7 ms·

Nothing that requires the labor of others is a human right. That's not how rights work.

by vlucas 3y ago

gizmo686 3y ago
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25: > Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
- voidpointercast 3y ago
  So enforce it.
- churchill 3y ago
  I think the comment above yours is referring to 'natural' rights which are generally negative (i.e., no one can take them away from you). If anything can become a right simply via declaration or popular vote, can 60% of a country's population vote themselves the right to the property of the 40%? By that logic, the Nazis had a right to exterminate the Jews because the Nazis were democratically elected. I understand wanting to protect Hawaii's heritage, etc. but landowners should be free to sell the property to whosoever they deem fit, at whatever price.
- gottorf 3y ago
  Just because it's written on a document titled "Human Rights" doesn't make it so. The UN UDHR is really just a wish list of things that would be nice to have in any country. It is emphatically not a well thought-out legal document that would form the basis of a a country's laws. Read about the recent Chilean constitution reform for what happens when people try to write a constitution based on things that would be nice to have, without seriously considering all of the nth-degree complexities that would result if those nice things were to actually be put into reality with the might of the state.
slantedview 3y ago
It's hard to say that surplus wealth generated by the labor of others should be directed towards investor/owner profits, but not towards housing for workers. The difference between these two outcomes is a policy decision.
- gottorf 3y ago
  If we're talking about housing for workers specifically, Hawaii ranks near dead-last on land-use freedom[0] among the fifty states; meaning that the state as a whole is like the San Francisco Bay Area, being very difficult to build housing to match demand[1]. This, too, is a policy decision, and fixing this one is both easier and would result in a more sustainable long-term wealth growth, compared to the state forcing the direction of the "surplus wealth" of economic endeavors. [0]: https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/onesheet/HI%20profile.pdf https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/onesheet/... [1]: https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2022/04/uhero-hawaiis-housing-regulations-among-toughest/ https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2022/04/uhero-hawai...
skybrian 3y ago
Legal rights can be created by passing laws. It’s possible to pass a law giving people a right to payment by the government (for example, a pension). Such payments can be used to buy goods and services that take labor as an input.
- cheald 3y ago
  That's more correctly called an "entitlement" rather than a "right", IMO.
  - skybrian 3y ago
    It looks like an entitlement is one kind of legal right. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights
gottorf 3y ago
It's important to distinguish negative rights (the state cannot do X to you) from positive rights (the state is required to have X happen for you). There is a school of thought that says the latter is not really valid, since it may (or eventually will) be that some negative rights be violated to make it happen.
- churchill 3y ago
  Yes, I was reading Bastiat (The Law) a while ago and he made a point that struck me: the state can't enforce positive (philanthropic) rights (i.e., you are entitled to this and that) without violating a natural right. For the state to enforce a citizen's philanthropic right to some stuff, the have to dispossess someone else of it - after all, the state can't produce anything, it can only expropriate what's been produced.
  - reverius42 3y ago
    Do taxes violate a natural right?
    - churchill 3y ago
      As a libertarian, I'd say yes, but I don't want to start a shitstorm, so...
      - gottorf 3y ago
        Even a libertarian would agree that some small level of taxation is necessary to fund the apparatus of the state that would enforce property rights and contracts, safeguard the border from invasion, and whatnot. One can only dream of a time and place where government is only funded by a strict land-value tax, though...
        churchill 3y ago
        Lol - if you study libertarianism deeply, you'll find out most of these edge cases you think a centralized government is needed can be provided by a free market. In the Private Production of Defense, Hoppe argues that property owners and businesses can buy covergae from insurance agencies who will then have a vested interest in keeping their houses and communities crime-free. Likewise, in a contract republic (or a charter city) individuals will agree to a neutral third party to arbitrate between them if they ever have a disagreement. This can be anyone from a spiritual authority they both respect, an authority in their industry, or a private court that's built a reputation for fairness, promising to pay the private court a percentage of any arbitration settlement they bring before it. And if the court as much as makes one unfair ruling, it will drive away new business from parties who want a neutral third party. In a contract republic, individuals will be free to have their case judged by any judge, as long as both parties agree beforehand. Opening the justice market will make sure crime gets punished, expedite justice, and reduce its cost.
cam_l 3y ago
Ownership is not a natural human right, that's not how human rights work. (I too can make bald, sweeping statements without any justification or thought to reality, based purely on my gut feeling and predisposed ideology).

Nothing that requires the labor of others is a human right. That's not how rights work.

by vlucas 3y ago

Nothing that requires the labor of others is a human right. That's not how rights work.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25: > Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

voidpointercast 3y ago
So enforce it.
churchill 3y ago
I think the comment above yours is referring to 'natural' rights which are generally negative (i.e., no one can take them away from you). If anything can become a right simply via declaration or popular vote, can 60% of a country's population vote themselves the right to the property of the 40%? By that logic, the Nazis had a right to exterminate the Jews because the Nazis were democratically elected. I understand wanting to protect Hawaii's heritage, etc. but landowners should be free to sell the property to whosoever they deem fit, at whatever price.
gottorf 3y ago
Just because it's written on a document titled "Human Rights" doesn't make it so. The UN UDHR is really just a wish list of things that would be nice to have in any country. It is emphatically not a well thought-out legal document that would form the basis of a a country's laws. Read about the recent Chilean constitution reform for what happens when people try to write a constitution based on things that would be nice to have, without seriously considering all of the nth-degree complexities that would result if those nice things were to actually be put into reality with the might of the state.

slantedview 3y ago

It's hard to say that surplus wealth generated by the labor of others should be directed towards investor/owner profits, but not towards housing for workers. The difference between these two outcomes is a policy decision.

gottorf 3y ago
If we're talking about housing for workers specifically, Hawaii ranks near dead-last on land-use freedom[0] among the fifty states; meaning that the state as a whole is like the San Francisco Bay Area, being very difficult to build housing to match demand[1]. This, too, is a policy decision, and fixing this one is both easier and would result in a more sustainable long-term wealth growth, compared to the state forcing the direction of the "surplus wealth" of economic endeavors. [0]: https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/onesheet/HI%20profile.pdf https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/onesheet/... [1]: https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2022/04/uhero-hawaiis-housing-regulations-among-toughest/ https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2022/04/uhero-hawai...

skybrian 3y ago

Legal rights can be created by passing laws. It’s possible to pass a law giving people a right to payment by the government (for example, a pension). Such payments can be used to buy goods and services that take labor as an input.

cheald 3y ago
That's more correctly called an "entitlement" rather than a "right", IMO.
- skybrian 3y ago
  It looks like an entitlement is one kind of legal right. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

gottorf 3y ago

It's important to distinguish negative rights (the state cannot do X to you) from positive rights (the state is required to have X happen for you). There is a school of thought that says the latter is not really valid, since it may (or eventually will) be that some negative rights be violated to make it happen.

churchill 3y ago
Yes, I was reading Bastiat (The Law) a while ago and he made a point that struck me: the state can't enforce positive (philanthropic) rights (i.e., you are entitled to this and that) without violating a natural right. For the state to enforce a citizen's philanthropic right to some stuff, the have to dispossess someone else of it - after all, the state can't produce anything, it can only expropriate what's been produced.
- reverius42 3y ago
  Do taxes violate a natural right?
  - churchill 3y ago
    As a libertarian, I'd say yes, but I don't want to start a shitstorm, so...
    - gottorf 3y ago
      Even a libertarian would agree that some small level of taxation is necessary to fund the apparatus of the state that would enforce property rights and contracts, safeguard the border from invasion, and whatnot. One can only dream of a time and place where government is only funded by a strict land-value tax, though...
      - churchill 3y ago
        Lol - if you study libertarianism deeply, you'll find out most of these edge cases you think a centralized government is needed can be provided by a free market. In the Private Production of Defense, Hoppe argues that property owners and businesses can buy covergae from insurance agencies who will then have a vested interest in keeping their houses and communities crime-free. Likewise, in a contract republic (or a charter city) individuals will agree to a neutral third party to arbitrate between them if they ever have a disagreement. This can be anyone from a spiritual authority they both respect, an authority in their industry, or a private court that's built a reputation for fairness, promising to pay the private court a percentage of any arbitration settlement they bring before it. And if the court as much as makes one unfair ruling, it will drive away new business from parties who want a neutral third party. In a contract republic, individuals will be free to have their case judged by any judge, as long as both parties agree beforehand. Opening the justice market will make sure crime gets punished, expedite justice, and reduce its cost.

cam_l 3y ago

Ownership is not a natural human right, that's not how human rights work. (I too can make bald, sweeping statements without any justification or thought to reality, based purely on my gut feeling and predisposed ideology).