|
Post by rmarks1 on May 4, 2019 21:56:43 GMT -5
This issue came up in page 3 of the "Savages" thread:
McAnswer - Everyone has a human right not to starve, drown, or die of exposure.
Bob - Who gave those "rights?" God? If not God, then what is the basis for those "rights?" Why does the fact that other people have "needs" impose an obligation on everyone else to supply those needs?
McAnswer - Because it is a simple fact that no human being can survive on their own, at any point in their life.
Bob - Sorry but I don't see the connection here.
From the fact that human beings cannot survive on their own, it does not follow that there is any obligation on the part of some people to take care of others just because they have a "need."
So where does this "Right" to have our needs met come from?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 10:23:28 GMT -5
First, we have to answer the question whether human rights exist or not.
If you don't believe they exist in the first place, then the question is moot.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 5, 2019 11:04:56 GMT -5
First, we have to answer the question whether human rights exist or not. If you don't believe they exist in the first place, then the question is moot.
Of course Human Rights exist.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 11:59:36 GMT -5
And where do you believe they came from, if not from a god?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 5, 2019 15:13:41 GMT -5
And where do you believe they came from, if not from a god?
Human rights do not come from a God or any other supernatural source.
Nor do human rights come from a government. What a government gives it can just as easily take away.
Human Rights are based on human nature (which is objectively observable).
Since humans are social animals, it is necessary that the desires of one human do not interfere with the rights of others. Therefore human rights are Negative. Other people are prevented from interfering from your rights just as you are prevented from interfering with their rights.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 14:54:06 GMT -5
If humans are by their nature social animals, then living in a society that supports other human beings is intrinsic to human nature, is it not?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 6, 2019 17:16:25 GMT -5
If humans are by their nature social animals, then living in a society that supports other human beings is intrinsic to human nature, is it not?
Yes, of course.
The question now becomes: What do you mean by "support?"
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 11:57:30 GMT -5
Not letting people starve or die seems a good start to me. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 7, 2019 14:27:01 GMT -5
Not letting people starve or die seems a good start to me. What do you think?
And how exactly do you propose to do that?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 16:51:36 GMT -5
If we can stop people from interfering with other people's rights, we can make people support others so they do not starve or die.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 7, 2019 18:13:44 GMT -5
If we can stop people from interfering with other people's rights, we can make people support others so they do not starve or die.
What rights are those?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 22:28:21 GMT -5
It was a reference to your own post: And where do you believe they came from, if not from a god? Human rights do not come from a God or any other supernatural source. Nor do human rights come from a government. What a government gives it can just as easily take away.
Human Rights are based on human nature (which is objectively observable).
Since humans are social animals, it is necessary that the desires of one human do not interfere with the rights of others. Therefore human rights are Negative. Other people are prevented from interfering from your rights just as you are prevented from interfering with their rights. Bob
If you don't know what rights you meant, then how would I?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 8, 2019 15:25:45 GMT -5
It was a reference to your own post: Human rights do not come from a God or any other supernatural source. Nor do human rights come from a government. What a government gives it can just as easily take away.
Human Rights are based on human nature (which is objectively observable).
Since humans are social animals, it is necessary that the desires of one human do not interfere with the rights of others. Therefore human rights are Negative. Other people are prevented from interfering from your rights just as you are prevented from interfering with their rights. Bob
If you don't know what rights you meant, then how would I?
I already told you. True Rights are Negative Rights e.g. Freedom of Speech, Religion, Press, Freedom from unreasonable search or seizure, the Right to Peaceably Assemble.
That list is a good start.
The main thing about these rights is that they keep the government from acting to restrict you.
What's your list of rights?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 21:28:01 GMT -5
You maintain that freedom of speech protects you from other people trying to shout you down as well, do you not? That would be a positive right, since it implies that you would be entitled to protection from other people's interference.
I also note that your list doesn't include property rights. Does that mean you don't believe that they derive from human nature?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 8, 2019 22:36:13 GMT -5
You maintain that freedom of speech protects you from other people trying to shout you down as well, do you not? That would be a positive right, since it implies that you would be entitled to protection from other people's interference. Not under all circumstances. If you were giving a speech to an invited audience on private property, then no one has a "right" to interrupt you or shout you down. By contrast, if you were giving a spontaneous speech in a public park, there is no way legal way to stop a heckler. Nor should there be. The list does include property rights. I mentioned "unreasonable search or seizure." Private property cannot simply be seized. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2019 13:52:08 GMT -5
Two points regarding this argument:
1. If these enumerated rights are purely negative, then you are not entitled to government protection to uphold those rights against attacks by private individuals.
2. You seem to argue that only a limited, enumerable list of rights truly exist, and that all other rights are fake or nonexistant. Is that true? On what evidence do you base this argument?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 9, 2019 18:28:37 GMT -5
Two points regarding this argument: 1. If these enumerated rights are purely negative, then you are not entitled to government protection to uphold those rights against attacks by private individuals. "Negative Rights" means no one may take action to stop you. But Negative Rights can still be violated. How may these rights be protected? That's where government comes in. Government has has the purpose of protecting people against interference with rights. For example, if someone tries to steals your property, the government is stops them. I may have missed other rights, but the rights I did miss would all have to be Negative. A Negative Right means that others are obligated to NOT take certain specific actions. For example, the right to property means that others are prohibited from stealing from you. A Positive "Right" by contrast means that someone else has to do something to fulfill someone else's Positive "Right." Example: If someone has a right to a home and they can't afford one, someone else is obligated to provide it. That provider is now no better than a slave. They are being forced to take some of their own wealth and give it to someone else. It's the same for all Positive "Rights." Someone else has to provide the money for them whether they want to or not. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2019 13:04:36 GMT -5
Having your life protected via military or security forces is a positive right, then. The fact that the government has to maintain a police force to protect your life and your property enslaves everyone for your benefit.
In fact, from your argument we can conclude that any sort of service provided by the government is slavery.
Libertarianism, by not rejecting government in principle, is furthering the enslavement of the human race.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 10, 2019 20:28:32 GMT -5
Having your life protected via military or security forces is a positive right, then. The fact that the government has to maintain a police force to protect your life and your property enslaves everyone for your benefit. Nice try. The RIGHT we are looking at here is the RIGHT to have our lives and property kept safe from thieves. The government security forces are only a method used to protect that right. A method is not a right. Government security forces are also limited in what they may do. In a proper society, they may only use force to retaliate against the initiation of force by others. Again, nice try. Any sort of service where the government robs Peter to pay Paul does further the enslavement of the human race. But government does have one main purpose: to keep people safe from the initiation of violence and fraud. Once that is taken care of, all the Negative Freedoms are safely in place. When the government starts to enforce Positive "Rights" and steals the money to redistribute, then those who produce that money are further enslaved. If you want to minimize slavery, then you have to minimize what the government can do. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 8:39:51 GMT -5
Having your life protected via military or security forces is a positive right, then. The fact that the government has to maintain a police force to protect your life and your property enslaves everyone for your benefit. Nice try. The RIGHT we are looking at here is the RIGHT to have our lives and property kept safe from thieves. So what you are saying is that nobody is obligated to keep you safe, correct? Your "right" to be kept safe is simply an expression of your desire to feel safe from thieves and murderers, with no further call to action?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 11, 2019 14:31:51 GMT -5
Nice try. The RIGHT we are looking at here is the RIGHT to have our lives and property kept safe from thieves. So what you are saying is that nobody is obligated to keep you safe, correct? Your "right" to be kept safe is simply an expression of your desire to feel safe from thieves and murderers, with no further call to action?
Yes. That's correct.
Nobody is obligated to keep me or anyone else safe...until they join the police force or the armed forces. Then they agree to take on the obligation of keeping people safe in return for their salary and other benefits.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 15:41:57 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that nobody is obligated to keep you safe, correct? Your "right" to be kept safe is simply an expression of your desire to feel safe from thieves and murderers, with no further call to action? Yes. That's correct.
Nobody is obligated to keep me or anyone else safe...until they join the police force or the armed forces. And the police and the armed forces aren't obligated to keep you safe, either. If they were, then your safety would be a positive right, and you have just successfully argued that it's not.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 11, 2019 19:27:31 GMT -5
Yes. That's correct. [Nobody is obligated to keep me or anyone else safe...until they join the police force or the armed forces. And the police and the armed forces aren't obligated to keep you safe, either. They are obligated as soon as they accepted the job. Nope. Personal safety is a Negative Right. Other people are obligated to refrain from initiating violence. The police are also obligated to leave people alone as long as these people are not violent. In a Free Society, the police can only take action against people who initiate violence. The police cannot legally initiate violence on their own. Once again, the Rights are Negative. The police cannot be the first to act. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 10:33:25 GMT -5
Nope. Personal safety is a Negative Right. Exactly! And negative rights do not imply an obligation towards action. Therefore, nobody is obligated to protect you.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 12, 2019 14:58:13 GMT -5
Nope. Personal safety is a Negative Right. Exactly! And negative rights do not imply an obligation towards action. Therefore, nobody is obligated to protect you.
Correct! But fortunately, there are plenty of people willing to voluntarily take on that obligation in return for a steady paycheck and pension.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 23:22:24 GMT -5
Exactly! And negative rights do not imply an obligation towards action. Therefore, nobody is obligated to protect you. Correct! But fortunately, there are plenty of people willing to voluntarily take on that obligation in return for a steady paycheck and pension. Bob
Actually, the money that goes into their paychecks was forcibly appropriated by your government. And they are still obligated to protect you no matter what.
So what you are currently enjoying is a positive right to safety rather than a negative one. Your sophistry does not change that fact.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 13, 2019 10:38:38 GMT -5
Correct! But fortunately, there are plenty of people willing to voluntarily take on that obligation in return for a steady paycheck and pension. Bob Actually, the money that goes into their paychecks was forcibly appropriated by your government. Right. That's the one concession that has to be made. It's either that or Anarchism. Unless, of course, you can think of another alternative. Can you? Well duh, yes. They voluntarily agreed to do that when they took the job. Non Sequitur. There is no "Positive Right" to safety. There is only the Negative Right that others don't take your property or your life. Having a police force and law courts is merely protection of your Negative Right. Non Sequitur again. You haven't demonstrated that there is any sophistry on my part. You only claimed it with your Argument by Declaration. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2019 11:54:18 GMT -5
Actually, the money that goes into their paychecks was forcibly appropriated by your government. Right. That's the one concession that has to be made. Yea, I mean why wouldn't you condone robbery and theft if you're the one to benefit from it
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 16, 2019 14:29:40 GMT -5
Right. That's the one concession that has to be made. Yea, I mean why wouldn't you condone robbery and theft if you're the one to benefit from it
Only in this one case. We have to tolerate taxation in order to support government law enforcement because the only alternative is no government at all.
In other words, Anarchism. Anarchy doesn't work.
And BTW, we all benefit from having government law enforcement as long as that enforcement is limited by laws respecting human rights.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 9:54:15 GMT -5
Yea, I mean why wouldn't you condone robbery and theft if you're the one to benefit from it Only in this one case.
Yes, that's what I said. You condone theft and robbery in cases that benefit you, personally, in correct adherence to the Randian principle of Rational Egoism.
"Human rights" here defined as "rights that benefit me, personally", as you already demonstrated above.
|
|