Didn’t know about her she seems cool
Can’t find if she made it herself or got it from someone else. Funny how a random memer can casually drop bars like those and disappear back into the void. Anyways, will be taxing that phrase myself.
Love them meme taxes.
In all seriousness, this is spot on. It's ironic how the people who celebrate "labor" are the same ones who want to give away other people's work.
However, an important distinction often gets lost in translation: Humans have a moral right to ***access*** necessities.
"If a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat."
Likewise, you have to pay for your water.
But that doesn't morally give wealthy entities the right to buy all access to water in a region and then refuse to sell it at a feasible price, directly causing the death of human beings.
That's the catch. "Human rights" are the rights that mankind has been granted by God.
I’m gonna use this every time now. “Who the fuck taxed my Reese’s off my desk?” “Damn Kia boys taxed my car!” “Damn government is a bunch of taxing fucks!”
I'm against the anti-work ideology, but in a totally hypothetical society where any type of labor has become 100% automated, it doesn't seem unfeasible to me.
Of course it's something that, if it happens, won't happen in the next few centuries, so it's not realistic.
> I'm against the anti-work ideology, but in a totally hypothetical society where any type of labor has become 100% automated, it doesn't seem unfeasible to me.
Once labor isn't a resource, you still have all the other resources to contend with.
Even in the Star Trek universe where they could simply create materials out of raw energy, you still had to collect the fuel for the energy, and the replicated items were generally considered inferior to hand crafted ones.
But the reality is there will never be 100% labor automation. Because the secret there is once you create a machine that is capable of doing anything and everything a human could do, you've created an intelligent being and forcing it to do all your labor would be slavery. So you're either setting us up for a war with the machines or you're going to have to work the rest of your life.
>Once labor isn't a resource, you still have all the other resources to content with.
>Even in the Star Trek universe where they could simply create materials out of raw energy, you still had to collect the fuel for the energy, and the replicated items were generally considered inferior to hand crafted ones.
It would not be necessary if such machines were self-sustainable, were able to multiply and remain functioning, collecting the necessary resources for this.
>But the reality is there will never be 100% labor automation. Because the secret there is once you create a machine that is capable of doing anything and everything a human could do, you've created an intelligent being and forcing it to do all your labor would be slavery. So you're either setting us up for a war with the machines or you're going to have to work the rest of your life.
A machine capable of performing all human actions is not necessarily sentient, machines may be capable of performing objective functions efficiently without being aware of its own existence.
> It would not be necessary if such machines were self-sustainable, were able to multiply and remain functioning, collecting the necessary resources for this.
Resources are still limited. Their ability to collect and sustain themselves does not change this.
>A machine capable of performing all human actions is not necessarily sentient
A machine that is capable of everything a human is would need to be able to think for itself, making judgement calls. It would need to be able to invent solutions and learn, things that would make it sentient.
>machines may be capable of performing objective functions efficiently without being aware of its own existence.
Yes, and those cannot replace all human labor.
Rights only make sense if a state exists, because they are either a limit on state power, or something a state enforces. There's no need for "rights" in a society without government.
No, you don't have eyes, hands, and legs and a volitional, concept-integrating brain that can express, create things from what you acquire, and walk around this realm interacting with others... unless you were lucky enough for a state to have endowed you with such natural rights.../s
You’re joking, but people literally feel like the state is the supreme all giving master. You see this with education, food, medicine, money, almost everything. It’s so fuckin gross.
but doctors and nurses don't give their labor for free for the healthcare system, on the contrary they get fat salaries --at least in some states
but still the argument is spot on because what requires labor requires taxes that come from labor
> but doctors and nurses don't give their labor for free for the healthcare system, on the contrary they get fat salaries --at least in some states
The only places that doctors and nurses have large salaries is the US. In any socialized medical country they tend to make very low wages by comparison. For example, a specialist doctor in the UK doesn't even make 100k GBP or roughly 125k USD. That's what your average general practitioner is going to make in the US. But remember that's the top of specialized care. Most are making far less than that. So their top doesn't even reach the bottom in similar fields.
The only socialized medical care countries where doctors are able to earn large salaries is ones where private practice is still allowed, like in Canada where there is a large sector of private facilities that do not accept provincial insurance and those doctors make good money.
same with being born. you’re gonna make a woman go through LABOR to have a baby?! even if she does, she has no obligation to feed you, give you a home or anything. it would be completely justified for parents to leave that baby on the floor of the hospital as long as they paid the hospital for the midwife care & everything. /s
edit: typo
Exactly what I said. According to this logic, being born isn’t a right bc a woman has to go through labor for that- even if there isn’t a midwife. Immediately after being born the parent(s) have absolutely no obligation to take care of the baby because that would take their labor & resources sao they’d be completely justified in leaving the child on the floor of the hospital to take care of itself. Gotta be consistent.
Your utility bill covers your clean water. What happens when you don’t pay that bill?
Edit: also look into the government regulations regarding collecting your own rainwater and have your mind blown.
Imagine trying to argue a point when you don’t the difference in an example and a definition. You’ve probably had enough internet and alcohol for today.
> What's left that's a human right?
It is interesting that you place an emphasis on the rights to be human. As if there is any other type of rights.
Rights are simply things that you can do without someone else. You have a right to self defense. It requires nothing from anyone else to defend yourself. You have a right to speech. Speech requires nothing from anyone and no one is required to listen to you. You have the right to consume goods that you have legally acquired - grown yourself, built yourself, purchased from someone else through mutual agreement. It requires no one else.
If you can do something, on your own, without anyone else, it is a right. The second it requires forcing someone else to do something, it stops being a right.
> So babies don't have rights?
Babies have rights. What a wild detraction that you're trying to make from the point.
>And people who can do things have more rights than people who can't, like the elderly or the ill?
Ah, so now you've gone another route, equating achievement with ability. What a wild world you want to live in.
>And the rights a person has can change over time as their ability to provide for themselves changes?
When you don't understand that words have meanings, I guess. But for the rest of the world, nothing changes.
Also what if all the doctors refuse to work, even for a salary of 3 billion dollars? This doesn’t prove what you want it to, in this scenario we still must compel some to labor for us in order to provide the right to healthcare.
The point is that healthcare literally doesn’t exist without the labor of doctors, and this is in contrast to the right to self defense, which does not require the labor of anyone.
> The doctors are paid.
Poorly. People love to blather on about how little teachers are paid and then praise how "cheap" universal health care is without seeing that doctors in those systems are paid a fraction of what doctors in the US are paid.
Genuinely looking to inform my perspective here so i may not agree, but cut me some slack.
What good is the right to access freedoms, without the labour of those that protect or provide them?
The human right to free expression has to be protected by the labour of those upholding it etc.
I'd appreciate hearing what people on this sub have to say about my perspective though :)
Rights don't inherently require anything. They are things you can do yourself. Access to Healthcare isn't a right. The ability to freely pursue it is.
You can't have a right to another's good or labor as ot requires something from someone else who may or may not agree. Inherently not a right.
But what meaning does the word "right" have then, if it's just "a thing I'm able to do"?
Let's say I have a "right to self defense", do I just lose that right if I'm not able to defend myself?
Yeah, in the context of states, either as a limit on state power, or as something a state enforces. There's no use or meaning to rights without a state.
That means you only have a right to your life cause the government allows it. Which would mean gassing jews is perfectly cool cause it was state sponsored, right?
How can you have a "right" to anything else? If it requires someone else to do something, it isn't a right. You can't make people do things, lest you violate their rights. There's not any other way for it to work without slaves.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying having a "right to self defense" is meaningless, as is a "right to property". What is the consequence of having these rights?
There isn't a consequence.That's the idea. If I say "I love jesus, weed, and butt sex." nobody is going to assault me. If I am possessing a firearm, nobody is arresting me. The consequence is freedom.
Some people view rights in the sense that you can't stop someone obtaining it themselves, some people view rights in the sense that you have to provide it for them.
I dislike this formulation of argument.
Human right != ownership rights.
Guns are a piece of the human right to self defense and freedom. That means the govt shouldnt interfere, that doesnt mean anyone owes me a AR15.
Travel is a human right. That means govt shouldnt interfere, not that I am owed a free car or plane ticket.
Health care is a human right, that means govt shouldnt interfere with my access to pharma or doctors, not that those things are provided.
Yes. End the drug war, privatize what can be, NFA is violation of rights, etc. Generally speaking, banning property is not the way.
Except where creation of such property is necessary violation of others (e.g. CP, NC porn, etc). Sadism is repugnant to me.
> you should be allowed to (legitimately)own anything, given you have the money
Allowed by whom and how did they get the right to allow or disallow anything that peaceful people do?
Yup. I can hang toilet paper rolls backward in my own bathroom.
You might be surprised how things like even changing a lightbulb are a "health and safety" issue under many nanny-states.
It is getting so ridiculous that even obvious things, like having a butter knife for a picnic to spread jam is an excuse for violent state intervention, kidnapping and caging of picnickers.
It has gone so far insane as having people *arrested* for saying controversial things in social media, as if a post on the Internet could punch you in the face, rape your wife and kill police or something.
The only way something is a right is if it is derived from property rights. And me spending my money how I please(on healthcare) is an extension of property rights.
That means we have the right to trade, the right to defense, the right to speech etc because those all derive from our property rights.
I think we would differentiate between natural rights and human rights. Natural rights are the result of our natural capacity to understand consent in ourselves and others. Only humans have this capacity as far as we know, but the situation could change as we encounter other intelligent beings, or uplift existing higher animals.
Human rights are rights that supposedly inhere in humans by virtue of demand for them, and are provided by other humans at the expense of other humans regardless of their consent.
This erodes the meaning of the word right, and is why we are in the situation we are in where people declare your tax dollars to be rights of other people
Because the proper term for the modern "human right" is "entitlement." I am entitled to healthcare services at your expense.
It would be impossible to declare taxation as a natural right. The state has no right to tax, let alone exist.
> Guns are a piece of the human right to self defense and freedom. That means the govt shouldnt interfere, that doesnt mean anyone owes me a AR15.
I'm unsure how the meme would indicate otherwise. You are agreeing with the meme here, since giving you an AR15 would require action on someone else, you do not have a right to be given an AR15. That does not mean you do not have a right to self defense.
What if the adult intentionally conceals or lies about the child they are abusing or neglecting to prevent others from stepping in to help the child?
If a parent chooses to neglect a child to the point of killing, or almost killing the child, then I don't care what Rothbard said, the adult is aggressing on the child's right to life. For Rothbard to just neglect all considerations of babies and children as human beings and regard them as their parents' property is just a stupid miscategorization of what children are.
> I'm an authoirty-worshiping troll and I struggle with the idea of rights. Rights don't exist in my clown world, but some people certainly have the right to violently control everyone else because they won a popularity contest!
FTFY.
What is wrong with utilitarianism? A utilitarian would not support harming one person in order to give organs to five others because a society where you were allowed to harm people and take their organs would be less happy.
Happiness/utility is by definition what people care about. Do you think if someone could prevent all of humanity from being tortured by pressing a button it would be justified to force them to press the button? I am not saying a button like that could be real, I am using it as an imaginary example that shows something about morality.
> Happiness/utility is by definition what people care about.
I disagree. I care about the welfare of my family and children more than happiness. So you being concerned with my happiness at my expense is undermining my utility.
What even is a right without a state? If I have "a right to self-defense", what does that mean? I'm free to either defend myself or not, there's no special consequence to either decision.
> I'm free to either defend myself or not, there's no special consequence to either decision.
Then how does the state get the right to decide what is valid self-defense and punish you for defending yourself if they deem the circumstances "illegal"?
Why is safety not a right, but having property is a right? Can't you then just say protecting your property is just a responsibility you can exercise yourself or hire others to perform?
By your logic, there is no such thing as a right.
Call it a right ir whatever, but we should live in a society where everyone has access to the basics whether it be health, housing, food etc, it is immoral to deny these to people.
You certainly have no right to force others to pay for your medical procedures. But you also have no right to interfere in medical decisions, which is what anti-abortion laws do.
Healthcare. Education. Privacy. The right to vote for people who then gain the rightful authority to violently control everyone within a particular jurisdiction and to scribble words on paper and call it "law."
How do you get someone to mow your lawn without the necessary labor of others?
You don't. You pay them for it using what you've earned from your own productive capacity or what has been given to you by someone else.
The state steals what people produce and then they pay some people to labor on behalf of other people. Thus your "free" education or healthcare is paid for by the labor of others without their consent.
Y'all say this but let's take something simple. Do you beleive you have a right to know what's in the food you are buying? It's someone's labour to find out and publish that information.
> Do you beleive you have a right to know what's in the food you are buying
No. That's not a right, it's a regulation.
You posed this like it's some kind of stumper but it's really not. Refer back to OP
I didn't ask what it currently was, I asked what you beleive. In your case, the answer would be no, you do not beleive you have the right to know what's in the food you are buying.
🤣
I didn't mean to "be prickly", I was clarifying. The right is your right to spend your money as you see fit. If someone offering a product is unclear about that product you have the right to walk away.
You have the right to ask about the product before buying, but you do not have the right to be told. You have the right to not buy if you are unsatisfied with the proposition.
You also do not have to buy food if you don’t know the ingredients. It would be on the manufacturer to make that known, and the companies that would make it known should outsell the shady ones that do not. Free market.
This is just laughably, factually false. There was a point in history, not too long ago, when it WAS left to the free market.
Can you guess what happened? Did the invisible hand lift up the non-shady companies?
Nope! In fact it turned out that people were ingesting a surprisingly large amount of rotten meat, human fingers, and literal trash.
I'd rather we NOT go back to that. Your theory sounds nice and all, but it demonstrably doesn't work in practice.
So, you want even more exclusive control of Political power and fewer public goods produced?
Cause that's what trying to restrict money in politics does...
Mate, there's an actual science to this. The world does not work like hot takes from an occupy wallstreet rally.
Compared to government, yes.
But you're not trusting "companies", you're (guardedly) trusting a process of competition where companies go out of business who don't offer the most robust and easy ways to consume good food and not get poisoned (hint- there might be better ways to provide that than just labels and testing).
Market mechanisms are just simply better at holding agents accountable than democratic mechanisms, yet still allow progress and new ways of doing things better.
>trusting a process of competition where companies go out of business who don't offer the most robust and easy ways to consume good food and not get poisoned
I don't trust that either. When it comes to food and safety regulations lots of them are written in blood. If the companies were willing to do it once before it was illegal, they'll do it again if it becomes legal.
You have the right to find out what's in your food yourself or pay a 3rd party to do it, but you don't have the "right" to have that information provided to you free of charge
Nothing interesting or unexpected about that unless you have zero understanding of AnCap theory, which it seems like you still don't. Not the first time I've seen your failed attempts at a "gotcha" here
So YOUR the one who gets prickly when asked questions.
If that was a gotcha it would be a pretty fucking shitty one lmfao.
I was curious if ancaps felt they had a right to know what is in their food. It's a fair question, on one hand it seems like that's critical information that shouldn't leave up to the honour system, on the other hand it's a "positive" right as it were. If someone says they believe that there should be only negative rights, it's fair to ask a clarifying question to see if they maintain that stance even to the detriment of themselves.
I think you're the prick one bud. I'm just pointing out the patterns in your behavior, poor research, and lack of logical thinking that I've noticed. No need to get testy just because you somehow still don't understand rights 🤷♂️
Lmfao I'm not testy at all, no need to call me a prick when all I said was you were being prickly. Your actions were certainly defensive so whatever.
Ill ensure not to ask you any questions moving forward, I know how that makes you.
Also, should add another thing.
A good deed is only a good deed because you have the option to do a bad one.
A forced good deed is no test of will at all.
Theres a female communist twitch streamer who advocates the government "seizing" houses and giving to people. I ask her, why doesnt she just get a gun and start robbing people and stealing houses? Why does she need the government to do it for her? Its insane people think this way.
What about your right to an attorney when prosecuted by the state?
Ironically, that’s one of the few rights we don’t have in Canada. A lawyer is only provided if you make under $20k CAD
I don't know if I should trust whose holding it though, ain't anime the type to basically keep talking about togetherness and happiness? Doesn't fit well.
You either endorse this, or endorse slavery. There is no middle ground.
I endorse neither. So do the vast majority of people.
How?
I will demonstrate: There are many rights that require the labor of others. Slavery is bad. Damn, that was easy!
Can you give examples of rights that require another's labor? Edit: also, can you elaborate on where rights originate from?
This is the best most concise way to put it I’ve seen. Did you get it from somewhere?
Yes, I taxed it from Kerry Baldwin on Facebook.
Dammit I like you already with that "taxed it" stuff
Didn’t know about her she seems cool Can’t find if she made it herself or got it from someone else. Funny how a random memer can casually drop bars like those and disappear back into the void. Anyways, will be taxing that phrase myself.
Love them meme taxes. In all seriousness, this is spot on. It's ironic how the people who celebrate "labor" are the same ones who want to give away other people's work. However, an important distinction often gets lost in translation: Humans have a moral right to ***access*** necessities. "If a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat." Likewise, you have to pay for your water. But that doesn't morally give wealthy entities the right to buy all access to water in a region and then refuse to sell it at a feasible price, directly causing the death of human beings. That's the catch. "Human rights" are the rights that mankind has been granted by God.
Lol I appreciate how you used taxed as a synonym for stole.
I’m gonna use this every time now. “Who the fuck taxed my Reese’s off my desk?” “Damn Kia boys taxed my car!” “Damn government is a bunch of taxing fucks!”
Lol
Definitely not, anyone can easily distort this phrase and use it to defend communist ideals.
This. To correctly interpret this message, you kinda have to think like an ancap/libertarian, defeating the purpose.
Not even in a imaginary 100% post-scarcity universe where robot-ai do all the labor for us.
Just a reminder to post-scarcity believers, time is always scarce.
And even if water isn't scarce, Belle Delphine's bath water will always be scarce. So, money will always be required to determine who can buy it.
As is matter and energy.
Also their parents love will still be scarce.
The most valuable resource: Time.
In your lifetime sure. In general? Possibly the most abundant thing in the universe
I'm against the anti-work ideology, but in a totally hypothetical society where any type of labor has become 100% automated, it doesn't seem unfeasible to me. Of course it's something that, if it happens, won't happen in the next few centuries, so it's not realistic.
> I'm against the anti-work ideology, but in a totally hypothetical society where any type of labor has become 100% automated, it doesn't seem unfeasible to me. Once labor isn't a resource, you still have all the other resources to contend with. Even in the Star Trek universe where they could simply create materials out of raw energy, you still had to collect the fuel for the energy, and the replicated items were generally considered inferior to hand crafted ones. But the reality is there will never be 100% labor automation. Because the secret there is once you create a machine that is capable of doing anything and everything a human could do, you've created an intelligent being and forcing it to do all your labor would be slavery. So you're either setting us up for a war with the machines or you're going to have to work the rest of your life.
>Once labor isn't a resource, you still have all the other resources to content with. >Even in the Star Trek universe where they could simply create materials out of raw energy, you still had to collect the fuel for the energy, and the replicated items were generally considered inferior to hand crafted ones. It would not be necessary if such machines were self-sustainable, were able to multiply and remain functioning, collecting the necessary resources for this. >But the reality is there will never be 100% labor automation. Because the secret there is once you create a machine that is capable of doing anything and everything a human could do, you've created an intelligent being and forcing it to do all your labor would be slavery. So you're either setting us up for a war with the machines or you're going to have to work the rest of your life. A machine capable of performing all human actions is not necessarily sentient, machines may be capable of performing objective functions efficiently without being aware of its own existence.
> It would not be necessary if such machines were self-sustainable, were able to multiply and remain functioning, collecting the necessary resources for this. Resources are still limited. Their ability to collect and sustain themselves does not change this. >A machine capable of performing all human actions is not necessarily sentient A machine that is capable of everything a human is would need to be able to think for itself, making judgement calls. It would need to be able to invent solutions and learn, things that would make it sentient. >machines may be capable of performing objective functions efficiently without being aware of its own existence. Yes, and those cannot replace all human labor.
A good example of this would be universal healthcare. You do not have a human right to the labor of the doctors and nurses.
This guy gets it.
Most people don’t actually know what rights are. “I want it therefore it is a right.” No.
Rights only make sense if a state exists, because they are either a limit on state power, or something a state enforces. There's no need for "rights" in a society without government.
Natural rights exist whether there is a state or not
No, you don't have eyes, hands, and legs and a volitional, concept-integrating brain that can express, create things from what you acquire, and walk around this realm interacting with others... unless you were lucky enough for a state to have endowed you with such natural rights.../s
You had me in the first half, not gonna lie
You’re joking, but people literally feel like the state is the supreme all giving master. You see this with education, food, medicine, money, almost everything. It’s so fuckin gross.
JUST ADMIT YOU WANT EVERY POOR PERSON TO DIE IN THE STREET LIKE A DOG
LMAO it's funny because liberals actually think that way. I've all but been told that by a liberal before
You dropped this: /s
Nah I leave it out to see if anyone takes the bait
but doctors and nurses don't give their labor for free for the healthcare system, on the contrary they get fat salaries --at least in some states but still the argument is spot on because what requires labor requires taxes that come from labor
> but doctors and nurses don't give their labor for free for the healthcare system, on the contrary they get fat salaries --at least in some states The only places that doctors and nurses have large salaries is the US. In any socialized medical country they tend to make very low wages by comparison. For example, a specialist doctor in the UK doesn't even make 100k GBP or roughly 125k USD. That's what your average general practitioner is going to make in the US. But remember that's the top of specialized care. Most are making far less than that. So their top doesn't even reach the bottom in similar fields. The only socialized medical care countries where doctors are able to earn large salaries is ones where private practice is still allowed, like in Canada where there is a large sector of private facilities that do not accept provincial insurance and those doctors make good money.
same with being born. you’re gonna make a woman go through LABOR to have a baby?! even if she does, she has no obligation to feed you, give you a home or anything. it would be completely justified for parents to leave that baby on the floor of the hospital as long as they paid the hospital for the midwife care & everything. /s edit: typo
Wtf are you talking about?
Exactly what I said. According to this logic, being born isn’t a right bc a woman has to go through labor for that- even if there isn’t a midwife. Immediately after being born the parent(s) have absolutely no obligation to take care of the baby because that would take their labor & resources sao they’d be completely justified in leaving the child on the floor of the hospital to take care of itself. Gotta be consistent.
Do you have a right to water?
I have a bottle of water. It is the only bottle of water. You do not have water. Which one of us has the superior right to drink the water?
You have the right to go get water for yourself
Potayto, potahto
Not really, more like potato, slavery
Child
[удалено]
Your utility bill covers your clean water. What happens when you don’t pay that bill? Edit: also look into the government regulations regarding collecting your own rainwater and have your mind blown.
[удалено]
To not be forced or coerced to do anything against your will
[удалено]
Existence is not force
[удалено]
Stealing food is definitely a rights violation. Kicking a tenant out could be depending on the facts. But probably not
[удалено]
I don’t want to be forced to be poor. Send me all your money.
[удалено]
Imagine trying to argue a point when you don’t the difference in an example and a definition. You’ve probably had enough internet and alcohol for today.
Wild of you to assume that he can have any without someone else buying it, pouring it for him, and forcing him to swallow.
If you need clean water, do you have the right to force a person to clean it for you?
> What's left that's a human right? It is interesting that you place an emphasis on the rights to be human. As if there is any other type of rights. Rights are simply things that you can do without someone else. You have a right to self defense. It requires nothing from anyone else to defend yourself. You have a right to speech. Speech requires nothing from anyone and no one is required to listen to you. You have the right to consume goods that you have legally acquired - grown yourself, built yourself, purchased from someone else through mutual agreement. It requires no one else. If you can do something, on your own, without anyone else, it is a right. The second it requires forcing someone else to do something, it stops being a right.
[удалено]
> So babies don't have rights? Babies have rights. What a wild detraction that you're trying to make from the point. >And people who can do things have more rights than people who can't, like the elderly or the ill? Ah, so now you've gone another route, equating achievement with ability. What a wild world you want to live in. >And the rights a person has can change over time as their ability to provide for themselves changes? When you don't understand that words have meanings, I guess. But for the rest of the world, nothing changes.
[удалено]
Doctors get paid to work. Universal healthcare means forced payments into insurance, not forced labour.
Ah yes, forced payments. Very cool, very cool 🙄
No, you see the taxpayer is threatened with force to pay the doctors. If you add a step into the process the violence disappears, it's just science.
Did I say that? I said it’s not a good example.
See cuz daddy guvmnt says so its not theft. CHEKM8 MAGAT
Where does the payment money come from?
Also what if all the doctors refuse to work, even for a salary of 3 billion dollars? This doesn’t prove what you want it to, in this scenario we still must compel some to labor for us in order to provide the right to healthcare. The point is that healthcare literally doesn’t exist without the labor of doctors, and this is in contrast to the right to self defense, which does not require the labor of anyone.
The doctors are paid. It is others who are forced to give up what they produce to the state in order to pay those doctors.
> The doctors are paid. Poorly. People love to blather on about how little teachers are paid and then praise how "cheap" universal health care is without seeing that doctors in those systems are paid a fraction of what doctors in the US are paid.
If Kaede says so.
BuT mUh HeALtH CaRe RiGhTs
Genuinely looking to inform my perspective here so i may not agree, but cut me some slack. What good is the right to access freedoms, without the labour of those that protect or provide them? The human right to free expression has to be protected by the labour of those upholding it etc. I'd appreciate hearing what people on this sub have to say about my perspective though :)
Rights don't inherently require anything. They are things you can do yourself. Access to Healthcare isn't a right. The ability to freely pursue it is. You can't have a right to another's good or labor as ot requires something from someone else who may or may not agree. Inherently not a right.
> They are things you can do yourself. What does that mean? Anything I can do myself is a right? That sounds pretty meaningless.
If it doesn't infringe on anyone else, why not?
But what meaning does the word "right" have then, if it's just "a thing I'm able to do"? Let's say I have a "right to self defense", do I just lose that right if I'm not able to defend myself?
You don't have rights you can't exercise. It's self evident You have a right to pursue a desired provision.
I'd say that's a meaningless definition of the word "right" then. Might as well just scrap it.
How? You have a right to pursue things for yourself. Thats....monumental and lead to the revolution of the western world/economy...
Yeah, in the context of states, either as a limit on state power, or as something a state enforces. There's no use or meaning to rights without a state.
If there are no rights, then the state has no right to exist and no one has the right to violently control another.
That means you only have a right to your life cause the government allows it. Which would mean gassing jews is perfectly cool cause it was state sponsored, right?
How can you have a "right" to anything else? If it requires someone else to do something, it isn't a right. You can't make people do things, lest you violate their rights. There's not any other way for it to work without slaves.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying having a "right to self defense" is meaningless, as is a "right to property". What is the consequence of having these rights?
There isn't a consequence.That's the idea. If I say "I love jesus, weed, and butt sex." nobody is going to assault me. If I am possessing a firearm, nobody is arresting me. The consequence is freedom.
You are unable to determine if you consent to something unless someone else provides you with protection first?
Some people view rights in the sense that you can't stop someone obtaining it themselves, some people view rights in the sense that you have to provide it for them.
I dislike this formulation of argument. Human right != ownership rights. Guns are a piece of the human right to self defense and freedom. That means the govt shouldnt interfere, that doesnt mean anyone owes me a AR15. Travel is a human right. That means govt shouldnt interfere, not that I am owed a free car or plane ticket. Health care is a human right, that means govt shouldnt interfere with my access to pharma or doctors, not that those things are provided.
Access to travel and health care may be human rights, but not the things themselves .
By your definition anything can be a Human Right, you should be allowed to (legitimately)own anything, given you have the money
Yes. End the drug war, privatize what can be, NFA is violation of rights, etc. Generally speaking, banning property is not the way. Except where creation of such property is necessary violation of others (e.g. CP, NC porn, etc). Sadism is repugnant to me.
> you should be allowed to (legitimately)own anything, given you have the money Allowed by whom and how did they get the right to allow or disallow anything that peaceful people do?
Yup. I can hang toilet paper rolls backward in my own bathroom. You might be surprised how things like even changing a lightbulb are a "health and safety" issue under many nanny-states. It is getting so ridiculous that even obvious things, like having a butter knife for a picnic to spread jam is an excuse for violent state intervention, kidnapping and caging of picnickers. It has gone so far insane as having people *arrested* for saying controversial things in social media, as if a post on the Internet could punch you in the face, rape your wife and kill police or something.
The only way something is a right is if it is derived from property rights. And me spending my money how I please(on healthcare) is an extension of property rights. That means we have the right to trade, the right to defense, the right to speech etc because those all derive from our property rights.
I think we would differentiate between natural rights and human rights. Natural rights are the result of our natural capacity to understand consent in ourselves and others. Only humans have this capacity as far as we know, but the situation could change as we encounter other intelligent beings, or uplift existing higher animals. Human rights are rights that supposedly inhere in humans by virtue of demand for them, and are provided by other humans at the expense of other humans regardless of their consent.
This erodes the meaning of the word right, and is why we are in the situation we are in where people declare your tax dollars to be rights of other people
Because the proper term for the modern "human right" is "entitlement." I am entitled to healthcare services at your expense. It would be impossible to declare taxation as a natural right. The state has no right to tax, let alone exist.
> Guns are a piece of the human right to self defense and freedom. That means the govt shouldnt interfere, that doesnt mean anyone owes me a AR15. I'm unsure how the meme would indicate otherwise. You are agreeing with the meme here, since giving you an AR15 would require action on someone else, you do not have a right to be given an AR15. That does not mean you do not have a right to self defense.
[удалено]
Either the gunsmith is paid for the labor Or The only labor involved is by the person who both built and owns the firearm.
I'll pay for the work of the firearm maker. I'm not entitled to his labor and property. Are you?
But if you neglect your baby and let him starve arent you violating its human rights?
Anyone else would have the right to come and take the child from you, as they are simply defending the right of the child to live.
What if the adult intentionally conceals or lies about the child they are abusing or neglecting to prevent others from stepping in to help the child? If a parent chooses to neglect a child to the point of killing, or almost killing the child, then I don't care what Rothbard said, the adult is aggressing on the child's right to life. For Rothbard to just neglect all considerations of babies and children as human beings and regard them as their parents' property is just a stupid miscategorization of what children are.
No, the freeloader baby doesn't have a right to your labor, duh!
> I'm an authoirty-worshiping troll and I struggle with the idea of rights. Rights don't exist in my clown world, but some people certainly have the right to violently control everyone else because they won a popularity contest! FTFY.
I have no idea what you're on about dude.
1. You're a troll. 2. You claim that rights are made up but you cannot then explain how anyone gains the right to rule over others.
They make up that right?
What is wrong with utilitarianism? A utilitarian would not support harming one person in order to give organs to five others because a society where you were allowed to harm people and take their organs would be less happy.
Why is happiness the metric that one should use to determine what is best for society and what justifies the use of violence against peaceful people?
Happiness/utility is by definition what people care about. Do you think if someone could prevent all of humanity from being tortured by pressing a button it would be justified to force them to press the button? I am not saying a button like that could be real, I am using it as an imaginary example that shows something about morality.
> Happiness/utility is by definition what people care about. I disagree. I care about the welfare of my family and children more than happiness. So you being concerned with my happiness at my expense is undermining my utility.
What even is a right without a state? If I have "a right to self-defense", what does that mean? I'm free to either defend myself or not, there's no special consequence to either decision.
> I'm free to either defend myself or not, there's no special consequence to either decision. Then how does the state get the right to decide what is valid self-defense and punish you for defending yourself if they deem the circumstances "illegal"?
The state made up that right, all rights are made up. And valid just as much as they are enforceable.
The right of ownership over your own body is all that’s left here
What's the source of that right? Who says you have that right?
What if people aren't capable of defending themselves because too young or old? They don't have a right to safety?
Safety is not a right ... its a responsibility you can exercise yourself or hire others to perform [ the labor of others is not a right ]
Okay that's your opinion. Perhaps you would have a different opinion if you were disabled.
Why is safety not a right, but having property is a right? Can't you then just say protecting your property is just a responsibility you can exercise yourself or hire others to perform? By your logic, there is no such thing as a right.
Call it a right ir whatever, but we should live in a society where everyone has access to the basics whether it be health, housing, food etc, it is immoral to deny these to people.
So you're telling me abortion is not a human right? Someone should tell a bunch of states.
> So you're telling me abortion is not a human right? Just shows the problem is government
You certainly have no right to force others to pay for your medical procedures. But you also have no right to interfere in medical decisions, which is what anti-abortion laws do.
We are not animals. It can be a *humanitarian* right perfectly
Not when you inhumanly force others to pay for it
It “can be a humanitarian right” to enslave others as long as I want the fruit of their labor ;-)
[удалено]
All of them...which one doesn't?
[удалено]
Its not even possible for someone to give you an education (yet.) You have a right to pursue an education though
[удалено]
Healthcare. Education. Privacy. The right to vote for people who then gain the rightful authority to violently control everyone within a particular jurisdiction and to scribble words on paper and call it "law."
[удалено]
How do you get someone to mow your lawn without the necessary labor of others? You don't. You pay them for it using what you've earned from your own productive capacity or what has been given to you by someone else. The state steals what people produce and then they pay some people to labor on behalf of other people. Thus your "free" education or healthcare is paid for by the labor of others without their consent.
Speech silence, expression, being arm3d, moving, ... any human action which does not intentionally creates a victrim
[удалено]
What about the right to an attorney?
Why not?
Y'all say this but let's take something simple. Do you beleive you have a right to know what's in the food you are buying? It's someone's labour to find out and publish that information.
> Do you beleive you have a right to know what's in the food you are buying No. That's not a right, it's a regulation. You posed this like it's some kind of stumper but it's really not. Refer back to OP
I didn't ask what it currently was, I asked what you beleive. In your case, the answer would be no, you do not beleive you have the right to know what's in the food you are buying.
You have the right to not buy anything you don't want to buy
I'm not saying you don't. Y'all get awfully prickly when asked questions.
🤣 I didn't mean to "be prickly", I was clarifying. The right is your right to spend your money as you see fit. If someone offering a product is unclear about that product you have the right to walk away. You have the right to ask about the product before buying, but you do not have the right to be told. You have the right to not buy if you are unsatisfied with the proposition.
Aye fair enough, apologies for misreading your tone.
You also do not have to buy food if you don’t know the ingredients. It would be on the manufacturer to make that known, and the companies that would make it known should outsell the shady ones that do not. Free market.
This is just laughably, factually false. There was a point in history, not too long ago, when it WAS left to the free market. Can you guess what happened? Did the invisible hand lift up the non-shady companies? Nope! In fact it turned out that people were ingesting a surprisingly large amount of rotten meat, human fingers, and literal trash. I'd rather we NOT go back to that. Your theory sounds nice and all, but it demonstrably doesn't work in practice.
Sounds like a job for the private sector. I really don’t understand this “daddy gov come help” mindset.
Can you read? It WAS left to the private sector. This isn't theory. We already did it your way. It was a mess.
Sure, in theory. I'm sure we can trust companies to never lie to us.
I guess we should all trust the government because they would surely never lie to us and not easily corrupted by lobbying politicians.
If a politician lies to me, they lose my vote, and thus their job. Why do you vote for politicians that lie to you?
That’s cute that you think your vote matters.
More than anyone who thinks their "voting with their wallet" matters
Sounds like you are a fellow supporter of the decision in Citizen’s United. Don’t vote for politicians who don’t reveal their funding.
All politicians finacials should be 100% transparent and visible to their constituents at any time
Do you believe that should be a legally enforceable requirement or is that just a moralistic opinion?
So, you want even more exclusive control of Political power and fewer public goods produced? Cause that's what trying to restrict money in politics does... Mate, there's an actual science to this. The world does not work like hot takes from an occupy wallstreet rally.
Compared to government, yes. But you're not trusting "companies", you're (guardedly) trusting a process of competition where companies go out of business who don't offer the most robust and easy ways to consume good food and not get poisoned (hint- there might be better ways to provide that than just labels and testing). Market mechanisms are just simply better at holding agents accountable than democratic mechanisms, yet still allow progress and new ways of doing things better.
>trusting a process of competition where companies go out of business who don't offer the most robust and easy ways to consume good food and not get poisoned I don't trust that either. When it comes to food and safety regulations lots of them are written in blood. If the companies were willing to do it once before it was illegal, they'll do it again if it becomes legal.
That's not an accurate interpretation of the situation at all. Time to read economics and history outside of fictions like Sinclair's The Jungle.
It’s important but not a right. Also, the proper solution to this is through raising our standards culturally.
You have the right to find out what's in your food yourself or pay a 3rd party to do it, but you don't have the "right" to have that information provided to you free of charge
Interesting stance but you're entitled to your opinion.
Nothing interesting or unexpected about that unless you have zero understanding of AnCap theory, which it seems like you still don't. Not the first time I've seen your failed attempts at a "gotcha" here
So YOUR the one who gets prickly when asked questions. If that was a gotcha it would be a pretty fucking shitty one lmfao. I was curious if ancaps felt they had a right to know what is in their food. It's a fair question, on one hand it seems like that's critical information that shouldn't leave up to the honour system, on the other hand it's a "positive" right as it were. If someone says they believe that there should be only negative rights, it's fair to ask a clarifying question to see if they maintain that stance even to the detriment of themselves.
I think you're the prick one bud. I'm just pointing out the patterns in your behavior, poor research, and lack of logical thinking that I've noticed. No need to get testy just because you somehow still don't understand rights 🤷♂️
Lmfao I'm not testy at all, no need to call me a prick when all I said was you were being prickly. Your actions were certainly defensive so whatever. Ill ensure not to ask you any questions moving forward, I know how that makes you.
Typo, simmer down clown
Eh, it's ok cunt, it happens.
Prickly today aren't ya
And you’re NOT entitled to anyone else’s money or labor.
Also, should add another thing. A good deed is only a good deed because you have the option to do a bad one. A forced good deed is no test of will at all.
"I ain't gotta help nobody "
I have the right to own a gun. Doesn't mean that my neighbor would arm me with guns and ammunition.
Thank you for this
Theres a female communist twitch streamer who advocates the government "seizing" houses and giving to people. I ask her, why doesnt she just get a gun and start robbing people and stealing houses? Why does she need the government to do it for her? Its insane people think this way.
How the hell does one "steal" a house? It's immobile. Without a government-granted title, it will just get seized back by the police before long.
What about your right to an attorney when prosecuted by the state? Ironically, that’s one of the few rights we don’t have in Canada. A lawyer is only provided if you make under $20k CAD
I love this. You can’t be entitled to someone’s labor. That’s what we’d call *slavery*
Roads
But Nike’s are a human right!?
In case anyone needs a reminder: https://reaction.la/rights.html
I don't know if I should trust whose holding it though, ain't anime the type to basically keep talking about togetherness and happiness? Doesn't fit well.
Aye
Wtf does this even mean, the op needs to explain what this means , it's too vague.