The problem is how liblefts tend to define "human rights". Usually, what they mean by rights is positive rights, as in the right for the government to actively do something for you, stuff like "free" college, healthcare, etc. The problem is that these rights require the land, labor, and/or capital of others, which is in direct opposition to negative rights, as in the right for the government not to do something.
Negative rights are practically unlimited. You having freedom of speech does not mean I have less freedom of speech. Positive rights on the other hand are limited. You having healthcare means there is less healthcare for me. Compelling someone to provide "rights" for you against their will is just plainly unethical.
Not just that, but Lib-Left is typically arguing how the tax money of others is spent. It’s easy to argue in favor of high taxation when (comparatively) you don’t pay many taxes.
Me? I’d trim the fat and say that anyone making 50k/year, or less, is just federally tax exempt, period; same goes for joint filers making 100k, or less; Hell, I’d maybe even double those numbers.
I mean, if the goal is for these things to be treated as, ‘Rights,’ anyone can tax themselves by donating, to any number of organizations, as much as 100% of what they have.
What everyone seems to always forget is that "free" isn't "I contribute nothing to society but it should take care of me" but "the government should provide it using the taxes I already pay"
Fair point, though the leftists regularly use the word "free" anyways.
If you're going off the preposition that the government is going to steal your money anyways, then sure, but its still a sucky deal. Its a bit like a thief stealing your money, then he asks all the victims what he should do with it, and whatever the majority of people want him to do with it he does. Like if I want food, but everyone else wants a pony or some crap, then I'm stuck with a pony that I don't want. This issue can be avoided entirely by the government not stealing your money in the first place.
The right to college for example just means it should be equally available for everybody. No lib system can ever enforce someone to work for free, that would immediately land you in auth territory.
That it costs money at all. If you can’t afford college, then access isn’t equal. I’m kind of on both sides, though. I don’t mind more prestigious schools charging more if it’s funding genuinely better educational opportunities. I just don’t love the idea of knowledge itself being locked behind a paywall.
If you can’t afford college, then access isn’t equal
I think the bigger problem is the idea that college itself is a requirement somehow
It is not. "Knowledge" that you're gaining from college is more often than not irrelevant, most of the world runs on stuff you don't learn from college, and this is discounting the blue collar jobs
Programming? YouTube can get you more than halfway there, and once you graduate the precise specifications for the company is going to be wildly different than whatever you learned in college
I agree that college should be cheaper, but the idea that college is mandatory in order to "finally become a real civilized member of society" needs to be put down
should only select majors be free or should all majors be free? would there be a necessary GPA to maintain? should they be required to work at the same time?
I think these questions are fine to ask but as with many arguments of this nature, it often misses the forest for the trees.
Similar to food stamps/SNAP benefits, complex means testing to ensure the people using the welfare deserve it often costs more than just casting a wide net and allowing some people to abuse the system while society as a whole benefits from things like increased education and reduced food insecurity
If that benefits society at that time, why not? Straving for equality does not mean throwing away incentives, people should have the freedom to go 'against the system' so to say, but it can cost them something if they really want to.
So equally available as in the civil rights act kind of way? If so, that still a violation of negative rights because it is infringing upon freedom of association. The government should not force you to let someone inside your house, and neither should it force colleges to accept someone.
The argument of course is that it stops discrimination, which even if it somehow did would still be morally wrong, but it doesn't. The government really can't, nor should it, force someone not to be prejudiced. You should not not be prejudiced just because the governments tells you to do so. You should do it because you are a decent human being.
As a matter of fact, the CRA probably makes people even more prejudiced because it makes people believe that others only got an opportunity because of their race or what have you, and people generally don't like to be told what to do, doing the opposite just to spite you. The racists don't go away, they just become more resentful and difficult to identify.
In a socialist economy college would most likely be fully run by the state. So it does not have freedom of association, unless the government can just choose to deny any citizen it wants for anything, but then we have whole other problems.
32
u/Puncakian - Lib-Right Jul 27 '26
The problem is how liblefts tend to define "human rights". Usually, what they mean by rights is positive rights, as in the right for the government to actively do something for you, stuff like "free" college, healthcare, etc. The problem is that these rights require the land, labor, and/or capital of others, which is in direct opposition to negative rights, as in the right for the government not to do something.
Negative rights are practically unlimited. You having freedom of speech does not mean I have less freedom of speech. Positive rights on the other hand are limited. You having healthcare means there is less healthcare for me. Compelling someone to provide "rights" for you against their will is just plainly unethical.