= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer 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)
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?
"I am allowed to X" in this context means "X is not worthy of moral condemnation, and forcibly stopping X is worthy of moral condemnation".
Moral condemnation or application of force are the common responses.