4 ms·
> You don't have the right to remote work. What I have a "right" to is ultimately a matter of personal judgment. Isn't it?
by bill_joy_fanboy 2y ago
> You don't have the right to remote work.
What I have a "right" to is ultimately a matter of personal judgment. Isn't it?
- airstrike 2y agoI'm all for WFH but a right implies someone else has an obligation
- 8200_unit 2y agoI disagree. How does someone else have an obligation to my freedom of speech?
- ricardobeat 2y agoThere is nothing to disagree here, it’s the philosophical definition of a right. It only exists if there is an obligation on the other side, in this case, to allow you to speak freely and without interference (applies both to individuals and the state).
- bulatb 2y agoOnly for positive rights, and not always for those either.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoNo. You have an obligation not to violate my negative rights, too, e.g. we prohibit murder but don’t guarantee a right to life at any cost.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bulatb 2y agoMy battery ran out before I could delete. I had another sentence there at first about "unless you call respecting rights an obligation," but I took it out because I didn't want to make a mess. To me an obligation in this context means the thing which is created by a positive right. (IME when someone uses "obligation" for negative rights, it's often for a bad-faith argument relying on the vagueness of "rights" to score a rhetorical point.) The analogous but different thing that some would say arises from a negative right, to me, is properly described another way. My right to life[0] can still exist without you being obligated not to murder me. It means that I am always justified in self-defense, so if you try to kill me, I'm allowed to kill you back. Except not always. But basically always. Except for the exceptions we can frame a million different ways. In practice, neither of our rights to life are absolute...and so on, down the rabbit hole. [0] But wait: My natural right? My legal right? In terms of enforcement? Or in some vague sense that I "have" a right and those are words I get to say, and, uh, if you don't like it then I'll say them again? In practice, no one cares. People just say "rights" to mean "I'm right." Talking about rights is fraught and frustrating and mostly pointless, and my comment wasn't worth writing, but there's nothing I can do about it now.
- itishappy 2y agoJudgement? Sure. Personal? I sure hope not. I can declare myself the rightful recipient of all cash, but so what? Rights need some buy-in from society.
- krunck 2y agoWhat kind of "right" are we talking about here? Constitutional? Natural?
- Brian_K_White 2y agoNot remotely. Wow. You have a right to seek whatever you want, but seek only.