Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Fried Chicken
Jan 9, 2011

Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

TwoQuestions posted:

And if so, why? What policies and costs are justified to keep people alive (housed, fed, free from pollution)?

If not, what laws are justified? Do we , as another poster put it: "live in a barbaric anarchy where the strong do what they will and the weak do what they must"?

I've been grappling with this for years trying to justify why we take from some to provide for others, and aside from religious arguments I can't find a good reason why people have an inviolable right to live. What's it to you that someone else gets hurt?

without getting into the arguments of where rights come from, you are making the assumption that the right must be a positive one - as in, society must move to ensure the right can be freely exercised - rather than a negative one - as in, society need not guarantee your exercise of the right, but cannot actively halt it.

In free speech terms the negative right would be "the government can't censor you" whereas the positive right would be "hey you need to give this guy airtime so he can submit his views".

Here, the negative right would be the government can't just kill you on a whim, whereas the positive right would be the government needs to provide the things you mention.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • Locked thread