to allow and provide for. Just like the right to keep and bear arms requires accepting gun violence, more work for EMTs and law enforcement, legal infrastructure and any number of negative societal costs. But Americans are willing to tolerate mass shootings becoming so commonplace you can't even remember the latest one because shooting people is as fundamental to Americans as the law of gravity, it's a right granted by God, it just is. Yet feeding people? Housing people? Access to medical care? Education? Women can't even get an abortion in the case of rape, incest or fetal death in nearly a dozen states, because even bodily autonomy and privacy are up for grabs now. Suggest that Americans deserve any of these things and a lot of them get nervous and reach for their revolvers. But Americans should want these things. The richest country in the world should want to be willing to pay the cost of a society worth living in. We should want our government to be effective at something more than violence. The country that built Hoover Dam and created the Manhattan Project and put a man on the moon should be eager to put resources towards improving the quality of life all of its citizens. But we aren't willing, and the implication that we need new language to even discuss it is depressing as hell.

andrewmcwatters 3y ago
My conflict with thinking like yours is that it conflates and confuses moral dignities with production obligations.
loki49152 3y ago
You can't have an ideology that claims both "people have a right to things that others must produce" and "bodily autonomy". This isn't a potluck dinner. You can't just mix and match contradictory beliefs because it pleases you.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago

What you're thinking of already has a name, it's called a "positive right". Negative rights are things you're entitled to do. Positive rights are what you're entitled to.

jrflowers 3y ago

>We need a new word for this sort of thing […] lest entire generations of people think that the millions and billions of dollars required to process and clean water, and grow produce and make access to food possible, and have other human being labor for our benefit as being “entitled rights” simply be being a human being. I’m curious about this. My response to this statement is “So what?” Aside from the implicit assumption that “entire generations of people” would never bother to learn how society functions if the word “right” were used in a more relaxed sense when it comes to healthcare, what harm comes to society if citizens are comfortable considering healthcare to be a right? I use the phrase “what harm comes” in the present tense because many people that live in countries with socialized medicine happily call healthcare a right. What harm are they undergoing presently?