4 ms·

There is nowhere to go for Americans who have become completely disenfranchised. I read recently that many political philosophers think the U.S. has become a (

There is nowhere to go for Americans who have become completely disenfranchised. I read recently that many political philosophers think the U.S. has become a (de facto) oligarchy. In Republic book eight 552 it's argued that oligarchies "admit the greatest of all evils... Allowing someone to sell all his possessions and someone else to buy them...". Now this is particularly true in regards to land (which even when "owned" is essentially rented from the government in the form of property taxes). I don't know the history but I've seen hints that much of this land acquisition was pretty coercive. I think it's difficult for many Americans to admit this because their thinking is biased in the same way that someone becomes biased about a person they love - no matter what anybody tells them, "loving eyes never see". Only the love here is the love of "the good life" - the materially rich one.

SllX 3y ago
Yes, we (which is to say those of us of European descent) conquered much of our land, and also purchased lands that others conquered, and yes made some odd trades for land with cultures that didn’t understand our (as in historically Christendom’s) conception of property ownership and trade, but what does that have to do with this discussion vis a vis positive rights? We’re not discussing property rights, so please make the connection to this discussion since I’m afraid I’m not seeing it.
- ttonkytonk 3y ago
  A place to live is not only a positive but a natural right.
  - SllX 3y ago
    If you want to argue against homelessness, I’m not the one you need to convince, but as stated above you cannot effectively conjecture a positive right into existence merely by claiming that it is a right. Positive rights are lawfully agreed upon, even public education has its own basis in statutes or written constitutional laws.
    - ttonkytonk 3y ago
      I was basically just responding to your flippant suggestion that someone just "go somewhere else" if they don't like it where they're at.
      - SllX 3y ago
        Ah, this part: > but hey, one [o]f 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. :) This wasn’t flippant, nor limited to just Americans moving elsewhere. I actually took a small look into the difficulty of migrating to Denmark from America before I wrote that to see if there were any special difficulties and near as I can tell, the bar is much much lower than I was expecting, but it should be noted that if more people took advantage of that, then it’s probable Denmark would raise the requirements and immigration has at least somewhat recently been a political issue for them. > it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals It is often possible, but what I did not claim was that it was universally so and that’s because it’s not universally possible for all people. That was intentional. It requires the ability to actually meet the requirements of the host country, the ability to cover the travel and moving expenses for yourself and them accepting you into their country, at least if they have solid immigration controls, or the ability to live within their society without going through the official channels if not, as long as you can get yourself there. Almost all of that should have gone without saying though.
        atoav 3y ago
        Sure, going elswhere is something you can do, if you can afford it. But: A) There are societies, in which the circumstances which would make it reasonable for you to leave are the reason why you cannot. E.g. if you are living in slavery or quasi-slavery moving somewhere else would be good, but the ones profiting from your labour wouldn't like that, so they make it hard. And the reason why you ended up in that position e.g. lack of funds, lack of education might also make it hard or impossible to move somewhere else. B) We are discussing human rights. I would think they should apply universally. That is of course not the reality of the world, but we should aim for those rights to be defended in each part of the world. Human rights are a thing that has to be defended by those that are able defend them — and those people are typically not the victim of such violations, but precisely the opposite in terms of social, economic and education capital than the people that would benefit from moving away. That means just move away as an answer from the standpoint of the affected people is just profoundly naive, as if one would say to "just get rich" when someone isn't or "just get healthy" when someone is ill. On top of that it is an answer that hurts the society of those that give it, as the society as a while accumulates injustices it fails to answer. So why give thwt answer? Because it has one benefit: It is a simple cure for the nagging feeling of cognitive dissonance that each good person has to get, when they see that the society they are part of produces injustices. It is the answer that allows them to move on and change nothing. "It must be their own fault then".
atoav 3y ago
Oligarchy, yes maybe, but also a weird modern form of feudalism, where companies try to make you pay tribute after they sold you a thing. If you are worried about ownership, this is the top issue you should be thinking about. But ownership is not the issue. The issue is that people conflate ownership and especially money with happiness and live in a society where a lack of money is indeed a source of unhappiness — all while forgetting there are things that make you happy which you as an individual cannot buy with money. E.g. if I were rich in a poor society I am sure I would feel less happy than me being slightly above the median in a wealthy society. That is because a rich person in a poor society is not free and has to constantly worry about loosing their wealth, getting robbed, mugged, kidnapped or otherwise becoming a victim of crimes. And even if you manage that, you are still living with the fact to be part of a society that sucks for most people. Sure you got money, and have it nice in your gated community, seeing only people of your choosing, but that to me wouls not only be utterly dystopian, but an egocentric capitulation of a person who made their wealth from the fruits of a free society. Maybe I am naive, or stupid, but for me it is like this: Either I live in a society and want to improve it, for the benefit of myself and all those around me, or you can become a total recluse and build your own hut, melt your own iron, live your own live in isolation.

SllX 3y ago

Yes, we (which is to say those of us of European descent) conquered much of our land, and also purchased lands that others conquered, and yes made some odd trades for land with cultures that didn’t understand our (as in historically Christendom’s) conception of property ownership and trade, but what does that have to do with this discussion vis a vis positive rights? We’re not discussing property rights, so please make the connection to this discussion since I’m afraid I’m not seeing it.

ttonkytonk 3y ago
A place to live is not only a positive but a natural right.
- SllX 3y ago
  If you want to argue against homelessness, I’m not the one you need to convince, but as stated above you cannot effectively conjecture a positive right into existence merely by claiming that it is a right. Positive rights are lawfully agreed upon, even public education has its own basis in statutes or written constitutional laws.
  - ttonkytonk 3y ago
    I was basically just responding to your flippant suggestion that someone just "go somewhere else" if they don't like it where they're at.
    - SllX 3y ago
      Ah, this part: > but hey, one [o]f 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. :) This wasn’t flippant, nor limited to just Americans moving elsewhere. I actually took a small look into the difficulty of migrating to Denmark from America before I wrote that to see if there were any special difficulties and near as I can tell, the bar is much much lower than I was expecting, but it should be noted that if more people took advantage of that, then it’s probable Denmark would raise the requirements and immigration has at least somewhat recently been a political issue for them. > it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals It is often possible, but what I did not claim was that it was universally so and that’s because it’s not universally possible for all people. That was intentional. It requires the ability to actually meet the requirements of the host country, the ability to cover the travel and moving expenses for yourself and them accepting you into their country, at least if they have solid immigration controls, or the ability to live within their society without going through the official channels if not, as long as you can get yourself there. Almost all of that should have gone without saying though.
      - atoav 3y ago
        Sure, going elswhere is something you can do, if you can afford it. But: A) There are societies, in which the circumstances which would make it reasonable for you to leave are the reason why you cannot. E.g. if you are living in slavery or quasi-slavery moving somewhere else would be good, but the ones profiting from your labour wouldn't like that, so they make it hard. And the reason why you ended up in that position e.g. lack of funds, lack of education might also make it hard or impossible to move somewhere else. B) We are discussing human rights. I would think they should apply universally. That is of course not the reality of the world, but we should aim for those rights to be defended in each part of the world. Human rights are a thing that has to be defended by those that are able defend them — and those people are typically not the victim of such violations, but precisely the opposite in terms of social, economic and education capital than the people that would benefit from moving away. That means just move away as an answer from the standpoint of the affected people is just profoundly naive, as if one would say to "just get rich" when someone isn't or "just get healthy" when someone is ill. On top of that it is an answer that hurts the society of those that give it, as the society as a while accumulates injustices it fails to answer. So why give thwt answer? Because it has one benefit: It is a simple cure for the nagging feeling of cognitive dissonance that each good person has to get, when they see that the society they are part of produces injustices. It is the answer that allows them to move on and change nothing. "It must be their own fault then".

atoav 3y ago

Oligarchy, yes maybe, but also a weird modern form of feudalism, where companies try to make you pay tribute after they sold you a thing. If you are worried about ownership, this is the top issue you should be thinking about. But ownership is not the issue. The issue is that people conflate ownership and especially money with happiness and live in a society where a lack of money is indeed a source of unhappiness — all while forgetting there are things that make you happy which you as an individual cannot buy with money. E.g. if I were rich in a poor society I am sure I would feel less happy than me being slightly above the median in a wealthy society. That is because a rich person in a poor society is not free and has to constantly worry about loosing their wealth, getting robbed, mugged, kidnapped or otherwise becoming a victim of crimes. And even if you manage that, you are still living with the fact to be part of a society that sucks for most people. Sure you got money, and have it nice in your gated community, seeing only people of your choosing, but that to me wouls not only be utterly dystopian, but an egocentric capitulation of a person who made their wealth from the fruits of a free society. Maybe I am naive, or stupid, but for me it is like this: Either I live in a society and want to improve it, for the benefit of myself and all those around me, or you can become a total recluse and build your own hut, melt your own iron, live your own live in isolation.