= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
WalterL comments on Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (212)
As a rightist myself I'd like to point out that there is a massive difference in our belief system between being forced to support folks who don't work (you are a slave, changing this intolerable state is the primary goal of your life) and choosing to do so (a righteous act, golf claps).
And I'd like to point out that there is a massive difference between maybe getting charitable support that keeps you alive and having a right to welfare. You don't know you going to be in the position of the giver from behind a veil.
I think this subthread is a good summary of why we should just leave politics out of LW, and why trying to summarize a single dimension of difference is hopeless.
So I'll continue :) Here goes the anti-turing definition (each side will agree it applies to the other, but not to themselves):
Progressives/leftists believe it's OK to define rights over things that don't exist yet (say, food that isn't yet planted or care from a future doctor who might prefer to golf that day instead of exposing himself to your disease). The conservatives/rightists think it's OK to define rights that make it easy to ignore others' suffering.
No, leftists thinks you have rights to things, not over things. Insisting that a right can only be over something pretty well begs the question in favour of property rights.
I don't understand this -- it doesn't make sense to me.
It was my attempt to rephrase the "massive difference" posts by WalterL and TheAncientGreek, above.
WalterL taking the rightist side, asserting a right to freedom from coercion and that being forced to support others is a form of slavery. TheAncientGreek takes the leftist side in asserting a right to welfare being far preferable than a charitable state of support.
These rights are in direct conflict. Person A's right to welfare requires that person B is mandated to provide it. Person B's right to choose her own activities implies that person A might not get fed or housed.
Then or was completely wrong. I was drawing a distinction between he kind of outlook you might have if you know you are in a winning position, and the kind you might take if you don't know what position you are going to be in,
Um, to quote TheAncientGeek, "there is a massive difference between maybe getting getting charitable support that keeps you alive and having a right to welfare" -- I think you misunderstand him.
But still, how is the right to welfare a right "over things that don't exist yet" and how is the right to be not taxed (more or less) a right that "make[s] it easy to ignore others' suffering"?
The first is the right to support and the matching duty falls onto the government. It could be (see Saudi Arabia) that it can provide this support without taking money out of any individuals' pockets. The second is basically a property right and has nothing to do with the ease of ignoring suffering.
Perhaps I do misunderstand him. I took his "massive difference" comparison to mean that he doesn't believe charity is sufficient, and he would prefer welfare to be considered a right.
In the long term, the government is just a conduit - it matches and enforces transfers, it doesn't generate anything itself. The case of states that can sell resources is perhaps an exception for some time periods, but doesn't generalize in the way most people think of rights independent of local or temporal situations.
In any case, a right to support directly requires SOMEONE to provide that support, doesn't it? If everyone is allowed to choose not to provide that support, the suffering must be accepted.
That what I meant , butit it has nothing to with things that don't yet exist.
So, can we just get rid of it, then? :-/ I don't think we should take a detour into this area, but, let's say, a claim that government does not create any economic value would be... controversial.
Yes, correct. All rights come as pairs of right and duty. Whatever is someone's right is someone else's duty.
I'm still confused about "rights over things that don't exist yet" and "rights that make it easy to ignore".
Asserting a right to eat is not just a statement about current food supply ownership or access. It's saying that, if food is later created, the right applies to that too. Conversely, if I have the right not to grow food or not to give it to someone else, I am allowed to ignore their pain.
Don't most rights work this way? I think it's just the default.
I don't quite understand the "allowed to ignore" part. What is the alternative, Clockwork Orange-style therapy?