Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Perceived Rights that Impose a Duty

Chang29
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 4:45:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Many people will state a problem with a solution as a basic human right. Issues like healthcare, education, hunger, or housing all have been framed as a basic human right yet, these issues will impose a duty on another person. If these duties to provide for perceived human right cannot be accomplished through voluntary exchange, how does an individual, not government, influence another person to provide for a perceived human right?

Example, a doctor/ teacher/ farmer/ landlord that refuse to provide a service for free.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 1:18:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2015 4:45:07 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Many people will state a problem with a solution as a basic human right. Issues like healthcare, education, hunger, or housing all have been framed as a basic human right yet, these issues will impose a duty on another person. If these duties to provide for perceived human right cannot be accomplished through voluntary exchange, how does an individual, not government, influence another person to provide for a perceived human right?

Example, a doctor/ teacher/ farmer/ landlord that refuse to provide a service for free.

I see this as essentially ripping a word out of the context which gives it meaning and hoping that people won't call you out on your fallacy of equivocation when that word is used in a new way. In essence, the people who do this hope to maintain the prestige of the word despite their use of it having nothing to do with the original definition from which the original prestige was born. The common defense is that 'oh, a right can be positive or negative'. Well, thanks to the rampant misuse of the word it can be, but the two words refer to two incompatible systems and shouldn't at all be conflated. Instead, it should be recognised that everything which is good in the latter is destroyed when the former is put fully into practice, and that the pertinent questions are 'should we sacrifice the original definition of rights for this new one, to what extent should we do this, and on what basis?' Any other framing comes off as intellectually dishonest to me.
"The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That questions the distempered part;
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The sharp compassion of the healer's art"
- T. S. Eliot -
Chang29
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 4:50:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2015 1:18:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/3/2015 4:45:07 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Many people will state a problem with a solution as a basic human right. Issues like healthcare, education, hunger, or housing all have been framed as a basic human right yet, these issues will impose a duty on another person. If these duties to provide for perceived human right cannot be accomplished through voluntary exchange, how does an individual, not government, influence another person to provide for a perceived human right?

Example, a doctor/ teacher/ farmer/ landlord that refuse to provide a service for free.

I see this as essentially ripping a word out of the context which gives it meaning and hoping that people won't call you out on your fallacy of equivocation when that word is used in a new way. In essence, the people who do this hope to maintain the prestige of the word despite their use of it having nothing to do with the original definition from which the original prestige was born. The common defense is that 'oh, a right can be positive or negative'. Well, thanks to the rampant misuse of the word it can be, but the two words refer to two incompatible systems and shouldn't at all be conflated. Instead, it should be recognised that everything which is good in the latter is destroyed when the former is put fully into practice, and that the pertinent questions are 'should we sacrifice the original definition of rights for this new one, to what extent should we do this, and on what basis?' Any other framing comes off as intellectually dishonest to me.

Very intellectually dishonest yet, extremely common. In political debates, rights are never talked about in positive and negative terms. A person will say that "We have a right to X" without regard for the person providing that service.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.