3 ms·

> It's because these things require real cost, time and effort from somebody else to acquire. What you are writing there is a frequent complaint on discussion

> It's because these things require real cost, time and effort from somebody else to acquire. What you are writing there is a frequent complaint on discussion threads on news-for-nerds sites, but it misses the point: of course those things require real cost, time and effort from somebody else, and that is why there is a longstanding distinction between positive and negative rights.[0] Yes, the prominence of negative rights is a big feature of American culture due to the 18th-century Lockean context that the USA’s Founding Fathers operated in, but a lot of things have happened in the interim, and other views on rights have arisen. And even the USA gave lip service to the positive rights enshrined in the UN’s founding human-rights charter. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

SllX 3y ago
Positive rights advocates have had some success in achieving the lawful creation of positive rights across the States, the most prominent examples being Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and public school systems. But those are also the most expensive line items in Federal and State budgets, massively expanded the public bureaucracies, and had variable success in achieving their stated goals and are some of the most contentious and controversial political topics, with public education in particularly attracting the full brunt of the culture war in recent years in part due to lockdown policies during the pandemic giving more parents more insight into the education their children are (or are not) receiving, and that’s just one positive right. To put it bluntly, the mere arising of new views around “rights” since 1789 is insufficient if those new views do not represent a qualitative improvement over prior thought, and positive rights advocates have not exactly covered themselves in glory. The mere conjecture of a new positive right in the way activists and advocates proceed is also insufficient; the nature of them is such that you actually do need lawful agreement, and that agreement is only binding in the jurisdiction which created it.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  Yes, you get it: with your detailed argumentation for one position you show you were already well aware of the distinction, unlike apparently the OP. But I suppose it is best that we refrain from further political battle here.
- foolrush 3y ago
  > But those are also the most expensive line items in Federal and State budgets, https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_s...
  - SllX 3y ago
    Two things missing: 1. Non-discretionary spending. 2. 50 additional links to breakdowns of the public budgets for the 50 States.
- atoav 3y ago
  If I look to nations that are the most bullish when it comes to positive human rights they beat most other nations in nearly every human-centric metric conceivable. Last time I have been in Copenhagen it didn't look like they were worse off for doing all that positive right stuff — quite the opposite, I'd choose Copenhagen over literally every US city every day. I know the US is good at pretending their problems are so unique that all the rational and numbers-based approaches everywhere else in the world won't fly, but in my eyes you either want to live in a society and want it to be good or you pretend you don't live inside one and deal with the consequences. The former gives me a happier life, the latter gives me dystopian vibes and a bit more on the bank account so my choice should be clear.
  - SllX 3y ago
    Sure, but Denmark does have a different culture. Even most European countries are different from Denmark. We value property differently. We value entrepreneurship differently. We are a military superpower and provide most of the muscle in NATO that both the US and Denmark are part of. We have a larger border with both of our immediate neighbors. There isn’t a North American equivalent of the Schengen Area. We’re a lot more religious despite not having a State religion. Our Head of State is not Royal, but an elected position that churns every 4 to 8 years. We’re not a unitary State, but a Federation of 50 States, each with their own laws and histories and yeah, culturally we take that seriously here. We don’t even have a single Parliament, and our legislature does not function like one. Denmark is 86% people of Danish descent, while Americans aren’t 86% anything in particular, ethnically nor racially. No matter how you slice it, the differences do define us, much like the differences between Japan and Denmark or Australia and Denmark. As I already pointed out, America has lawfully implemented some forms of what are called positive rights, but what those look like do not closely resemble the Danish analogues, and one of those differences is how much we disagree with each other as much as we disagree with the rest of the world, but hey, one if the nicer things about the world we live in is if you find a place you like more, it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals and there’s nothing wrong with that. :)
    - ttonkytonk 3y ago

SllX 3y ago

Positive rights advocates have had some success in achieving the lawful creation of positive rights across the States, the most prominent examples being Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and public school systems. But those are also the most expensive line items in Federal and State budgets, massively expanded the public bureaucracies, and had variable success in achieving their stated goals and are some of the most contentious and controversial political topics, with public education in particularly attracting the full brunt of the culture war in recent years in part due to lockdown policies during the pandemic giving more parents more insight into the education their children are (or are not) receiving, and that’s just one positive right. To put it bluntly, the mere arising of new views around “rights” since 1789 is insufficient if those new views do not represent a qualitative improvement over prior thought, and positive rights advocates have not exactly covered themselves in glory. The mere conjecture of a new positive right in the way activists and advocates proceed is also insufficient; the nature of them is such that you actually do need lawful agreement, and that agreement is only binding in the jurisdiction which created it.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
Yes, you get it: with your detailed argumentation for one position you show you were already well aware of the distinction, unlike apparently the OP. But I suppose it is best that we refrain from further political battle here.
foolrush 3y ago
> But those are also the most expensive line items in Federal and State budgets, https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_s...
- SllX 3y ago
  Two things missing: 1. Non-discretionary spending. 2. 50 additional links to breakdowns of the public budgets for the 50 States.
atoav 3y ago
If I look to nations that are the most bullish when it comes to positive human rights they beat most other nations in nearly every human-centric metric conceivable. Last time I have been in Copenhagen it didn't look like they were worse off for doing all that positive right stuff — quite the opposite, I'd choose Copenhagen over literally every US city every day. I know the US is good at pretending their problems are so unique that all the rational and numbers-based approaches everywhere else in the world won't fly, but in my eyes you either want to live in a society and want it to be good or you pretend you don't live inside one and deal with the consequences. The former gives me a happier life, the latter gives me dystopian vibes and a bit more on the bank account so my choice should be clear.
- SllX 3y ago
  Sure, but Denmark does have a different culture. Even most European countries are different from Denmark. We value property differently. We value entrepreneurship differently. We are a military superpower and provide most of the muscle in NATO that both the US and Denmark are part of. We have a larger border with both of our immediate neighbors. There isn’t a North American equivalent of the Schengen Area. We’re a lot more religious despite not having a State religion. Our Head of State is not Royal, but an elected position that churns every 4 to 8 years. We’re not a unitary State, but a Federation of 50 States, each with their own laws and histories and yeah, culturally we take that seriously here. We don’t even have a single Parliament, and our legislature does not function like one. Denmark is 86% people of Danish descent, while Americans aren’t 86% anything in particular, ethnically nor racially. No matter how you slice it, the differences do define us, much like the differences between Japan and Denmark or Australia and Denmark. As I already pointed out, America has lawfully implemented some forms of what are called positive rights, but what those look like do not closely resemble the Danish analogues, and one of those differences is how much we disagree with each other as much as we disagree with the rest of the world, but hey, one if the nicer things about the world we live in is if you find a place you like more, it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals and there’s nothing wrong with that. :)
  - ttonkytonk 3y ago