|
wateroverfire posted:Eh. Positive rights become problematic really fast. Where does the concept of deprivation begin or end? If a society distributes wealth in a way that leaves a group of people starving, unable to combat disease, or vulnerable to exposure, are these people being deprived of life?
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That would be a positive right to life - others are obligated to act in such a way that keeps you alive by providing you food, shelter, their kidney (they only need one after all.), etc. How do you make that distinction? Why is it not deprivation to arrogate to yourself more wealth than you need for a decent existence while others starve on the streets? Why is it not gross negligence? If you run someone over because you're late to a meeting and are speeding out of concerns of personal wealth (missing out on a contract, losing your job, etc.), I figure you'll call that gross negligence -- but why is it that a wealthy person who ignores the under-funded homeless shelter in the city out of the same concerns of personal wealth not committing the same kind of negligence? The discussion about positive and negative rights doesn't make much sense to me -- all I see is people arbitrarily deciding what forms of forbearance from acting in one's self-interest are and aren't acceptable, and applying some fraudulent intellectual framework to it. Positive rights can be turned into negative ones by the simple sleight of hand that I just made: welfare doesn't act on a positive right to necessities; it acts on a negative right whereby rich people can't absorb so much production that those at bottom are deprived of necessities.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 05:46
|
|