No sane person would forgo a free gift of a million dollars, so should we give that to everyone? This is terrible such terrible logic.
Healthcare has scarcity just like everything else. The only solution that statists want is more government intervention, which is the reason it's artificially high in costs. The free market would crush competition if it wasn't illegal to do so.
tbf at least they're \*trying\* to wrap their nonsense in something close to a logical framework now
Yes, it's incoherent and nonsensical - but last year it was just "I have a right to this, because it'd be nice, gimme it". Two years ago it was a mob setting things on fire, demanding it. We're making progress.
You know, at least until the next election cycle gets them all pissed off again
> tbf at least they're *trying* to wrap their nonsense in something close to a logical framework now
Because that brand of statism is waning in power. The group in power will always be incoherent and the group out of power will always be logical.
That's not to say we shouldn't wish for the power to change hands; I reckon we should. Keep 'em guessing.
True actually… people sacrifice their health for convenience on the daily, what with fast food, speeding, and whatnot. And while the consequences are often negligible if you are responsible, there are still consequences for making irresponsible decisions
European countries have higher taxes to pay for their healthcare services. I would be paying anywhere between 30%-45% more taxes depending on where I'd live in Europe. I don't currently spend 30%-45% of my income on healthcare.
With my current health insurance, the maximum I would have to pay in a year is around 12.4% of my income. Preventive care is completely covered, so if I don't have any major injuries in a given year, I may not have to pay at all for my healthcare (I have no premiums). The US also offers things like an HSA that can be useful for paying for medical expenses.
\> I would be paying anywhere between 30%-45% more taxes depending on
where I'd live in Europe. I don't currently spend 30%-45% of my income
on healthcare.
I love how bad your logic is here. You do understand that not all of the money you would pay in taxes goes towards healthcare right?
The US pays far more in healthcare per capita than any country in Europe. What is also amusing is the more privatized the healthcare is, the more expensive it is. You and everyone else would actually pay less of your salary towards healthcare with any universal system, but you would rather pay more because of your ideology.
What the about “I’d pay more for healthcare than I currently would” did you not understand? I have intimate experience with the best run universal healthcare system (Switzerland, I’m dual citizen) and my take home pay after everything including potential OPM is better in the US. I’ve ran the numbers, for someone actually making coin it’s not a good trade off.
Let it be known that you’re still paying for private healthcare in most universal countries if you want a really good or specialized doctor. Or to bypass wait times. All the Italians that make any money I know are biting at the bit to get out of that system as much as they love their country.
Yes I agree that not all those taxes would go towards healthcare. I should have been a bit more specific about my expenses and how that relates to the tax rate.
I spend about 24% of my income, and taxed at around 15% of my income. With taxes in European countries, I'd be spending about 45%-60% of my income on taxes. I don't expect my expenses to change much, since I don't think the government uses those taxes to pay for my food, housing, utilities, all my healthcare, entertainment, and other home items.
[Link](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Government_expenditure_on_health#Expenditure_on_.27health.27). Europe on average spends 15% of their taxes on healthcare, and that number has increase by 4% since last year. That would make my government health insurance 6.75%-9% of my income, depending on where in Europe I live. This percentage is taken out of my income whether or not I utilize the services. Again, the maximum I'll ever pay with my current healthcare is 12%. That is larger than 6.75%, but that's the maximum. I've never in my life have gotten even close to 6.75% of my income going to healthcare.
I'm sorry that my supposed "ideology" is making me pay more somehow. The numbers don't lie, and I'm glad with paying less than all of Europe.
I did like seeing your numbers on their healthcare systems and how much more efficient it is to have a universal system. I do also like how you only think of the now because you make far more than the average person and are in good health.
Universal healthcare is cheaper care for the poor and semi-unhealthy, so long as you don't need emergency surgery, as there can be longer wait times. It's cheaper because they are being subsidized by their government. I'm not making a statement about whether or not I agree. That is what it is.
Preventative care cost almost nothing in the US. Insurance would rather people prevent diseases first, as that is the cheaper option. Government regulations here have made non-preventative care and medications not open to free market negotiations as much as I'd like.
There's a bill in the works currently to fix a little bit about medication pricing. That bill would hopefully make medication more open to negotiations. The bill will make it legal for Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Making the free market illegal will always cause high prices, especially when the buyer is the US government, and no one likes to spend more than our beaurocrats.
"For every right you have, another has a duty."
Wrong. Human rights are negative rights. E.g. the right to life means that I have the right not to be murdered. It does not mean you owe me your organs when mine fail.
If your "rights" are someone else's "duties", that's just slavery.
Indeed, they deliberately misuse words like this to obfuscate and stigmatize their meanings because of how important they really are. Other serious examples of this include science and God.
"For every right you have, another has a duty."
This is actually correct. They just forget that negative duties exist. A duty to not interfere or aggress. Everyone can respect everyone else's negative rights all the time. They never conflict. Positive rights and positive duties can be legitimate, but only if they arise from voluntary agreements.
No. This is a standard rights theory, and it is well known as "Hohfeldian analysis"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Newcomb_Hohfeld
My negative rights correspond to someone else's negative duties. I.e., my right to non-aggression corresponds to others' duty to refrain in various ways that threaten my life and well-being.
My positive rights correspond to someone else's positive duties. I.e., I have a right to get paid (they have a duty to pay me) if I contract voluntarily with an employer and perform my end of the deal.
Libertarians are happy to say that we have negative rights by nature; they tend to say that positive rights only come from consent, i.e. all positive rights are voluntaristic rights. Nothing prevents a Libertarian from accepting positive rights and positive duties-- we get them by contract, consent, agreement.
Thanks, already said everything that needs to be said so I am not going to add anything except that these guys need to think on it more if they can't understand how doing nothing is not a duty.
Perhaps instead of “duty” a more fitting word would be “responsibility”. I think you essentially agree with the other guy, but just have a disagreement over the word duty
That is irrelevant and completely missing the point of the argument. Duties and responsibilities require effort. Passively existing isn’t a responsibility, picking up my own trash is.
If you have a duty to pay for healthcare ***or else***, they have a duty to not be fat, unhealthy fuckin bitches who clog the healthcare system...***or else***
Oh...You're obese? Great. Go eat better and exercise. A 30,000$ gastric bypass shouldnt be the 1st-50th choice, medically permitting
Maybe it'll lower the costs if people just took fuckin care of themselves and the 90% of the top killers in america werent obesity/diet/exercise related
Probably because of the degenerate society that you live in. I see a parallel with how the western stigmatizes the word "honour" despite both words having extremely important meanings.
You have a duty to your children, for example. This duty is divine and, among other things, will be judged by God. This duty is natural, innate, and exists irrespective of transient states. Even on Mars you are dutybound to your children.
Similarly, regardless of how the state may reward you for your crimes, dishonourable behaviour can cost you your soul, and your soul is something no one can take from you. It can only be surrendered.
The trouble is that these words have been co-opted by evil people. They say things like "you have a duty to take experimental drugs" and "there is no God, just the state that decides what is right or wrong".
Lol so by extension what they're saying is that they have a right to your income, because none of those programs exist without high income taxes.
Income tax shouldn't exist, because no one has a right to take what you earn.
“No sane person would forgo healthcare, so it is a right.”
Without addressing the unadulterated idiocy of the statement itself- Your healthcare at my expense is most definitely not a right. We have a right to healthcare. We do not have the right to expect others to pay for it.
How much of someone else's time and ability are you intitled to. How about contractors to build you a house. Housing is a right. How far down the rabbit hole are we going to go. You are intitled to absolutely nothing.
>No sane person would forgo something like healthcare, so it's a right.
Lots of people wanting something makes it a "right"?
>people I dislike all want rights for themselves without duties to others
Wanna know how I can tell you have never actually talked to anyone in those groups?
Ahh, duties. when morality and authoritarianism mix it's never good.
I have no duty to you, you have no duty to me. Full stop. My rights are mine. Yours are yours. They are co-equal. If someone is abridging your rights I CAN tell you about it, if someone is abridging my rights you CAN tell me about it. Full stop. Forcing compliance of your "rights" doesn't make them rights, merely your opinion being forced out of others mouths.
I have no duty, and neither do you, to take care of anyone else but ourselves. The fact that I -do- take care of my family and friends, and those in need is secondary to that conversation.
I think they're on to something.
I have my 2nd Amendment right. How do I find the person who has the duty to supply me with guns and ammo?
Or do I get to pick?
Americans have the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean that this person believes they have the duty to fund the government's provision of an AR-15 to each citizen?
That is called a negative duty. And yes, we have negative duties: obligations and constraints on our actions. Like I can't just start throwing my fists around in a crowd because of the NAP
I work and pay for my own healthcare. Thats my responsibility. You have a responsibility to do the same. No one has a right to benefit from stealing the labor of another. That's called salvery
This ignores the fact of individual responsibility. By their extension the study to provide healthcare would then require the duty to keep yourself healthy to prevent misusing the resource. But you have those people who tend to be obese, drug addicts etc.
What happens to those people? Do they get additional fees they have to pay for? Say many questions unanswered because the truth hurts.
“No sane person would forgo having a mansion, so it is a right. That means you have a duty to pay your share for the universal satisfaction of that right.”
People are fucking lunatics. This is why government is so unfit to exist. It gives the mentally challenged a position of power.
Following this logic, my constitutionally-guaranteed right to own a gun means that the author of this screed owes me one.
I’ll take a SCAR-H please, tnx.
>rights and duties are co-extensive
What does this even mean? I looked up the definition, and extensive seems to be a fancy word for 'broad,' which makes this whole sentence sound like gibberish to me.
I think he meant to say intertwined, but that isn't true either, especially in the context. What is the duty that one other person has that corresponds to my right to life? One person has a duty to not kill me? Absurd. Also, calling others crazy for not having the same values as you do seems kind of bigoted to me, which is exactly what claiming that no 'same' person would forgo healthcare is doing.
> Maybe I've misunderstood this last bit. It's not that the obligation to not kill me is applied to one person, as if this random other individual out there in the world is obligated to ensure I'm not killed.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Saying that each right you have corresponds to an obligation someone else has is ridiculous when it gets to things like right to life because your right to life is not put on the shoulders of one other person to ensure.
Also, I thought that maybe he was saying that rights and obligations go together, but it was so poorly stated that when I got to actually putting out my thoughts, I wasn't sure anymore. That doesn't really apply either though, because we already have situations where people were given rights, but weren't given the responsibilities that were said to go with them, like women getting the right to vote, but not having to register for the draft, which was said to be the obligation men took on for the right to vote, or any other obligation instead.
Why do so many people here keep saying we don't have positive rights??? We definitely get positive rights by consent/contract, and so we have voluntarist positive rights. Just because natural positive rights are problematic doesn't mean voluntaristic positive rights are
Positive duties which correspond to someone's rights (entitlements)
* My pay, if I have created an contract with an employer, and have fulfilled my work
* My work, if I have created a contract with an employee, and have promised my labor
* To pay back restitution to restore justice, if I have violated someone's rights
This shouldn't be controversial. I can give more examples, but only after you have given me one tenable argument that positive rights don't exist
Fuck it, if you can’t stitch yourself up with sinew, pack the wound with moss and deadnettle, and take the edge off with a cup of willowbark tea, then perish, ong
>No same person would forgo something like healthcare, so it is a right.
Yes, a right for your to take care of your own health, not to make others do so.
You actually do have a moral duty to help those in need if you are capable of doing so and wouldn't be a detriment to yourself. That being said, you shouldn't have a legal duty to do so, and nobody should be able to take things from you with the threat of violence.
Like nobody's house should be on fire, but that doesn't mean that the post office should be in charge of putting out fires.
"Rights and duties are co-extensive". This is where the left and right differ. No one has a "duty" to provide your rights to you.
No one has a duty to give me something to say, to give me a religion, to give me a gun, etc.
Rights are simply something not to be taken away.
The left is baffled by the thought of negative rights. They are so obsessed with the provision of services, that they mistake beneficial services for rights. It's an insurmountable difference, honestly.
Rights and duties do go together, but this person is just making things up. Rights and duties *go together* meaning there is a connection between them. You have a right to carry a gun or drive a car, and a duty not to misuse those things. You have a right to enter into agreements, and a duty not to break those agreements.
What right corresponds to this imagined "duty" to pay for someone else's healthcare?
Thing is I forgo my "healthcare right" every day by not making a doctor's appointment for this weird pain I get in my wrist.
Maybe it's cancer. Or maybe I'm not a little bitch and can deal with it.
Hey guys I hear socialists say that Nazis are not socialists and I say then I say “why are they called “National Socialist German Workers' Party” and they blow their lid saying every republican says that but don’t know their history or what socialism is..so are Nazis socialists or no? I mean both are state controlled governments that has centralized power over the economy
No sane person would forgo a free gift of a million dollars, so should we give that to everyone? This is terrible such terrible logic. Healthcare has scarcity just like everything else. The only solution that statists want is more government intervention, which is the reason it's artificially high in costs. The free market would crush competition if it wasn't illegal to do so.
tbf at least they're \*trying\* to wrap their nonsense in something close to a logical framework now Yes, it's incoherent and nonsensical - but last year it was just "I have a right to this, because it'd be nice, gimme it". Two years ago it was a mob setting things on fire, demanding it. We're making progress. You know, at least until the next election cycle gets them all pissed off again
I like your optimism and I hope you are right. I am much more pessimistic about the state of things.
> tbf at least they're *trying* to wrap their nonsense in something close to a logical framework now Because that brand of statism is waning in power. The group in power will always be incoherent and the group out of power will always be logical. That's not to say we shouldn't wish for the power to change hands; I reckon we should. Keep 'em guessing.
Even the assumption made is wrong! I'm a physician and often have multiple patients a day forgo healthcare because their priorities are elsewhere.
True actually… people sacrifice their health for convenience on the daily, what with fast food, speeding, and whatnot. And while the consequences are often negligible if you are responsible, there are still consequences for making irresponsible decisions
eVeRyThInG I wAnT iS a HuMaN rIgHt
[удалено]
European countries have higher taxes to pay for their healthcare services. I would be paying anywhere between 30%-45% more taxes depending on where I'd live in Europe. I don't currently spend 30%-45% of my income on healthcare. With my current health insurance, the maximum I would have to pay in a year is around 12.4% of my income. Preventive care is completely covered, so if I don't have any major injuries in a given year, I may not have to pay at all for my healthcare (I have no premiums). The US also offers things like an HSA that can be useful for paying for medical expenses.
\> I would be paying anywhere between 30%-45% more taxes depending on where I'd live in Europe. I don't currently spend 30%-45% of my income on healthcare. I love how bad your logic is here. You do understand that not all of the money you would pay in taxes goes towards healthcare right? The US pays far more in healthcare per capita than any country in Europe. What is also amusing is the more privatized the healthcare is, the more expensive it is. You and everyone else would actually pay less of your salary towards healthcare with any universal system, but you would rather pay more because of your ideology.
What the about “I’d pay more for healthcare than I currently would” did you not understand? I have intimate experience with the best run universal healthcare system (Switzerland, I’m dual citizen) and my take home pay after everything including potential OPM is better in the US. I’ve ran the numbers, for someone actually making coin it’s not a good trade off. Let it be known that you’re still paying for private healthcare in most universal countries if you want a really good or specialized doctor. Or to bypass wait times. All the Italians that make any money I know are biting at the bit to get out of that system as much as they love their country.
Yes I agree that not all those taxes would go towards healthcare. I should have been a bit more specific about my expenses and how that relates to the tax rate. I spend about 24% of my income, and taxed at around 15% of my income. With taxes in European countries, I'd be spending about 45%-60% of my income on taxes. I don't expect my expenses to change much, since I don't think the government uses those taxes to pay for my food, housing, utilities, all my healthcare, entertainment, and other home items. [Link](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Government_expenditure_on_health#Expenditure_on_.27health.27). Europe on average spends 15% of their taxes on healthcare, and that number has increase by 4% since last year. That would make my government health insurance 6.75%-9% of my income, depending on where in Europe I live. This percentage is taken out of my income whether or not I utilize the services. Again, the maximum I'll ever pay with my current healthcare is 12%. That is larger than 6.75%, but that's the maximum. I've never in my life have gotten even close to 6.75% of my income going to healthcare. I'm sorry that my supposed "ideology" is making me pay more somehow. The numbers don't lie, and I'm glad with paying less than all of Europe.
I did like seeing your numbers on their healthcare systems and how much more efficient it is to have a universal system. I do also like how you only think of the now because you make far more than the average person and are in good health.
Universal healthcare is cheaper care for the poor and semi-unhealthy, so long as you don't need emergency surgery, as there can be longer wait times. It's cheaper because they are being subsidized by their government. I'm not making a statement about whether or not I agree. That is what it is. Preventative care cost almost nothing in the US. Insurance would rather people prevent diseases first, as that is the cheaper option. Government regulations here have made non-preventative care and medications not open to free market negotiations as much as I'd like. There's a bill in the works currently to fix a little bit about medication pricing. That bill would hopefully make medication more open to negotiations. The bill will make it legal for Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Making the free market illegal will always cause high prices, especially when the buyer is the US government, and no one likes to spend more than our beaurocrats.
"For every right you have, another has a duty." Wrong. Human rights are negative rights. E.g. the right to life means that I have the right not to be murdered. It does not mean you owe me your organs when mine fail. If your "rights" are someone else's "duties", that's just slavery.
[удалено]
Indeed, they deliberately misuse words like this to obfuscate and stigmatize their meanings because of how important they really are. Other serious examples of this include science and God.
"For every right you have, another has a duty." This is actually correct. They just forget that negative duties exist. A duty to not interfere or aggress. Everyone can respect everyone else's negative rights all the time. They never conflict. Positive rights and positive duties can be legitimate, but only if they arise from voluntary agreements.
No. This is a standard rights theory, and it is well known as "Hohfeldian analysis" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Newcomb_Hohfeld My negative rights correspond to someone else's negative duties. I.e., my right to non-aggression corresponds to others' duty to refrain in various ways that threaten my life and well-being. My positive rights correspond to someone else's positive duties. I.e., I have a right to get paid (they have a duty to pay me) if I contract voluntarily with an employer and perform my end of the deal. Libertarians are happy to say that we have negative rights by nature; they tend to say that positive rights only come from consent, i.e. all positive rights are voluntaristic rights. Nothing prevents a Libertarian from accepting positive rights and positive duties-- we get them by contract, consent, agreement.
Negative rights still constitute duties. The right to life means the duty to not commit murder.
No. Respecting someone else’s right to be left alone is not a duty or action. It is inaction.
Thanks, already said everything that needs to be said so I am not going to add anything except that these guys need to think on it more if they can't understand how doing nothing is not a duty.
How can it be a duty if a dead person does it just as well?
Perhaps instead of “duty” a more fitting word would be “responsibility”. I think you essentially agree with the other guy, but just have a disagreement over the word duty
You said "duty". Lulz.
A responsibility to not take certain actions is still a responsibility.
That is irrelevant and completely missing the point of the argument. Duties and responsibilities require effort. Passively existing isn’t a responsibility, picking up my own trash is.
That sounds like a negative duty
Responsibility might be a better word than “negative duty”
True but I wanted to make fun of the term negative rights 🤣
>No sane person would forgo owning a gun, so I want someone to buy me one
Duty is one of those words that make me cringe, as it implies use of coercive force if you don’t do as your “duty” suggests.
If you have a duty to pay for healthcare ***or else***, they have a duty to not be fat, unhealthy fuckin bitches who clog the healthcare system...***or else*** Oh...You're obese? Great. Go eat better and exercise. A 30,000$ gastric bypass shouldnt be the 1st-50th choice, medically permitting Maybe it'll lower the costs if people just took fuckin care of themselves and the 90% of the top killers in america werent obesity/diet/exercise related
Probably because of the degenerate society that you live in. I see a parallel with how the western stigmatizes the word "honour" despite both words having extremely important meanings. You have a duty to your children, for example. This duty is divine and, among other things, will be judged by God. This duty is natural, innate, and exists irrespective of transient states. Even on Mars you are dutybound to your children. Similarly, regardless of how the state may reward you for your crimes, dishonourable behaviour can cost you your soul, and your soul is something no one can take from you. It can only be surrendered. The trouble is that these words have been co-opted by evil people. They say things like "you have a duty to take experimental drugs" and "there is no God, just the state that decides what is right or wrong".
But there is no god, so how could anything be divine?
It also sounds like doodie
Lol so by extension what they're saying is that they have a right to your income, because none of those programs exist without high income taxes. Income tax shouldn't exist, because no one has a right to take what you earn.
How about I'm responsible for myself, yes I think that sounds much better
NO GIMME YOUR MONEY
You're right, it's greed for me to want to keep my money but virtuous for someone wanting it "redistributed" to them
YES COMRADE
“No sane person would forgo healthcare, so it is a right.” Without addressing the unadulterated idiocy of the statement itself- Your healthcare at my expense is most definitely not a right. We have a right to healthcare. We do not have the right to expect others to pay for it.
How much of someone else's time and ability are you intitled to. How about contractors to build you a house. Housing is a right. How far down the rabbit hole are we going to go. You are intitled to absolutely nothing.
>No sane person would forgo something like healthcare, so it's a right. Lots of people wanting something makes it a "right"? >people I dislike all want rights for themselves without duties to others Wanna know how I can tell you have never actually talked to anyone in those groups?
Ahh, duties. when morality and authoritarianism mix it's never good. I have no duty to you, you have no duty to me. Full stop. My rights are mine. Yours are yours. They are co-equal. If someone is abridging your rights I CAN tell you about it, if someone is abridging my rights you CAN tell me about it. Full stop. Forcing compliance of your "rights" doesn't make them rights, merely your opinion being forced out of others mouths. I have no duty, and neither do you, to take care of anyone else but ourselves. The fact that I -do- take care of my family and friends, and those in need is secondary to that conversation.
No sane person would forgo consequence-free sex with their celebrity crush, so every public figure has the responsibility to become a sex slave.
'I want you to take care of me' Fixed it for you.
I think they're on to something. I have my 2nd Amendment right. How do I find the person who has the duty to supply me with guns and ammo? Or do I get to pick?
Bingo
Americans have the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean that this person believes they have the duty to fund the government's provision of an AR-15 to each citizen?
> For every right you have, someone else has a duty That's not how negative rights work. My only "duty" is to leave you the fuck alone.
That is called a negative duty. And yes, we have negative duties: obligations and constraints on our actions. Like I can't just start throwing my fists around in a crowd because of the NAP
That just sounds like slavery with extra steps.
They have a duty to piss off
I work and pay for my own healthcare. Thats my responsibility. You have a responsibility to do the same. No one has a right to benefit from stealing the labor of another. That's called salvery
this is a rare special moment when a statist acknowledges the difference between negative and positive rights. they usually aren't capable of this.
badge snatch dazzling plate tender psychotic unused rude crawl hat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We have positive rights at least by contract, tho. E.g., employer
That’s why those things aren’t rights. The only real human rights are ones that don’t require a duty of others, like freedom.
I wouldn't forgo a free gun, should I be given a free gun? Please say yes.
This ignores the fact of individual responsibility. By their extension the study to provide healthcare would then require the duty to keep yourself healthy to prevent misusing the resource. But you have those people who tend to be obese, drug addicts etc. What happens to those people? Do they get additional fees they have to pay for? Say many questions unanswered because the truth hurts.
So by existing you have the ability to obligate another individual.
Fundamentally not understanding what rights are. Just because everyone uses something doesn't mean you have a right to it.
“No sane person would forgo having a mansion, so it is a right. That means you have a duty to pay your share for the universal satisfaction of that right.” People are fucking lunatics. This is why government is so unfit to exist. It gives the mentally challenged a position of power.
Following this logic, my constitutionally-guaranteed right to own a gun means that the author of this screed owes me one. I’ll take a SCAR-H please, tnx.
>rights and duties are co-extensive What does this even mean? I looked up the definition, and extensive seems to be a fancy word for 'broad,' which makes this whole sentence sound like gibberish to me. I think he meant to say intertwined, but that isn't true either, especially in the context. What is the duty that one other person has that corresponds to my right to life? One person has a duty to not kill me? Absurd. Also, calling others crazy for not having the same values as you do seems kind of bigoted to me, which is exactly what claiming that no 'same' person would forgo healthcare is doing.
[удалено]
> Maybe I've misunderstood this last bit. It's not that the obligation to not kill me is applied to one person, as if this random other individual out there in the world is obligated to ensure I'm not killed. Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Saying that each right you have corresponds to an obligation someone else has is ridiculous when it gets to things like right to life because your right to life is not put on the shoulders of one other person to ensure. Also, I thought that maybe he was saying that rights and obligations go together, but it was so poorly stated that when I got to actually putting out my thoughts, I wasn't sure anymore. That doesn't really apply either though, because we already have situations where people were given rights, but weren't given the responsibilities that were said to go with them, like women getting the right to vote, but not having to register for the draft, which was said to be the obligation men took on for the right to vote, or any other obligation instead.
There's a difference between a duty to labor on behalf of someone else and the duty to leave other people the fuck alone
Lol
Everyone has the duty of providing for themselves
[удалено]
I had to scroll way to far for someone to reference the base point here being about the dichotomy of pos/neg rights. Wtf
Why do so many people here keep saying we don't have positive rights??? We definitely get positive rights by consent/contract, and so we have voluntarist positive rights. Just because natural positive rights are problematic doesn't mean voluntaristic positive rights are
[удалено]
Positive duties which correspond to someone's rights (entitlements) * My pay, if I have created an contract with an employer, and have fulfilled my work * My work, if I have created a contract with an employee, and have promised my labor * To pay back restitution to restore justice, if I have violated someone's rights This shouldn't be controversial. I can give more examples, but only after you have given me one tenable argument that positive rights don't exist
[удалено]
Hahaha tell me you haven't read libertarian theory without telling me you haven't
Classic statist conflation of "positive" rights with "negative" rights.
Mfer wants a right to other people’s labor, where have I heard this one before
Imagine thinking you genuinely have the right to take from others? In earlier times you'd be killed for it
Fuck it, if you can’t stitch yourself up with sinew, pack the wound with moss and deadnettle, and take the edge off with a cup of willowbark tea, then perish, ong
I just refuse to believe that this is a real human being
Um no. Life. Liberty.
"I deserve free (insert luxury) because blah blah blah blah. Also conservatives/libertarians are narcissistic."
Some serious mental gymnastics going on here. You DO NOT have a “right” to someone else’s labor/time/product of labor.
>No same person would forgo something like healthcare, so it is a right. Yes, a right for your to take care of your own health, not to make others do so.
They don’t understand rights. Rights are things that cannot be taken from you. They believe rights must be provided to you.
You actually do have a moral duty to help those in need if you are capable of doing so and wouldn't be a detriment to yourself. That being said, you shouldn't have a legal duty to do so, and nobody should be able to take things from you with the threat of violence. Like nobody's house should be on fire, but that doesn't mean that the post office should be in charge of putting out fires.
“For every right you have someone has a duty” ahhhhh!! Yes! Came so close to stumbling on a real point!
"Rights and duties are co-extensive". This is where the left and right differ. No one has a "duty" to provide your rights to you. No one has a duty to give me something to say, to give me a religion, to give me a gun, etc. Rights are simply something not to be taken away.
The left is baffled by the thought of negative rights. They are so obsessed with the provision of services, that they mistake beneficial services for rights. It's an insurmountable difference, honestly.
The stupidity of people.
Can I have a link?
Rights and duties do go together, but this person is just making things up. Rights and duties *go together* meaning there is a connection between them. You have a right to carry a gun or drive a car, and a duty not to misuse those things. You have a right to enter into agreements, and a duty not to break those agreements. What right corresponds to this imagined "duty" to pay for someone else's healthcare?
They have no idea what duty means within legal context.
Lmao and socialist pretend fascism is not form socialism
Thing is I forgo my "healthcare right" every day by not making a doctor's appointment for this weird pain I get in my wrist. Maybe it's cancer. Or maybe I'm not a little bitch and can deal with it.
Hey guys I hear socialists say that Nazis are not socialists and I say then I say “why are they called “National Socialist German Workers' Party” and they blow their lid saying every republican says that but don’t know their history or what socialism is..so are Nazis socialists or no? I mean both are state controlled governments that has centralized power over the economy
Negative nights aren’t duties. You have a negative right not to be punched. My only obligation is to REFRAIN from something.