Universal rights are a necessary fiction, that become so when humans recognise that they need them to protect themselves from each other and from the state. Any conception of a "natural order" is always is always tied at least in part to the order of the day; the idea that by nature "kings should rule" was only popular in Feudal times and today with Feudal mindsets; this "natural property rights" bollocks only became "natural" with the rise of capitalism in the 17th century.
In my opinion our desired rights aren't derived from survival benefits, but rather emotion (especially negative emotion). The right to commit suicide is not beneficial to survival, for example.
Every right can be replaced with the right not to suffer unduly - with the exception of the right to life. Right to property, autonomy, water etc are beneficial because without them humans suffer. The rights granted to sentient organisms are just elaborations on The Right not to suffer.
Although I don't think this is one of your better videos, you're going to annoy US style "libertarians" and other similar free-market evangelists, and for that you deserve a thumbs up.
@Barklord exactly... like your society is obliged to feed you etc, but that would infringe their right to liberty. these clowns don't realise that the only diff between themselves and statists is where they believe those boundaries should be drawn.
A free market would make this discussion irrelevant, but we have no choice in the matter. We have to benefit from public services by default. If the State won't allow competing service providers, the least the State could do, is bill me for THAT service, not take half my income, give me some services and squander the rest committing crimes against the people.
Jews in concentration camps during World War II benefited from the scraps of food they were sometimes forced to resort to for semi-sustenance. What criminals, that they did not want to pay the generous state's price for this nourishment of physical force and/or jail time!
@adjohnson916 godwins much? seriously are you attempting to moralise? I thought you were a moral nihilist.
how many people die from starvation worldwide every year btw? do we even count? of course if you don't cause a problem then you are not obliged to deal with it, but if you are obliged then the problem is drastically reduced by your efforts. Without a state you can wash your hands of all the suffering and misery caused by neglect and directly by malicious, exploitative fucks.
@gratex as long as your tax dollahs dont pay for that directly, eh? you'll still likely do business with the shareholders of exploitative businesses, of which you will be wilfully ignorant of. your hands would still be clean, though, eh?
@gratex I am a moral nihilist, meaning I believe moral facts don't exist. It doesn't mean I don't have opinions about politics that I would like others to share. Anyone who understands moral nihilism in the slightest would understand that.
Death by starvation is not really a lack-of-state problem. It's mostly a lack of economic success in third world countries. In healthy markets, there are companies with a demand for labor, and have to pay labor to compete for it, so the workers can buy food.
The government monopolizes most if not all the services you mention. We are forced to use their services because the tragedy of the commons drives all market competition out of business. And even whether or not I use the services, I still pay anyway. It is not criminal to not want to be forcibly deprived of market choices.
All these services can be handled much in the way that many other services we depend on are handled by the market, like largely all consumer goods, food, technology, etc.
@adjohnson916 So before Obama used his less than efficient healthcare bill... Was the Healthcare service better off than implementing a universal /single payer plan style healthcare? Hell even the postal service atleast brings post to everyone... and not just profitable area's
@robinvan1983 I am not advocating for the health care system as it existed before Obama implemented his system. There is so much federal meddling in the health care system with or without Obama's program that neither represents the kid of free market in health care that I advocate. So that's a ridiculous fallacy.
The postal service is a terrible failure. They lose money. They used to outlaw private mail companies too , then they realized how terrible they were and allowed FedEx, etc.
I think when they say unnatural they mean sufficiently deviant from some supposed norm. It is idiosyncratic. I agree with you.
Mjhavok 1 month ago
Universal rights are a necessary fiction, that become so when humans recognise that they need them to protect themselves from each other and from the state. Any conception of a "natural order" is always is always tied at least in part to the order of the day; the idea that by nature "kings should rule" was only popular in Feudal times and today with Feudal mindsets; this "natural property rights" bollocks only became "natural" with the rise of capitalism in the 17th century.
niriop 2 months ago
@gratex This is an excellent video. Nice job!
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
In my opinion our desired rights aren't derived from survival benefits, but rather emotion (especially negative emotion). The right to commit suicide is not beneficial to survival, for example.
Every right can be replaced with the right not to suffer unduly - with the exception of the right to life. Right to property, autonomy, water etc are beneficial because without them humans suffer. The rights granted to sentient organisms are just elaborations on The Right not to suffer.
IdaMiaDot 2 months ago
Although I don't think this is one of your better videos, you're going to annoy US style "libertarians" and other similar free-market evangelists, and for that you deserve a thumbs up.
Kropotkin2000 2 months ago
If we had an inalienable 'right' to life nobody would ever die.
Barklord 2 months ago
@Barklord exactly... like your society is obliged to feed you etc, but that would infringe their right to liberty. these clowns don't realise that the only diff between themselves and statists is where they believe those boundaries should be drawn.
gratex 2 months ago
all power eminates from the barrel of a gun.
MensRifleAssociation 2 months ago
@MensRifleAssociation the pen is mightier than the sword.
gratex 2 months ago
A free market would make this discussion irrelevant, but we have no choice in the matter. We have to benefit from public services by default. If the State won't allow competing service providers, the least the State could do, is bill me for THAT service, not take half my income, give me some services and squander the rest committing crimes against the people.
jollyradical 2 months ago
You do have a certain penchant for deities though. We like the thought of rights, they are security blankets for the soul (TM). Happy Humbug.
Loreleila 2 months ago
Jews in concentration camps during World War II benefited from the scraps of food they were sometimes forced to resort to for semi-sustenance. What criminals, that they did not want to pay the generous state's price for this nourishment of physical force and/or jail time!
adjohnson916 2 months ago
@adjohnson916 Extreme, yet an excellent analogy.
jollyradical 2 months ago
@adjohnson916 godwins much? seriously are you attempting to moralise? I thought you were a moral nihilist.
how many people die from starvation worldwide every year btw? do we even count? of course if you don't cause a problem then you are not obliged to deal with it, but if you are obliged then the problem is drastically reduced by your efforts. Without a state you can wash your hands of all the suffering and misery caused by neglect and directly by malicious, exploitative fucks.
gratex 2 months ago
@gratex as long as your tax dollahs dont pay for that directly, eh? you'll still likely do business with the shareholders of exploitative businesses, of which you will be wilfully ignorant of. your hands would still be clean, though, eh?
don't moralise with me.
gratex 2 months ago
@gratex I am a moral nihilist, meaning I believe moral facts don't exist. It doesn't mean I don't have opinions about politics that I would like others to share. Anyone who understands moral nihilism in the slightest would understand that.
Death by starvation is not really a lack-of-state problem. It's mostly a lack of economic success in third world countries. In healthy markets, there are companies with a demand for labor, and have to pay labor to compete for it, so the workers can buy food.
adjohnson916 2 months ago
The government monopolizes most if not all the services you mention. We are forced to use their services because the tragedy of the commons drives all market competition out of business. And even whether or not I use the services, I still pay anyway. It is not criminal to not want to be forcibly deprived of market choices.
All these services can be handled much in the way that many other services we depend on are handled by the market, like largely all consumer goods, food, technology, etc.
adjohnson916 2 months ago
@adjohnson916 So before Obama used his less than efficient healthcare bill... Was the Healthcare service better off than implementing a universal /single payer plan style healthcare? Hell even the postal service atleast brings post to everyone... and not just profitable area's
robinvan1983 2 months ago
@robinvan1983 I am not advocating for the health care system as it existed before Obama implemented his system. There is so much federal meddling in the health care system with or without Obama's program that neither represents the kid of free market in health care that I advocate. So that's a ridiculous fallacy.
The postal service is a terrible failure. They lose money. They used to outlaw private mail companies too , then they realized how terrible they were and allowed FedEx, etc.
adjohnson916 2 months ago
Of course I'm only joking at the end.. I believe in participatory gov
gratex 2 months ago