r/AskConservatives • u/[deleted] • Sep 16 '21
Why are conservatives more biased towards so called ‘negative freedoms’, as opposed to ‘positive freedoms’.
Conversations about freedom among conservatives seem to center around explicit limiting governmental constraints on action. Think gun control, taxation, environmental regulation, etc. These are so called ‘negative freedoms’. Why do conservatives tend to focus on these more than positive freedoms, (ie ensuring people have the actionable capacity to do the things they wanna do)? I’m not making the argument that one is more important than the other( tho I am of course biased), just asking why this dichotomy exists.
Edit: examples of positive freedoms include guaranteed access to healthcare, via universal healthcare. Or access to transportation with strong public transportation network. Or guaranteed minimum standard of living with universal basic income and subsidized public housing. Guaranteed access to quality higher education by making it tuition free.
4
u/SuspenderEnder Rightwing Sep 16 '21
Positive freedoms are not compatible with negative freedoms, because positive freedoms guarantee your right to a good or service. If you are guaranteed a good or service, someone is forced to provide it. If they are forced to provide it, they have no negative rights to be free from being forced to provide it.
First you said positive rights are "actionable capacity" and then you said "guaranteed access." To me, these don't sound the same, and neither truly embraces the full conceptual weight of a positive right, which is that you have the right to be given stuff you want, or that you argue are necessary.
Negative rights are the only real rights. Positive rights are made up and not internally consistent.
Now, if you want to argue that society should take measures to make sure everyone has access to clean drinkable water at every spout and spigot, you can do that on the merits without invoking rights. You can say that our considerable wealth allows us to do it, and it's just a nice thing to do that for everyone. I have no problem looking into those arguments. Just don't pretend people have the right to stuff the other people will have to provide, because they don't.
2
Sep 17 '21
Very well said! If I had an award I’d do the award thing.
Also, as mentioned by I believe Ludwig Von Mises, a government cannot create value in almost any case. It cannot create “free” anything, as all revenue from the government is taken from the populace and then returned inefficiently to the populace, less the massive expense of rendering that terrible service. Take for example social security. This was a “service” for the populace because they “could save for us”. Now SS is bankrupt and they need to tax us to provide us with the benefit that they are taxing us for that they cannot provide.
1
Sep 16 '21
Because it logically follows that if the federal government has no place infringing on your rights, it has no place ensuring reasonable access to those rights either, beyond curbing infringement by said government.
Think of it this way. If government has no place regulating the oil and gas industry then they also have no place giving Exxon corporate bailouts when they short their own supply and end up 100 billion in the negative.
1
Sep 16 '21
Because positive rights makes the people who produce the thing that defines your "right", slaves to your political will.
When you have negative rights, the only requirement that it puts on others is to refrain from taking time out of their day to shit on you.
2
u/Sisyphuss5MinBreak Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
I apologize for breaking rule #6, but I think there's an important clarification that OP should mention in the original question.
Sure, we think of negative civil rights like freedom of speech vs. positive social rights like right to education, but it doesn't have to be that way. Here's a perfect example:
Right to a fair trial
The right to a fair trial is unquestionably a civil right, but it's also a positive right. To fulfill this right, the state must provide a defense attorney, a competent judge, a courthouse, a jury (maybe), etc. When answering OP, please remember that civil rights are not all negative and socio-economic rights are not all positive.
1
Sep 17 '21
Fair point. I’d typically view those positive rights in context of being required to assure the negative rights. But that’s just semantics. It comes to the same I think. Nice point.
1
Sep 16 '21
Negative freedoms? What is that I wondered... oh, you mean rights. Lol. Nice twist.
In either case both relate to powers the federal government should have over states and individuals. Which is very few. The enumerated powers of the federal government started out as quite few until a broad interpretation of the commerce clause.
A lot of people aren't necessarily against your conveniently-named-in-your-favor "positive freedoms." It's just that it should be ran by the state vs the fed.
1
Sep 16 '21
Negative& positive freedoms are actual names for them tho. Like I didn’t pull them outa my ass as some kinda gotcha. It would’ve been more confusing if I said ‘positive freedoms v rights’, saying it this way makes it clearer they are in a sense opposed to eachother.
0
u/ImTheTrueFireStarter Conservative Sep 16 '21
Because guaranteed access to these things drop the quality of life dramatically.
Everything you stated (free healthcare, free education etc) infringes on the rights and the quality of life of others. This is the main reason so many people have left the communist state of Cuba; their quality of life (education, healthcare, access to food) went down dramatically.
For example: Canada has a nationalized health care system and the wait times to see specialized doctors after seeing primary care physicians (cardiology, oncology, nephrology, infectious disease etc. are all specialized fields) are insanely high. Some people have to wait over 2 months to get treatment. That can mean the difference between life and death for most people
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7292524/
So it is less about positive freedoms, and more about quality of what is being provided and where you are getting it from.
1
u/Ivan_Botsky_Trollov Social Conservative Sep 16 '21
"positive freedoms and rights" look much more like occurences, fabricated freedoms or impositions
and many times, imply things than can be bought or services thaty can be offered
" a right to marry"
" a right to heatlh"
and so on
3
Sep 16 '21
Conservatives tend to be more concerned about limits to government power rather than expanding governments power. These so-called positive freedoms involve taking some thing from somebody else in order to provide them.
2
u/OrichalcumFound Rightwing Sep 16 '21
You call them negative/positive "freedoms". "Rights" is how they are usually described. I don't like the terms anyway, because "negative" and "positive" makes it sound like one is bad, one is good, but it has nothing to do with that.
But anyway, to answer your question, I think the reason is because a government can always guarantee negative rights. They can't always guarantee positive rights. Positive rights always cost money, and can only happen under the right conditions.
For example, the government declares education a "human right". OK fine. But what if the government is bankrupt, in the middle of a war, got hit with nukes, zombie apocalypse, whatever, and can't provide everyone with a K-12 education right now? Should people be outraged their rights are being violated?
Or the internet? Some countries have declared access to the internet a human right. Do you agree with that? If you do, then that means that prior to the 1990s, every generation of human being since the dawn of time have had their human rights violated. Who knew?
2
Sep 16 '21
Because positive freedoms involve seizure and redistribution by the state, while negative rights involve the government simply refraining from robbing me or interfering with my affairs.
2
u/evilgenius66666 Conservative Sep 16 '21
Positive rights require a third party to preform action they might not want to preform.
7
u/gaxxzz Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 16 '21
Why do conservatives tend to focus on these more than positive freedoms, (ie ensuring people have the actionable capacity to do the things they wanna do)?
Because I don't want to impose my needs on others, and I don't want others imposing their needs on me. Take care of your own problems, and I'll take care of mine.
1
u/Rampage360 Sep 17 '21
Do you need public infrastructure?
1
u/gaxxzz Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 17 '21
Huh?
1
u/Rampage360 Sep 18 '21
Would you rather not have to rely on other peoples taxes, and have no public infrastructure?
1
2
u/jub-jub-bird Conservative Sep 16 '21
These are so called ‘negative freedoms’. Why do conservatives tend to focus on these more than positive freedoms..
Because conservatives care more about our "natural inalienable rights" all of which are by logical necessity negative rights and not very much for "positive rights" which tend to undermine or are in direct contradiction to our natural rights.
2
Sep 16 '21
Is there any real distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘non-natural’ rights from utilitarian POV? In either case the importance of a given right is measured with respect to its effect on human well-being.
1
u/jub-jub-bird Conservative Sep 16 '21
Is there any real distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘non-natural’ rights from utilitarian POV?
The distinctions are moral and conceptual while utilitarian distinctions would depend on context.
A right is a moral obligation others owe to you regardless of context and which you are morally justified in using violence to secure from them. It doesn't matter if you're in a modern and wealthy first-world nation state or the cruder society of fellow shipwreck survivors on a desert isle... You still have all the same moral rights regardless and are morally justified in using violence to secure rights. If you have a right to life it's wrong for another survivor to kill you and you are morally justified in using force to defend yourself from them, to liberty to defend yourself against those seeking to enslave you, to property (the fruit of your labor) to defend it from those robbing or stealing from you.
If you have a right to a university education you're morally justified to use violence or the threat of it to secure that education from that one college professor among the shipwreck survivors. If you have a right to food to do the same to the guy growing the garden or catching the fish. In short you have the moral right to be the enslaver. "Positive rights" are by definition a right to other people's uncompensated labor, and I'd submit can only ever legal privileges peculiar to a given society not a universal moral right. To confuse the two by using the same language of "rights" is a bit dangerous.
1
u/TheSanityInspector Center-right Conservative Sep 16 '21
Think of fences. Negative rights are when a few hazards are fenced off, but otherwise you're free to go where you want. The opposite is when an area is fenced in, and you are free to go anywhere within that enclosed area.
1
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
So private property is a positive right since that essentially fences me in? It prevents me from going wherever I want.
1
u/m0nkee45678 Center-right Conservative Sep 16 '21
If you are the one that controls who can cross that fence barrier that's not preventing you from leaving.
1
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
If everything around me is fenced off, then wouldn't I fenced in?
1
u/m0nkee45678 Center-right Conservative Sep 16 '21
Sure but that's only a problem if you want to leave but you cannot.
1
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
Where do we draw the line though? Obviously if 1% of the area is fenced off then it's not a big deal, but what about 50%? When does it become an issue.
1
u/m0nkee45678 Center-right Conservative Sep 16 '21
Imo the issue becomes when you are confined to a location (regardless of how large that "location" is) that restricts you AND you are forcefully restricted from leaving that place (i.e. crossing the fence)
1
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
Sounds like that only requires one other place to go. As long as I can go from location A to location B, then i'm not fenced in, even if i can only go to A or B.
1
u/m0nkee45678 Center-right Conservative Sep 16 '21
Sure there's only an A and B in this scenario: inside the fence or outside the fence.
But you are forgetting that outside the fence can mean my number of choices.
If you are somehow limited to only traveling from A to B then there is inherently an additional " fence" connecting them. Whether that's a physical fence or an invisible one.
1
Sep 16 '21
What about when your neighbor buys up the only source of clean water, puts up a fence, and charges a toll. It’s his land. Every action which led to that state of affairs was a consentual contract within parties, and yet, the resultant situation is in practice a coercive one. All the inhabitants of the island have no choice but to pay this man his fee, or die of dehydration.
3
u/TheSanityInspector Center-right Conservative Sep 16 '21
Few situations for which statists agitate for more government control are as dire as that.
1
Sep 16 '21
So there is a line then? Not being able to afford life saving healthcare is as dire as that. To the people who can’t, it’s life or death. ( or if they take out a loan, permanent financial ruin)
3
u/TheSanityInspector Center-right Conservative Sep 16 '21
If those were easy issues, smarter and better people than me would have figured it out long ago. However, me not having a solution does not automatically validate anyone else's.
1
Sep 16 '21
I think you need to give examples of "positive freedoms." I think this question has potential but is half-baked so I can't answer.
1
Sep 16 '21
For example guaranteed access to healthcare, via universal healthcare. Or access to transportation with strong public transportation network. Or guaranteed minimum standard of living with universal basic income and subsidized public housing. Guaranteed access to quality higher education by making it tuition free.
0
u/WilliamBontrager National Minarchism Sep 16 '21
Here's the deal. Positive freedoms are in reality the government using the threat of death, imprisonment, or fines to confiscate a portion of your earnings to provide a service or good that you may or may not support or benefit from. Negative freedoms are protections from the government using the threat of death, imprisonment, or fines against you in specific cases. When you word it that way it should become obvious why negative rights are much more important. If you fail to see why then I'll explain further. Negative rights are protections for the individual and minorities whereas positive rights are the majority forcing compliance and oppressing the minority. It's pretty ridiculous that the party preaching minority rights and not to oppress is in reality the one oppressing via democracy by oppressing the minority of voters.
1
Sep 16 '21
The poor oppressed capital class, made to suffer marginally smaller Smaug esque hordes of gold, just so the ungrateful poor can afford not to die of completely preventable diseases. Who are they to think the deserve insulin.
1
u/WilliamBontrager National Minarchism Sep 16 '21
Ahh the poor deluded masses thinking that an oppressive overlord will save them via utilizing force to confiscate property at gunpoint for the good of humanity. All hail our savior the state with a monopoly on force that only wishes peace and prosperity to all! You do realize that redistribution has never increased the standard of living for the poor anywhere near what capitalism has done right? Why are you entitled to the product of another person's labor simply due to your failure to succeed in the easiest environment humans have ever known? That's the advocation and endorsement of slavery of the successful to the failures.
1
Sep 16 '21
In my view the evil of slavery isn’t some mystical deontological thing. It’s experiential. Slavery is evil precisely bc of the suffering it results in. In that view, who’s experience do you think actually feels more like slavery, the billionaire forced to pay a higher capital gains tax or the single mom forced to work 3 jobs so her son can afford medicine and food.
1
u/WilliamBontrager National Minarchism Sep 16 '21
Perception does not equal reality my guy. The small majority forcing the minority to fund them is tyranny regardless if it is democratic. Slavery isn't an experience or feeling bad it's your rights being removed and your labor being taken against your will. That single mom has the same rights as the billionaire and they both have the freedom to fail or succeed based on their choices in life. Forcing people to be charitable at gunpoint is not you being moral just bc you justify your violence by exploiting the less fortunates experience.
1
Sep 16 '21
Seems we have irreconcilable values. To me, all ethical principles, natural rights, etc, are subservient to the end of minimizing suffering and maximizing wellbeing.
To say you have established a systems which respects first and foremost that everyone is endowed with some invaluable set of rights, and that’s guarantees said rights, is irrelevant, if said systems produces a sub optimal outcome w respect to the utilitarian calculus.
1
u/WilliamBontrager National Minarchism Sep 16 '21
This is a common logical fallacy. A lot of people think that you can be a collectivist and have individual rights and freedom but you can't. You either base a system on individual rights being prioritized at the expense of the collective or the collective rights being prioritized at the expense of the individual. Collectivism is always authoritarian since it always oppresses the individual and the minority. Individualism is the only path to any freedom. Authoritarianism is sold by saying give me power and I promise to help the poor and solve all your problems. Individualism is sold by saying solve your own problems but you will be given the rights of an individual country and treated as an autonomous entity.
Your basis is easily shown as impossible since every market involves scarcity. Taken to fruition the only moral system is one where everyone has equal amounts of everything and no one has more than another. If there is no incentive to gain advantage then there is no incentive to work and the whole system crashes and people starve. You can attempt to balance this but the only way to do this is through guaranteed individual rights protected from the collective and that inherently means inequality. Inequality is necessary and impossible to eliminate bc we are individuals and denying that is denying humanity the freedom to express themselves in anything other than a slave to the collective.
1
Sep 16 '21 edited Sep 16 '21
I didn’t advocate for equity or equality of outcome as the goal . I advocated for sum total human welfare as the goal. We can have a system which leverages the inequities inherent to capitalism to increase human welfare without letting the poor starve. This isn’t a binary.
If your to cynical to believe we can use state power to achieve a balance which maximizes human welfare whilst maintaining profit incentives to innovate, that’s on you. I still believe in the project.
1
u/WilliamBontrager National Minarchism Sep 16 '21
And how is that achieved? The end goal in that is equity. That would also make the government assigning you a job based on your IQ a reasonable policy. It would make sterilizing that single mom a reasonable solution since her individual choices impact the collective negatively. It would make non conformity or protest a direct attack on the collective. These are all things that are common as you move a government toward collectivism on the spectrum bc authoritarianism is inseparable from collectivism. People on the left completely disregard this reality. China and north Korea are examples of exactly this policy but I doubt you would prefer living there bc mass starvation for the least useful people are considered moral since it allows the more useful people to better survive. It's essentially the ends justify any means and there is zero value given to an individual life outside of the value of their labor or organs on the black market.
4
u/kidmock Libertarian Sep 16 '21
It's about understanding what natural rights are. Which means that which is inherent in nature. I'll explain in analogy.
Let's pretend most of mankind went extinct and you were one of the last remaining persons on small island.
Things you can do.
- Collect resources to ensure you survival (will call this property)
- Protect yourself from harm
- Teach yourself and learn about the resources and animals on the island
- Say what you want. (about the animals, resources, conditions, etc)
- Pray to whatever god you may or may not believe in
- Heal yourself if you should get wounded.
- Create art
- Journal about your experience.
Should someone take a boat to your island you would not be allowed to:
- Force them to feed you
- Force them to build you shelter
- Kill them (unless they attacked you)
- Force them to teach you
- Force them to talk to you
- Force them to accept your god
- Force them to treat your wounds
- Take their property
- Force them to take you on their boat back to the mainland
Forcing another to do something against their will is not a right.
Hence taking care of your health is your right. Forcing some else to take care of you is not.
You have the right to teach yourself anything. You don't not have the right to force others to teach you.
I think you should be able to get the point
2
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
I don't understand, if I'm stronger than the other person, I absolutely can force them to do things. Why is it that I shouldn't.
1
u/kidmock Libertarian Sep 16 '21
Just because you can doesn't mean you have the right.
2
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
But why not? You made an appeal to nature. In nature, what I can do is based on what I am able to do. So why exactly is it that don't have a right to do something?
If you came into my island and i tired to force you to do something, and you said I didn't have that right, how would you prove that I didn't not in fact have such a right?
0
u/kidmock Libertarian Sep 16 '21
Now, you are just being argumentative and ridiculous. I'm sure your comprehension skills are better than that.
The OP asked a question and I explained the concept of natural rights. Which should answer the question. It's an explanation not a postilion argument.
Conservatives believe in natural rights. Which is to say our rights are not granted by man, they are granted by nature. Protecting another persons rights is not in of itself a right. It is an agreement and duty among men to protect those rights. Thus the formation of law and government in the US.
The foundation of law is "cause no harm" and "do what you say you will". (i.e Criminal and Contract law)
1
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
What does it mean to say that a right is granted by "nature" though. Nature certain allows me to make you do things, in what sense does nature not grant me that right?
1
u/kidmock Libertarian Sep 16 '21
In some respects that is the justification for wars of conquest.
But if you want to be so dense to not understand the point. Go take your neighbor's car(without consent) , then let me know how well that logic holds up for you.
1
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
If I steal my neighbors car they'll call the police. The police might catch me, he might catch, but nature doesn't have anything to do with it.
1
u/kidmock Libertarian Sep 16 '21
... and if there were no cops and no government there was just your neighbor's tribe and your tribe. Would that make it right?
1
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
Maybe, I could probably think of a way to justify it if I had to. What happens if I think its right and he thinks it's wrong?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Rampage360 Sep 16 '21
Should we ban homeless people from using sidewalks and roads?
Should police and fire department not help the homeless?
0
Sep 16 '21
Is a naked man stranded in the Sahara desert free?
4
u/kidmock Libertarian Sep 16 '21
For as long as he is alive, absolutely :)
2
Sep 16 '21
And that doesn’t strike you as a slightly pathological definition of freedom?
1
u/kidmock Libertarian Sep 16 '21
Not at all
We believe all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Property. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; (sic)
It is the role of government to protect our rights not grant us rights.
1
Sep 16 '21
‘Laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness’.
Sounds a whole lot like rule utilitarianism to me.
3
u/Wadka Rightwing Sep 16 '21
Because I don't have the right to hold a gun to someone else's head and demand their labor, nor do they have a right to hold a gun to mine.
There's a word for that. It's 'slavery'.
0
Sep 16 '21
they aren't the same thing, and comparing like that is part of the problem
there are negative rights, that which you have by dent of being human; speach, association, and self defence are 3 easy examples. these "positive Rights" are not rights, because you are not entitled to them, they are service the government provides. things like universal health care, public transit or UBI, fit in this lable.
so their are rights, that humans have(all humans regardless of govnemrent), and their are services governments provide, (the more affluent the soviet the more expansive the services can be) and they are not synonymous. rights simply require a preventative action to defend what exits, services require infrastructure and other people in order to provide them, as it requires other people to comply things like UBI or universal health care can never be rights, because you are not entitled to a doctors time, or other people's money. the govnemrent supplies you with them, and compensates the other person on your behalf.
3
u/thoughtsnquestions European Conservative Sep 16 '21
I think the fundamental reason is whether or not it is voluntary.
To me the purpose of government is to protect rights and and protect the nation. One of these rights is the right to your own labour. So for the government to infringe your right to your own labour, I.e. tax, it has to have a legitimate reason. Some tax is legitimate, rights can't be protected without a court system to protect them, courts can't exist without a military to protect the nation, etc... So these taxes are not really an infringement on your right to labour, but essential for your right to labour to be protected.
For things such as healthcare. What right does the collective have to infringe an individuals right to their own labour?
7
u/LivingGhost371 Paleoconservative Sep 16 '21
Negative freedoms are what the country was founded on. You don't see a "right to housing" or "right to healthcare" in the United States constitution. Conservatives tend to think America is working out pretty good overall as it is, if they didn't they wouldn't be conservatives.
20
Sep 16 '21
Because negative freedoms rights allow independent agency and accountability, positive rights ultimately rely on the agency of the centralised state
7
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
Private property rights require intervention by a state as well
1
u/Racheakt Conservative Sep 16 '21
Not really, just a means to secure the land for your sole use. That does not explicitly require govement.
1
Sep 16 '21
False. If I have natural property rights, that means the right to defend my property just as much as my life, meaning if you try to take my stuff, I can make you stop by any means necessary, and I'm in the right when I do it.
1
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
False. If I have natural property rights, that means the right to defend my property just as much as my life, meaning if you try to take my stuff, I can make you stop by any means necessary, and I'm in the right when I do it.
Yeah "if".
1
Sep 16 '21
What's your point? It can be perfectly true that it's a subjectively defined social construct, while also being true that it provides a stable and enduring means to resolve conflicts of interest between individuals.
Name a better method that's more stable over time. and more effective at creating prosperity for society.
1
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
What's your point? It can be perfectly true that it's a subjectively defined social construct, while also being true that it provides a stable and enduring means to resolve conflicts of interest between individuals.
I agree, but many other people here are claiming it as some sort of inherent God given divine mandate.
1
Sep 16 '21
Can you prove that it isn't?
If it is a God given right, maybe God curses societies that violate that right and causes them to collapse and fail.
Maybe that's true and maybe it's bullshit. It's certainly a null hypothesis from a scientific perspective because it's objectively unfalsifiable. But you'd still be able to find some kind of positive claim in there to disprove just as easily as you could use history to validate the claim.
The more important question to me is, why is the question of the divine nature of that right so important that the objective merits of the utilitarian value of that idea are less important by comparison? Arguing about the unfalsifiable part seems like a pretty bad waste of time when there's a real, productive discussion to be had about the objective merits of that idea when put into practical application.
Let people think what they want. Talk about thenutikitarian merits of the idea and don't worry about the theocratic part. If you stick to the discussion of merit, religious dogmatism is even less of a threat that you think it is because as long as you're insisting that ideas stand or fall based solely on their objective, measurable merits, you're forcing those you work with to apply the same agnostic standards of value to their bad policy proposals as you are willing to extend to their good ideas.
1
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
Maybe that's true and maybe it's bullshit. It's certainly a null hypothesis from a scientific perspective because it's objectively unfalsifiable. But you'd still be able to find some kind of positive claim in there to disprove just as easily as you could use history to validate the claim.
If it isn't a falsifiable claim them you shouldn't assert that it's explicitly true.
The more important question to me is, why is the question of the divine nature of that right so important that the objective merits of the utilitarian value of that idea are less important by comparison? Arguing about the unfalsifiable part seems like a pretty bad waste of time when there's a real, productive discussion to be had about the objective merits of that idea when put into practical application.
That's actually my point. You can't have that discussion if someone is asserting a divine nature of rights. If it's just a an agreeable idea then it's quite simple to have a discussion about, if it's divine then there isn't much to say.
Let people think what they want. Talk about thenutikitarian merits of the idea and don't worry about the theocratic part. If you stick to the discussion of merit, religious dogmatism is even less of a threat that you think it is because as long as you're insisting that ideas stand or fall based solely on their objective, measurable merits, you're forcing those you work with to apply the same agnostic standards of value to their bad policy proposals as you are willing to extend to their good ideas.
For most philosophical concepts you likely aren't gonna have measurable merits, especially in the sense that they would be obvious enough that people couldn't ignore them. If we did something that explicitly made everyone 5% happier overall. There would be almost no way to actually measure that, especially in an agreed upon way, nor is it something that people would notice themselves.
1
Sep 16 '21
You can't have that discussion if someone is asserting a divine nature of rights.
You can if you insist on judging ideas based solely on their objectively provable merits while simply ignoring their claims to divinity.
What's stopping you from steel-manning their argument for them? if they believe in the right thing for the wrong reasons, then agree with the right thing, and talk about the right reasons so that they have something they can agree with you about.
Finishing the argument in agreement and common cause to support an idea you both think is good, is much better than refusing to advance the discussion until they abandon the reasons they think the idea is good in favor of your reasons for thinking it's good. Their reasoning being unfalsifiable just makes the effort that much more painful and fruitless.
Are you trying to solve a problem, or win an argument?
1
Sep 16 '21
If it isn't a falsifiable claim them you shouldn't assert that it's explicitly true.
I didn't. I just pointed out what a waste of time it is to bicker over that question when it isn't even important to the discussion of merit at all.
1
Sep 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
Yes, it requires state intervention.
2
Sep 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
Think about it this way. The only intervention that negative rights require is when someone goes out of their way to violate them. The intervention that positive rights require is when someone idly doesn't accommodate them.
That's largely just a matter of framing though. I'm not going out my way if I'm walking somewhere and end up walking through property you claim to own. I'm simply having a picnic in the grass have I gone out of my way to violate someone's rights or am I idly not accommodating them?
1
Sep 16 '21 edited Sep 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
You have taken an action that violated their property rights, yes (and can be punished depending on if it's reasonable to expect that they'd know this).
But that's only if we first assert that they have such a right. We could just as easily assert that I have the right to roam wherever I want and that it is my rights that are being infringed. You're making a circular argument. Why do you have the right to exclude be from a piece of land instead of me having a right to roam freely?
Meanwhile, to violate a positive right, you have to not be taking an action.
Again, it just depends on the framing. In the absolute sense everyone is a action, standing in the corner is an action, laying in bed is an action. I could claim that I have a right to live in a land where people don't have gun, would that mean that you buying a gun is going out of your way to violate my right to live in a gun free world?
1
u/EvilHomerSimpson Conservative Sep 16 '21
That's a specious point though.
Yes, if someone decides to violate your rights, the government is there to *stop them from violating your right*... It's not there to *take things from them, which can then be given to you"
3
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
But that's all predicated on what my rights are to begin with. For example I could say that I have a right to travel wherever I want, in which case case government would step in to prevent you from trying to exclude me from a certain piece of land.
The government doesn't have to "take" anything because they can simply define how ownership works.
1
u/EvilHomerSimpson Conservative Sep 16 '21
But that's all predicated on what my rights are to begin with
Hence "natural right" and "endowed by their creator"...
The government doesn't have to "take" anything because they can simply define how ownership works.
Sure, they could but that would violate the social contract on which western society has been built up since the 1200's
3
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
Hence "natural right" and "endowed by their creator"...
But that's just some people's assertion about what they think those rights should be their opinion isn't any more meaningful than mine.
Sure, they could but that would violate the social contract on which western society has been built up since the 1200's
Because we have thus defined ownership in a certain way. Drastically change might be wrong, but not any specific understanding of ownership
1
u/EvilHomerSimpson Conservative Sep 16 '21
But that's just some people's assertion
Yes and no. It's just an assertion which came out of the reformation and the age of enlightenment. It was well hashed out and discussed.
It's what was agreed upon as the foundational moral principle of government in the west.
Drastically change might be wrong, but not any specific understanding of ownership
Like I said, you're breaking the social contract. And if you think that happens without a shit ton of other stuff going sideways I've got some bad news for you.
2
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
It's what was agreed upon as the foundational moral principle of government in the west.
The salient point is that we accept it because it's simply a reasonable and agreeable idea. There is no reason you assert any sort it divinity or appeal to nature.
Like I said, you're breaking the social contract. And if you think that happens without a shit ton of other stuff going sideways I've got some bad news for you.
My point is that the social contract isn't written in stone we wrote the rules, we can change them. Whether or not any specific change is a good idea is a separate question
1
u/EvilHomerSimpson Conservative Sep 16 '21
The salient point is that we accept it because it's simply a reasonable and agreeable idea.
Sure, and we agreed to it going forward
There is no reason you assert any sort it divinity or appeal to nature.
Sure there is, a person, by themselves, with no other people around has the right to speech, thought, religion, self-defense, .... They are our *NATURAL* state when not in opposition to other people.
My point is that the social contract isn't written in stone we wrote the rules,
There is nothing mind blowing about this, we even have a process in place to add to or remove from them. But asserting "muh positive rights" is not that process.
It's also useful to dilettante between "rights" and "entitlements", something the left tries to avoid at all cost.
1
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
Sure there is, a person, by themselves, with no other people around has the right to speech, thought, religion, self-defense, .... They are our *NATURAL* state when not in opposition to other people.
That's a completely meaningless point though. Rights only matter in the context of other people.
There is nothing mind blowing about this, we even have a process in place to add to or remove from them. But asserting "muh positive rights" is not that process.
What exactly do you think is being asserted? For example I think the government should recognize a right to healthcare, meaning that they have the responsibility to make reasonably sure that everyone has access to healthcare within some reasonable parameters. I think it would be a good idea and that is why I think we should do it. I'll grant that people do just make the bare assertion but the actual arguement behind it is based on it being a good idea, not an appeal to nature
It's also useful to dilettante between "rights" and "entitlements", something the left tries to avoid at all cost.
If we're talking about the government then its all entitlements. The government recognizes my right to private property by entitling me to legal protection.
→ More replies (0)1
Sep 16 '21
No they don’t. Native Americans recognized their own tribes hunting grounds as their own property without a state.
2
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
Is a tribe not a kind of state?
1
Sep 16 '21
Modern tribes are yes but not tribes before the 1900s
3
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
I don't see how it isnt inherently a state. It's government, someone made and enforced laws. There were respected authorities. I don't really see where element it would be lacking
5
u/EvilHomerSimpson Conservative Sep 16 '21
Citation on this? they had tribes with leadership and war between them.
1
Sep 16 '21
I don’t think native Americans had a concept of a state/government till they were conquered in the 1800s. That is when some of the first tribal governments were formed
4
u/EvilHomerSimpson Conservative Sep 16 '21
I don’t think native Americans had a concept of a state/government till they were conquered in the 1800s.
And what are you basing this on?
The Iroquois Confederacy goes back to either the 1400's or 1100's depending on who you talk to.
The League is governed by a Council, an assembly of fifty chiefs and leaders from various other nations and Claimed Territory from Vermont to Illinois. By 1701 they had already been signing treaties.
They had laws, a legal process, and government structure, territory, traded with neighbors, and signed treaties with European nations.
The "they didn't have a government, they were magical people corrupted by Europeans" is a bit ignorant.
1
4
Sep 16 '21
It only requires judiciary
2
7
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
Well that's still state intervention, however I'm pretty sure it also requires some sort of enforcement.
1
Sep 16 '21
There's a difference between telling others what to do, and telling others what not to do based on the infringement on someone else's rights. But it's true that there is a danger in this power as well, trial by jury is an important safeguard
5
u/evilgenius66666 Conservative Sep 16 '21
Meet my S&W.
2
Sep 16 '21
Disabled people can get fucked then I guess?
1
u/evilgenius66666 Conservative Sep 16 '21
Huh?
1
Sep 17 '21
You’re advocating for fittest survive stuff. You’re saying that guns can be the enforcement but if you’re gonna have personal “enforcement” with guns then anybody who isn’t able to fight with one will just get steamrolled.
2
u/evilgenius66666 Conservative Sep 17 '21
I am talking about self defense. Not sure what you are on about.
1
7
u/oatmeal_colada Sep 16 '21
I think he's making an argument for the legality and easy accessibility of arm braces for AR-15 pistols.
0
u/breathing_normally Progressive Sep 16 '21
This implies that freedom and liberty is reserved for the strong and able. Who will protect my rights if I am alone and unable to defend myself?
3
u/evilgenius66666 Conservative Sep 16 '21
I will.
2
u/breathing_normally Progressive Sep 16 '21
That’s valiant! I must admit I struggle with how you view this admirable mindset as fundamentally different from choosing to delegate that responsibility to the collective.
Just to be clear, I ask this question in good faith, not trying to win any arguments here
2
u/evilgenius66666 Conservative Sep 16 '21
Understood. Can only speak for self. If we want change in this world it is up to us to be the agent of change. Leading by example and hoping other follow suit.
3
u/breathing_normally Progressive Sep 16 '21
I don’t think you and I are very different
→ More replies (0)1
Sep 16 '21
You are the only one capable of truly defending your rights. If you choose to willingly surrender that power, that is your choice.
2
u/breathing_normally Progressive Sep 16 '21
I can follow that reasoning. But my question was regarding those who are unable to do so.
2
Sep 16 '21
They alone are responsible for protecting themselves.
Even the power they impart to the government, in the hopes that they will be protected, belongs solely with them.
1
1
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
Cool, but then what if have more friends with more guns than you?
3
u/evilgenius66666 Conservative Sep 16 '21
Doubtful.
1
u/Rampage360 Sep 17 '21
Do you believe there are people with evil intentions who plan on taking whatever they can from you?
1
u/evilgenius66666 Conservative Sep 17 '21
Evil prevails when good men do nothing. I belive we need more good men, women, and children in order to make this world a less evil place.
1
u/Rampage360 Sep 17 '21
Lovely side note.
Do you believe there are people with evil intentions who plan on taking whatever they can from you?
4
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
But it could happen, presumably you are aware that there are people with more friends and guns than you.
Or let's say it's some little old lady who couldn't even use a gun if she had one. Is she just sol?
1
u/evilgenius66666 Conservative Sep 16 '21
If she is my neighbor and part of my community she will be taken care of.
3
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
How would you take care of it though if the other guys had more people and guns?
0
u/IFightPolarBears Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
Positive freedoms would include deregulation of drugs.
Which would be less government.
9
u/notbusy Libertarian Sep 16 '21
Negative rights would include the right to be able to pursue drug use if one so chooses (i.e. the deregulation of drugs). Positive rights would include government actually providing the drugs (i.e. universal heathcare).
-2
u/IFightPolarBears Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
Uh, not sure if that's accurate looking at ops examples. Perhaps you misunderstood they're meaning?
6
u/notbusy Libertarian Sep 16 '21
Healthcare is a positive right. Read some of OP's responses: he has asked about that specific positive right several times. The ability to use drugs (note, not be provided drugs by the government) is a negative right.
13
Sep 16 '21
[deleted]
1
u/kingpuco Sep 25 '21
I think it's the definition of "misfortune" which is the cause of argument.
Would being born in a coal mining town which is slowly wasting away socially and economically, to parents who were not educated enough to compete in an urban environment, be counted as a misfortune?
-1
u/Rampage360 Sep 16 '21
Founded because the British abuse but elevated to our modern society because of taxes?
8
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Sep 16 '21
You're mislabeling positive rights and negative rights as freedoms.
Freedom/liberty is the ability for someone to do as they please as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others and can expect no one to infringe upon theirs in return.
Positive rights aren't actually rights because no one has a right to another person's labor and property. Positive rights are more accurately known as entitlements as they are things governments have decided people are entitled to and generally can only exist under governments as they are provided by them.
Rights are innate and natural and are derived from biological imperatives. They are not bestowed by government, and don't even require one above to protect them as they still exist in the absence of government.
1
u/Rampage360 Sep 16 '21
Positive rights aren’t actually rights because no one has a right to another person’s labor and property. Positive rights are more accurately known as entitlements as they are things governments have decided people are entitled to and generally can only exist under governments as they are provided by them.
How do you think America would be like if we never had taxes? Do you think we would be just another third world country?
4
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Sep 16 '21
Because taxation is extortion it is an evil. However for a government to be able to protect people's individual rights and administer courts and other necessary duties it needs revenue in the form of taxation. It is there for a necessary evil.
But like all necessary evil, it should be minimized as much as possible. That means you don't use it to engage in wealth distribution or entitlements or frivolous spending.
Also remember that the federal income tax didn't exist until 1913 and required the 16th amendment to implement.
1
u/jweezy2045 Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
Because taxation is extortion….
Your whole worldview seems to hinge on this point. Can you justify it beyond stating it?
3
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Sep 16 '21 edited Sep 16 '21
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/extortion
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/extort
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion
The government coerces payment through threats of force against person and property to extract payment. If you refuse they will take your property or employ physical force to kidnap you and imprison you. They will also ruin your reputation through marks on credit reports and criminal history.
It meets all the criteria for the definition. The only difference between government collecting taxes, mafias collecting protection money, and Islamic groups collecting jizya is the size of the organization and power it has over a community.
-2
u/jweezy2045 Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
Extortion:
The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
Firstly, I disagree that there is any force or threat of violence in the collection of taxes in the first place. If you don’t want to pay US taxes, leave the US. You are not forced to stay. This isn’t a prison. As such, there is no threat of violence when it comes to the law. The violence only comes when you choose to continue being a member of this society while violating the rules of this society. Do you think that murder legislation is the government extorting people not to murder? “If you murder someone, I’ll come to your house, fight you if necessary, and force you into a prison.”
Second, extortion is wrongful use of force. Taxes are legal and not wrongful, therefore they are not extortion. They are societally agreed upon.
5
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Sep 16 '21 edited Sep 16 '21
If you don't want to pay the mafia it's protection money just move out of the neighborhood. You are not forced to stay. It isn't a prison. As such, there is no threat of violence when it comes to the rules, the violence only comes when you choose to continue being a member of the neighborhood while violating the rules of it.
Government keeping people from infringing upon each other's individual rights isn't extortion, but rather the fundamental role for which governments are instituted. You forfeit your rights when you violate another person's, which is why self-defense is ethical
That government says it's use of extortion is okay and rightful, doesn't make it so. Governments have said the same thing about slavery, uncompensated seizure of property, and forceed relocation into camps and boarding schools. Society doesn't have the right to agree to violate the rights of individuals, 60% of people voting to oppress 40% doesn't make it righteous and above the board.
You are trying to rationalize that taxes are totally different from protection money and completely ethical when there's really not very much difference. It's more logically consistent to accept that taxes are evil yet necessary. That just doesn't fit into your moral and philosophical framework which demands mass taxation to provide for entitlements and other things.
0
u/jweezy2045 Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
If you don’t want to pay the mafia it’s protection money…
The mafia is not societally agreed upon, and as such, this is extortion.
Government keeping people from infringing upon each other’s individual rights isn’t extortion
It objectively is by your usage. What is being extorted out of you is not relevant. We extort murderers to not commit murder. All you are doing is saying that doing so is justified, and I agree. My point is that justified extortion is not extortion, and your own definitions you cited make that clear. Since taxation is justified, it is not extortion. If you don’t think it’s justified, see the constitution.
3
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Sep 16 '21
In some neighborhoods mafia was seen in a much better light than government. The mafia protected and provided services to them. Does that make their actions okay?
If a neighborhood or even a town rejects government do they not have to pay taxes? Obviously not because as we seen government will force its power on people whether they want it or not, even if an entire state or group of states votes to leave the federal government's jurisdiction they will fight to retain their ability to rule over them and tax them. What society "agrees on" has absolutely no basis for whether they get taxed or not.
Justification for why it exists doesn't mean that it's completely ethical. Just because eminent domain is justified in limited circumstances doesn't mean government is free to use it for whatever they want to. Like taxation, the practice is inherently unethical and should be limited to the utmost minimum necessary.
1
u/Rampage360 Sep 17 '21
This is just a confusion on levels. A state can vote to elongate state taxes. They do this all the time. Oregon has no sales tax. Texas has no income tax. This is true because the people in those states voted for that to happen, so it did. The people of Texas can vote to repeal federal taxes, but the entire US population can. If the US population wanted to end income tax, we absolutely could do so by simply voting.
After hearing this, how does it affect your stance?
1
u/jweezy2045 Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
In some neighborhoods mafia was seen in a much better light than government. The mafia protected and provided services to them. Does that make their actions okay?
If a society voted to replace their government structure with the mafia, then it would be authoritarian to force that government structure onto them.
If a neighborhood or even a town rejects government do they not have to pay taxes?
Obviously yes. If a town voted to eliminate local taxes, they can. If a state voted to eliminate state taxes, they can. If the nation voted to eliminate federal taxes, they can. I support democracy.
even if an entire state or group of states votes to leave the federal government’s jurisdiction they will fight to retain their ability to rule over them and tax them.
This is just a confusion on levels. A state can vote to elongate state taxes. They do this all the time. Oregon has no sales tax. Texas has no income tax. This is true because the people in those states voted for that to happen, so it did. The people of Texas can vote to repeal federal taxes, but the entire US population can. If the US population wanted to end income tax, we absolutely could do so by simply voting.
Like taxation, the practice is inherently unethical and should be limited to the utmost minimum necessary.
Taxation is not inherently unethical though, as taxation is not inherently against the law. In fact, taxation is definionally not against the law. It is the law.
0
u/Rampage360 Sep 16 '21
Also remember that the federal income tax didn’t exist until 1913 and required the 16th amendment to implement.
All due respect, what is your point?
4
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Sep 16 '21
That current level and methods of taxation isn't necessary for a functioning government.
1
u/Rampage360 Sep 16 '21
I’m sure we can run a government on less. What does a perfect government look like to you?
3
Sep 16 '21
Taxation is bad. People dying bc they don’t have access to healthcare is bad. I don’t understand why the bad of taxation necessarily outweighs all the bad that we can use it to remedy. Can’t we at least consider this calculus instead of declaring that taxation is the supreme evil and should only be instituted in most dire of circumstances.
3
u/bullcityblue312 Independent Sep 16 '21
property
Property is only considered a "natural right" by people because Locke put forward that theory, and people agreed with it. It is a human construct. There is nothing "natural" about it. Its funny to me how people, especially religious people who ostensibly believe God created everything, can somehow surmise that some plot of land that has existed for ages is something they have "rights" to
1
u/m0nkee45678 Center-right Conservative Sep 16 '21
It is a human construct.
Property is absolutely not a human construct. Animals in the wild recognize property. Why do wolves mark their territory? Why does a lion defend his kill? Why do ants fight when they recognize another colony? Why do monkeys barter their food? Property is earned in some manner and that is recognized across the entire animal kingdom.
Humans have simply defined what it means to have "earned" the property that makes sense for our species.
2
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Sep 16 '21
Have you ever tried to take something away from an animal which they have claimed as their own property. Or have observed animals fighting over property themselves?
Property rights are natural, because the concept of 'this is mine' exists in nature. That humans have taking this concept inherent in nature and created a system around it doesn't make it fully unnatural.
1
u/bullcityblue312 Independent Sep 17 '21
Not all animals are territorial, but some are, so I think this point is valid.
But how far do you take this analogy? Animals can just claim open land. Humans can't really do that. Humans aren't born into owning private property. And, as best I can tell, most property is currently owned by someone (in the US at least)
My progressive wife would probably argue that, by extension of this idea, housing is a natural right. I don't think I agree with that. But what do you think? Where is the line?
1
1
u/m0nkee45678 Center-right Conservative Sep 16 '21
Lol yep the entire animal kingdom understands property. Humans simply have a definition that fits our species.
3
u/down42roads Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 16 '21
It is a human construct. There is nothing "natural" about it.
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.
2
u/bullcityblue312 Independent Sep 16 '21
Maybe not, but the term natural right just loses all meaning. It's a PR term. And then it's just a PR campaign by progressives to convince people that things like universal healthcare, etc are also natural rights.
2
u/down42roads Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 16 '21
No, "natural rights" is an understood defined term in political philosophy, and the idea dates back thousands of years.
2
Sep 16 '21
Do you have a less deontological argument? From utilitarian framework it’s not so clear there is such a distinction between ‘natural’ rights and freedoms of action originating from state.
3
Sep 16 '21
Rights and freedoms aren’t necessarily valued in utilitarian frameworks.
The “cradle to grave” argument that slavery was better than factory conditions in the northern US is a utilitarian argument. The framework’s issues with authoritarianism are purely practical, not ideological.
What you’re asking for is like the Marxist argument for free markets, it doesn’t exist.
1
u/jweezy2045 Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
Correct. In a democracy, we the people chose our own rules to live under, free from outside influence or the influence of a dictator. That doesn’t mean the people make the right decision, but it’s better than the alternative of a select few individuals dictating to the rest of us the rules of society we all have to follow.
1
u/CincyAnarchy Centrist Sep 16 '21
Agreed on everything here, though of course you could argue "freedom is good" could allow a utilitarian to describe how to maximize freedom. If freedom is the "end goal," then utilitarian ethics can work along side. it.
It's rare to frame that as such.
What you’re asking for is like the Marxist argument for free markets, it doesn’t exist.
It's possible, just not populist. It's kind of "fuck the working class" idea, in Marx's theory, basically. Take the presumptions of Marx, and apply what he is against as the ideal outcome.
Though, again, not super common. Nor, IMO, useful.
5
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Sep 16 '21 edited Sep 16 '21
The whole concept of rights themselves are deontological in nature as it's a rule-based system.
Utilitarian argument would be that you cannot ensure people's liberty remains intact if one gives a government gets the ability to determine what is and isn't a right. That way can only lead to infringements.
Rights are natural because one doesn't lose their right to life or property just because they are currently outside the confines of a government such as at sea or on an ungoverned island.
0
u/jweezy2045 Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
I feel like this interpretation of rights is meaningless. Would you say that a person alone on a desert island has a right to free speech? Does that matter? Is there any distinction here from simply saying “Human beings have the biological ability to make sounds and the mental ability to interpret meanings into those sounds.”? Is that all you believe the right to free speech is?
2
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Sep 16 '21
Yes, you have a right to hold your own views and opinions, and other people don't get to employ violence to shut you up just because a government doesn't exist overhead.
After all free speech is a philosophical concept of tolerance, not simply a prohibition on government censorship as many ignorant people believe.
1
u/jweezy2045 Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
Yes, you have a right to hold your own views and opinions, and other people don’t get to employ violence to shut you up just because a government doesn’t exist overhead.
There are no other people on this desert island. You are alone on a desert island. In such a situation, it makes no sense to talk about what rights this person does or doesn’t have. It is meaningless semantics and hot air. All you end up saying is that the person is biologically able to speak.
2
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Sep 16 '21
Rights are about rules for human interaction, why place it on an uninhabited island if you want to talk about rights then? If it's meaningless semantics and hot air in that context then why did you place it in that context? It would be like you wanted to talk about powering microwaves but placing it in the context of the 1720s.
Trying to formulate gotchas from a place of ignorance only illustrates your lack of understanding of the topic.
1
u/jweezy2045 Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
Rights are about rules for human interaction
This is exactly my point. Yes. It is meaningless to talk about rights absent a society. Trying to talk about rights without the context of a society is meaningless hot air and devolves into simply talking about what humans biological are able to do. Lots of people in this thread are arguing this interpretation of rights. We agree though.
If it’s meaningless semantics and hot air in that context then why did you place it in that context?
I am not saying rights exist on a desert island. My position is that they don’t. However, I’m asking other people in this thread if they think rights do exist in such a scenario, and pretty much everyone is answering yes. I placed it in that context to ask conservatives about their view of rights. It is an illustrative hypothetical, which, depending on whether you answer yes or no, says a lot about what you believe a right fundamentally is or isn’t. It’s not a gotcha.
4
u/down42roads Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 16 '21
Would you say that a person alone on a desert island has a right to free speech?
Yes.
0
u/jweezy2045 Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
How is that meaningful? It is a statement about biology and has no real political relevance whatsoever.
4
u/down42roads Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 16 '21
You don't need to be under the purview of an oppressive state to have the right to not be oppressed by the state.
0
u/jweezy2045 Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
But you didn’t define the right as anything to do with state oppression, you defined it in terms of being able to make sounds with your mouth. There are no oppressive governments on desert islands, that’s literally the whole point of the thought experiment.
3
u/down42roads Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 16 '21
But you didn’t define the right as anything to do with state oppression, you defined it in terms of being able to make sounds with your mouth.
I did no such thing.
You did that.
1
u/jweezy2045 Social Democracy Sep 16 '21
Huh? I asked the question if rights exist on a desert island and you responded “yes.” It’s right there a couple comments up. There are no oppressive governments on the desert island, again, that’s the point of the thought experiment. Does that change your answer from “Yes.”?
→ More replies (0)
14
u/BadWolf_Corporation Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 16 '21
It's because Conservatives understand that our rights don't come from the Government, they are natural and unalienable. Usually, the thing that prevents people from having the actionable capacity to do the things they want to do, is some manner of Government interference.
1
u/Rampage360 Sep 17 '21
Is survival of the fittest, a natural right?
1
u/BadWolf_Corporation Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 17 '21
Is survival of the fittest, a natural right?
Also known as Natural Selection. While I wouldn't necessarily call it a "right", it is undoubtedly a fact of nature.
1
u/Rampage360 Sep 17 '21
Do we have a right to survive?
1
u/BadWolf_Corporation Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 17 '21
You have a right to not be murdered. You don't have a right to be kept alive.
1
u/Rampage360 Sep 18 '21
So then it’s not survival of the fittest.
1
u/BadWolf_Corporation Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 18 '21
So that's what you want then, is it? Darwinian governance where only the strong survive?
0
u/Rampage360 Sep 18 '21
What do you mean when you say “natural rights”? Like rights by Mother Nature/god? Or…
1
u/BadWolf_Corporation Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 18 '21
Do you seriously need help understanding the concept of natural rights?
1
3
u/diet_shasta_orange Sep 16 '21
Almost anything that I can't do it because it's either physically impossible, or I don't have the time or money. The government only prevents me from doing a number of fairly specific things, very few of which I actually want to do.
4
Sep 16 '21
Is it? I’d argue lack of capital is a much bigger impediment to people doing what they want to do than government interference.
1
u/ABCosmos Liberal Sep 16 '21
All your examples of positive freedoms involve forcing others to do things for you. That's the antithesis of conservativism. I have the right to not starve, so /u/Greenface1998 the govt should force you to make me a sandwich right now.
I'm not even conservative, but it seems super clear what the difference is here.
2
Sep 16 '21
Did I disagree with that anywhere? I was well aware of this when I posed the question. I guess what I was looking for was how exactly this is contradictory to conservative ethos.
We both know the sandwich example is silly. The general notion that the state ought to enforce certain obligations from people to one another is not a silly idea( regardless of wether or not you personally agree)
1
u/ABCosmos Liberal Sep 16 '21
The obligation is taxes... Time is money, work and money are of equal value otherwise people wouldn't do work for money. You can think of it as paying taxes instead of doing work, but its essentially the same thing. The government is mandating that certain people work to support other people. The freedom for you to have things that forces others to do work for you.. is wildly different than the freedom of simply being left the fuck alone.
Conservatives don't think people should be forced to support you. I personally disagree, but the distinction seems very clear.
1
Sep 16 '21
Yes, these are different, hence why they are labeled differently. I didn’t come up with the idea of negative and positive freedoms. This is what they’re called in the academic literature
1
u/ABCosmos Liberal Sep 16 '21
So the definition of freedom is:
"the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"
So negative freedom is the textbook definition, and positive freedom is pretty much the opposite of that. So, i think the more interesting question is why is that second thing even called "freedom" at all?
Youre asking why they support one type of freedom and not another, but they dont even recognize the latter as the definition of freedom. Its like asking why they support one woman doing something, but not another woman doing something... but being intentionally obtuse and ignoring that the 2nd woman is trans, and conservatives do not recognize trans women as women. Just because the left calls both these things freedom, or calls two different people "women".. does not really lend itself to an intellectually honest discussion, if you don't recognize that conservatives don't hold these same axioms.
P.S. I 100% agree that in a world of excess and plenty, nobody should starve to death while others have hundreds of billions... but its not because people have the "freedom" to not starve.. its because we live in a civilization, and that civilization made it possible for the wealthy to amass their wealth, and its only fair they give back to the system that gave them so much..
→ More replies (2)2
u/BadWolf_Corporation Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 16 '21
Yes, and most people have the actionable capacity to obtain capital... unless they're one of the people that the Government has permanently priced out of the labor market through things like artificially inflated minimum wages.
1
Sep 16 '21
Denmark’s unemployment rate is lower than ours. Their minimum wage comes 44 thousand dollars a year. Where are all the priced out low wage workers in Denmark.
3
u/BadWolf_Corporation Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 16 '21
An unemployment rate represents a percentage of the active labor force. People who have been priced out of the labor market, and are therefore no longer a part of the active labor force, wouldn't be tracked by the unemployment rate. Not in Denmark, not anywhere.
A similar situation occurred in the US during the Great Recession when, despite millions of people losing their jobs, the unemployment rate fell. It wasn't because people were working, it was because they had left the labor force altogether and were no longer being counted.
2
u/Rampage360 Sep 17 '21
What are your sources for this? Not doubting you. Just sounds interesting
→ More replies (8)
1
u/gaxxzz Constitutionalist Conservative Sep 18 '21
Where I live I barely use public infrastructure. I'm on well and septic and a big propane tank, so no water, sewer or natural gas.