|
wateroverfire posted:Eh. Positive rights become problematic really fast. Well, yeah, rights are messy and problematic. Hence the whole "politics" thing. Here's the thing: freedom is more than just not being trod upon. Freedom entails things like being able think independently. This isn't an inherent part of being a human, but something that requires stuff like education. Maybe you think compulsory state-funded education is "problematic" (even if you aren't a weirdo, everyone knows that its implementation is indeed an rancorous political problem), but the hypothetical totally free negative rights feral child on a desert island is less free than a person in a society that makes up rights and pretends they are objective because they are so important to our well being and necessary to have the possibility of self-actualization.
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:I agree you have a negative right to not be killed, but not a positive right to be protected by police while alive or to have your murderer investigated or prosecuted or convicted or jailed if you are killed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:There's a question of degree: how much obligation can a right impose on another person? If you have the right to bear arms, that does not mean that someone has to give you a gun, only that they cannot take it. If you had a positive right to be protected by police, how protected should you be and how much time and money are the rest of us meant to spend to provide you that right?. That's the problem with positive rights and why they don't exist. A negative right doesn't force anyone else to do anything, just tells them not to go out of their way to take your life. A true right cannot impose obligations. Maybe there aren't "true rights" at all and negative rights are just the easiest to defend because they present fewer problems than positive rights? Even so you can still believe in rights as non-arbitrary without the need for some objective absolute.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, he still made a positive, arguably reckless decision to get in the self driving car and rely on its safety, and the company selling the car made the positive decision to sell it. In terms of legal liability this isn' t that complicated -- which is part of why you can't yet buy a self driving car. This is kind of the point though: most real-world situations involve an enormous constellation of positive decisions, so the perfect logical and pragmatic consistency of negative rights only holds up in desert island type scenarios. Of course, requiring perfect logical and pragmatic consistency is a silly standard, but of course of course if that isn't your standard and some kind of humanism is, why not go with positive rights?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
There are plenty of real life example of negative rights actively harming people: drawing up title for lands previously occupied based on tradition instead of legal title. This usually [read: always] results in people being harmed in order to establish a robust regime of negative property rights. See also: enclosure. If you want to be really consistent here, you either have to advocate some kind of jubilee, or else be a Proudhon-style libertarian.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 03:50
|
|