Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't know why you think this is an argument against anything I said.


:#marseytwerking:

:marseycoin::marseycoin::marseycoin:
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the government is provisioning a service there and it’s hard to see how that’s different in some deep way from “negative rights”

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Do you just not even know the most fundamental thing about negative rights? The state cannot guarantee you a service. If a storm hits and the power's out the government can't guarantee you'll have internet or whatever dumb shit. What they can guarantee is that they won't censor your right to free speech. Because, you know, they can actually do that.


:#marseytwerking:

:marseycoin::marseycoin::marseycoin:
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

because if they fail to provide that service, there's nothing you can do about it, because the service isn't guaranteed, because it's NOT A RIGHT

this isn't complicated

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

hang on

Let’s say I’m murdered

I have a right to not be murdered

But my family nor I cannot do anything about it. I can complain to the cops and maybe they’ll fix it. But if they don’t I’m screwed. So I do have a right to not be murdered? Or so I not, because I can’t punish anyone?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

how can you seriously be this fricking stupid?

if somebody gets murdered, their right to NOT BE MURDERED was violated BY THE MURDERER.

Their non-existent right to be PROTECTED FROM MURDER BY A THIRD PARTY has not being violated by the police or the government because it DOESN'T EXIST.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

there’s no right field in QFT that tells you what rights are. If the German constitution says you have a right to medical treatment, and then you don’t get some, and then you die, and then the prosecutor sues, that is a right as much as any other.

Their non-existent right to be PROTECTED FROM MURDER BY A THIRD PARTY has not being violated by the police or the government because it DOESN'T EXIST.

Why? The government arguably fricked up really badly by allowing them to do the murder. We don’t want murders! Clearly currently lots of people get murdered who could not be. Given that again you can just declare things to be rights and enforce them, why can’t there be a right to government protection against murder? That seems better than just against other people - for instance people aren’t allowed to have nukes. If someone got a nuke, the government should be held responsible! I’d argue as much as you have a right to avoid murder by second party, you should have a right to government protecting you against said party, especially since many second parties don’t seem to care much about that. Again I can just write that in my constitution and enforce it.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.