aqoutaleft/right
About to lose half his shit lmao
2yr ago#908654
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
Abortion is healthcare and healthcare is a human right. You will never have any control over the bodies of women. Get over it.
God I hate lefties. How can service from someone else be a human right you absolute fricking brainlet? If no one wants to provide health care who is violating your rights? It's like they discovered by pure rote that "X is a human right" gets a response and didn't apply any reason whatsoever to these brain dead slogans.
while there is consensus that human rights encompasses a wide variety of rights[5] such as the right to a fair trial, protection against enslavement, prohibition of genocide, free speech[9] or a right to education,
“The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.”
– Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
This is recognized in the Universal declaration of human rights
Why would I give a frick about the word salad the United Nations vomits onto their website? Let me know when fricking Pakistan and China get kicked off their Human Rights council. Maybe then they won't be gigantic fricking hypocrites.
because OP said “services aren’t human rights” when the guys who created the term say they are. Maybe human rights are BS, but claiming that they don’t mean that is just idiotic and illiterate
are you actually so fricking stupid that you think The Guys Who Invented Human Rights represent some kind of final authority on the matter, or are you just 14?
Augustus Caesar is an authority on what the Divine Cult of Augustus is, and what the Commands of the Sun God are. You may not follow them, but there’s no TRUE commands of Sol to follow that are the real ones. He’s right about what Augustus Says, the UN is right about Human Rights. But Augustus’s Commands don’t stop being something just bc u don’t follow them, and human rights still means free education and democracy.
Nobody can claim to be the final authority on a philosophical concept. There is no factual definition of 'human rights' because it's a nebulous, debatable concept.
Which is why the UN's website being plastered with a bunch of politically-motivated, logically-inconsistent word vomit is meaningless.
human rights are bad. But human rights are just a sort of thing that means free education and NGO aid. There’s no “actual and real human rights” that the UN is betraying with their heresy any more than there’s an “actual Ten Commandments” that God is still hiding from us. Free birth control and malaria nets still are human rights, what else is a human right then
oppiere/tard
God give us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change; Courage to change what we can
TrappyKong 2yr ago#913319
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
Chad China dominate my bussy vs Virgin No we must protect the sanctity of democracy.
Sometimes correct in a large scale sense but illiterate and factually wrong and thus dumb and useless
what does he even think a human right is? It’s literally what the United Nations do
And “Pakistan and China are on the council” is the precise complaint of idiots. Yeah if you want sovereign nations to protect human rights you either have to kill their leaders or work with them. The US hasn’t exported their ideals by just conquering, we do multilateral value added cooperation and global leadership.
LMFAO what the heck is this high school-level political take? You think the United Nations is an authority on what constitutes a human right?
The United Nations is a useless-by-design international political quagmire designed to prevent countries from starting WW3 by ensuring that absolutely fricking nothing gets done. That's literally their entire purpose. They are not a moral or philosophical authority and you can stop sucking their peepee whenever you want.
yes the united nations is an authority on human rights. The US is an authority on democracy freedom and equality, China is an authority on Common Prosperity and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, Zulu is an authority on what precisely constitutes Zulu patrilineal indigenous shamanism, etc. maybe one or more of them are slightly inconsistent, but they are the ones who define and implement them.
Many of the basic ideas that animated the human rights movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the events of the Holocaust,[6] culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. Ancient peoples did not have the same modern-day conception of universal human rights.
The human rights enshrined in the UDHR, the Geneva Conventions and the various enforced treaties of the United Nations are enforceable in law. In practice, many rights are very difficult to legally enforce due to the absence of consensus on the application of certain rights, the lack of relevant national legislation or of bodies empowered to take legal action to enforce them.
The UN promulgated, defines, believes, and occasionally implements human rights laws.
aqoutaleft/right
About to lose half his shit lmao
Retard4828263 2yr ago#908792
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
legal counsel for accused is a right, as is equal protection and speedy trial, all are and require services
This is enabled by the fact that the court must just straight up dismiss your case if they can't accommodate it. So the right holds, the state just has a huge incentive to make sure that they can actually try cases.
ditto for military and police protection
What right are you even referencing here? The state controversially maintains the ability to conscript basically for this reason.
food and water are also “””rights””” international nonsense law wise
This is more nonsense of the "healthcare" as a right variety.
So... if you don't see state protection as a right, you must be cool with me coming in, cumming in your bussy, raping your sister-wife, and taking all your funkos? Or is someone supposed to stop me? For free?
Are you under the impression that, if somebody comes in your house and murders your family, you would be able to sue the government for failing to recognize your human rights? Are you actually r-slurred?
yes if the government fails to adequately “protect your rights to a fair investigation” or “tampers with the evidence to protect the criminal” you can sue them. What even is a right? Who cars?
aqoutaleft/right
About to lose half his shit lmao
DeletedAccount 2yr ago#908989
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
Before there was an organized police force in the united states there was the second amendment. But seriously, you understand that police don't actually have an obligation to intervene right? This right that you think exists doesn't. I think you're confusing a lot of things about how the legal system works.
Retard4828263they/them
knownbyanyothername alt
aqouta 2yr ago#909159
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
that’s a bit confused. It’s true that there wasn’t “a single organized police force” or a modern one but there were absolutely sheriffs and magistrates with local very concentrated power and they absolutely exercised authority and violence to enforce for instance local morals (depends) so it’s not like the US was totally anarchist, just it’s hard to have a big concentrated power in the days when the Pony Express was still a century and a half away
aqoutaleft/right
About to lose half his shit lmao
Retard4828263 2yr ago#909199
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
The courts didn't act as interventionist agencies. They dealt with the fallout after the fact. It was common to have something like a court put together a warrant or bounty and rustle up a militia like group to enforce its edicts. The state did have violence at its disposal but it was absolutely not attempting to stop crime directly or criminals in the act. Which is my whole point, the state clearly cannot guarantee that you don't come to harm, and that's fine, the police are useful for other tasks, it just makes it not a right.
Retard4828263they/them
knownbyanyothername alt
aqouta 2yr ago#911989
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
If we had hypercourts that could decide things instantly they would intervene. That’s not happening ever though, as the other hypercourts could just do crimes as fast. Courts often issue injunctions to pause and intervene before they decide. Other government organs intervene constantly. I don’t see what this hasn’t to do with rights. The stage constantly directly stops crime and criminals in the act, epa, atf, whatever
Retard4828263they/them
knownbyanyothername alt
aqouta 2yr ago#909284
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
how can you seriously argue that something not being universally guaranteed but merely enforced after the fact makes it not a right? Everything else is like that, poor enforcement doesn’t make something not exist
Also the state absolutely does attempt to stop violent criminals in the act. “Conspiracy to <x> charges”, etc. this also happened in the past, if there was some plan to steal something the sheriff could try and stop it.
aqoutaleft/right
About to lose half his shit lmao
DeletedAccount 2yr ago#909040
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
No, I would kill you dead 4 seconds into the attempt. Committing a crime is not a violation of my rights, what authority could possibly guarantee such a right? If not one can guarantee it what good is it?
A right is not "we'll try our very best to have this outcome", it's an order of things guaranteed by the collective violence of society. Something that cannot be guaranteed because it is not at the whim of the people, such as your ability to do me harm, cannot be a right.
aqoutaleft/right
About to lose half his shit lmao
RIPGeorgeHarrison 2yr ago#909187
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
I genuinely have no idea what this is even supposed to critique. You are claiming I'm a consoomer type because I correctly pointed out that the cops were never going to intervene in my defense anyways? Does this make sense in your head and you're just totally incapable of articulating it or were you not even attempting to convey a coherent idea?
Retard4828263they/them
knownbyanyothername alt
aqouta 2yr ago#909172
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
the reason we have smooth and complex economies is not your gun or self defense it’s cops and feds and laws and contracts. State protection is a service the government grants, how is it different from other ones
Honestly, the largest source of social order comes from most people's informal rules and formal rules imposed by numerous non-government organizations, groups, and ideas/ideology.
How those compare to government's effect has been largely unresolved.
Retard4828263they/them
knownbyanyothername alt
aqouta 2yr ago#909112
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
see my other reply above. I agree that International Rights are gay, but nobody else does.
This is enabled by the fact that the court must just straight up dismiss your case if they can't accommodate it.
Negative rights and the Night Watchman state are neither perfect nor great. Governments today provide a LOT of services, and it’s hard to imagine a state without a “call 811 for cable and pipe info before digging ” (although it really should be a website...) or the guys who mandate you follow building codes or go to jail (or the NSF). I don’t see any reason positive rights in a practical sense are taboo even if they’re dumb in a theoretical one
aqoutaleft/right
About to lose half his shit lmao
Retard4828263 2yr ago#909175
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
see my other reply above. I agree that International Rights are gay, but nobody else does.
Literally everyone does, hence why they ignore them entirely. China has accurately called them total bullshit.
Negative rights and the Night Watchman state are neither perfect nor great.
Negative rights are the only legitimate rights. No one has advocated for the night watchman state here and I do not advocate for it.
Governments today provide a LOT of services, and it’s hard to imagine a state without a “call 811 for cable and pipe info before digging ” (although it really should be a website...) or the guys who mandate you follow building codes or go to jail (or the NSF). I don’t see any reason positive rights in a practical sense are taboo even if they’re dumb in a theoretical one
I'm not arguing against providing services, the state acts as a mechanism for solving many game theoretical problems that arise among free citizens. When incentives align such that there is a gain to be made through coordinating through a government I think it is good that this happens. I only oppose calling these services rights, in part because it erodes the status of actual rights as idiots think the """""""""""""""""right""""""""""""""""""" to healthcare is the same order of things as the right to free association, free speech and self defense.
If the calculous of incentives changes and we as a people decide to discontinue the 811 number then your rights have not been violated.
Retard4828263they/them
knownbyanyothername alt
aqouta 2yr ago#911970
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
negative rights are the only legitimate rights
This is a libertarian slash ancap argument hence night watchman state. If state only enforced rights and only negative rights, then that’s quite limited.
game theoretic problems
Also other stuff that isn’t game theory like providing water and courts!
I agree that they aren’t rights fwiw. But nothing is, and in particular if human rights are meaningful then healthcare and food can easily be human rights.
811 number
(If it isn’t replaced by a fricking website which it already should have been, hey there’s ur startup idea if not already done lol) But then I’ll lose electricity and water and lots of rights to property and negative rights will be violated. How can we prevent this hm
Also: satellite based location demonstration. Either “reverse gps” where sattelites light triangulate a pulse from you or just something boring for if ur in generally the right area. If ur in the right place then u can see pipe locations. Not rly workable because you can just fly there or be nearby. Still a website where there’s a big database of all pipes and if u have the rights to an area it’s one click away? And no calling and waiting 2 days! Yay
aqoutaleft/right
About to lose half his shit lmao
Retard4828263 2yr ago#913432
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
If state only enforced rights and only negative rights, then that’s quite limited.
The state does things other than protect rights. A state can do something with no relation to a right. If a state issues me a ticket fir J walking there was absolutely no right involved at all in the action.
Also other stuff that isn’t game theory like providing water and courts!
Those are trivially game theoretical. Courts are pretty much a central case of game theory, they act with the rest of the rule structure as an oracle. It's game theoretically necessary for a state body to serve this function because a private version would have perverse incentives.
Water is a tragedy of the common bulwark. Left to the private sector you'd either have massively redundant systems built or a natural monopoly. Gane theory says a central nonprofit authority is more optimal.
I'm not the one making r-slurred lolbert arguments that rely upon ridiculous pedantries. And if you weren't aware, hospitals are already obligated to serve people in emergencies regardless of ability to pay, so we've already determined their right to choose who to serve is already outweighed by the allegedly nonexistent right to healthcare.
If you go to the nearest hospital and they don't treat you because they literally don't have any beds available, can you sue them for violating your rights?
Amazing how all the countries that consider healthcare a right they don't have a problem of getting constantly sued due to a lack of available care even when there is a a shortage. Im an r-slur but trying to argue about the meaning of a word in this argument is just a way to intentionally distract from the point at hand.
The Chinese government is clear about the right to healthcare its role in the provision of healthcare services and essential medicines. China has ratified several international treaties that guarantee the right to health, including the ICESCR in 2001.109 In addition, there are multiple provisions in the 1982 Chinese constitution that address health:
Article 21:
The state develops medical and health services, promotes modern medicine and traditional Chinese medicine, encourages and supports the setting up of various medical and health facilities by the rural economic collectives, state enterprises and institutions and neighborhood organizations, and promotes health and sanitation activities of a mass character, all for the protection of the people's health.110
Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right tomaterial assistance from the state and society when they are old, ill or disabled. The state develops social insurance, social relief and medical and health services that are required for citizens to enjoy this right.111
In addition to these constitutional provisions, various statutes and regulations address the protection of labor, women, and the environment that offer additional health-related guarantees.112 And in a 2009 policy document, Opinions on Deepening Pharmaceutical and Healthcare System Reform, the Chinese government declared healthcare to be a basic right and further claimed that the state had the ultimate responsibility to provide healthcare to its citizens.113
The health of all citizens shall be protected by the State.
The right to healthcare is explicit but extremely vague. Such language might have reduced this important right to little more than aspirational words, but fortunately, international law further substantiates this right. South Korea generally has a positive reputation for signing and following international human rights law. In addition to ratifying the ICESCR, South Korea has ratified three other treaties that contain provisions that support a right to healthcare.161 South Korea has seriously endeavored to follow the obligation to provide the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health to all its people, achieving results that set the standard for other low to middle-income, rapidly industrializing states. In 2015, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) ranked South Korea among the top third of states that provide access to care for 95 - 100% of its population.162 But this universal right to healthcare was instituted in a system that relied heavily on private insurers and healthcare providers.
If the cops kill you and then you sue them and it gets dismissed for a stupid reason, can you sue them? No? Then there’s no right to not die.
But there’s also a thing called “triage” where EMTs have to treat severely injured or risk if dying people and you can sue them for failing to do that. This is seriously enforced. So there is a right to treatment?
Whether or not there are legal consequences for your rights being violated has nothing to do with whether your rights are violated. Legal institutions are imperfect. This doesn't impact the philosophical question of what is and isn't a right.
No, there is no right to treatment, which is what I literally just said.
Me: “you may have a right, roughly, as much as to anything else, to government assistance against harm, and you can be said to have a right to medical treatment as much as to life or counsel”
You:
Are you under the impression that, if somebody comes in your house and murders your family, you would be able to sue the government for failing to recognize your human rights? Are you actually r-slurred?
So you argued you need legal consequences for there to be a right.
Yet now you say the opposite - “Whether or not there are legal consequences for your rights being violated has nothing to do with whether your rights are violated. Legal institutions are imperfect. This doesn't impact the philosophical question of what is and isn't a right”
No, there is no right to treatment, which is what I literally just said
EMTs and hospitals are legally required to treat you if they can.
And for if they can’t, ”Whether or not there are legal consequences for your rights being violated has nothing to do with whether your rights are violated. Legal institutions are imperfect. This doesn't impact the philosophical question of what is and isn't a right”
if a virus (an external living agent) breaches the NAP (infects your trachea and nasal mucosa) the government (a nurse funded by federal insurance) will defend your rights to freedom and life (provide you with IV fluids) and prosecute the virus attacking you (give others a vaccine and give you IV antivirals) and set up a security perimeter to ensure the suspect can’t leave the area (masks, filtration, lockdowns). Negative rights rock don’t they
Okay, cool story bro. So if someone were to instead say "healthcare is a right necessary entitlement everyone should be able to receive depending on availability" would you stop pedantic lolbert cute twinkry?
aqoutaleft/right
About to lose half his shit lmao
RIPGeorgeHarrison 2yr ago#911861
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
I'd prefer "A good society is one where reasonable resources are devoted to minimize easily preventable human suffering" make no guarantees beyond that.
Retard4828263they/them
knownbyanyothername alt
aqouta 2yr ago#912015
Edited None
spent 0 currency on pings
drones spraying a mix of carfentanil/diacetylmorphine across all major cities followed by mass nukes and stripping the atmosphere of oxygen would take care of that
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
God I hate lefties. How can service from someone else be a human right you absolute fricking brainlet? If no one wants to provide health care who is violating your rights? It's like they discovered by pure rote that "X is a human right" gets a response and didn't apply any reason whatsoever to these brain dead slogans.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
legal counsel for accused is a right, as is equal protection and speedy trial, all are and require services
ditto for military and police protection
Legal counsel is also private person serving u
food and water are also “””rights””” international nonsense law wise
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you are confusing civil rights with human rights
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
mad. Human rights may be bullshit but
Education you will note is a service, like healthcare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
“The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.” – Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
This is recognized in the Universal declaration of human rights
https://ohchr.org/En/Issues/ESCR/Pages/food.aspx
So no I am not. Civil rights are seen as much more restrictive and narrow than human rights. Stop making shit up.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Why would I give a frick about the word salad the United Nations vomits onto their website? Let me know when fricking Pakistan and China get kicked off their Human Rights council. Maybe then they won't be gigantic fricking hypocrites.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
because OP said “services aren’t human rights” when the guys who created the term say they are. Maybe human rights are BS, but claiming that they don’t mean that is just idiotic and illiterate
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
are you actually so fricking stupid that you think The Guys Who Invented Human Rights represent some kind of final authority on the matter, or are you just 14?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Augustus Caesar is an authority on what the Divine Cult of Augustus is, and what the Commands of the Sun God are. You may not follow them, but there’s no TRUE commands of Sol to follow that are the real ones. He’s right about what Augustus Says, the UN is right about Human Rights. But Augustus’s Commands don’t stop being something just bc u don’t follow them, and human rights still means free education and democracy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Nobody can claim to be the final authority on a philosophical concept. There is no factual definition of 'human rights' because it's a nebulous, debatable concept.
Which is why the UN's website being plastered with a bunch of politically-motivated, logically-inconsistent word vomit is meaningless.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
human rights are bad. But human rights are just a sort of thing that means free education and NGO aid. There’s no “actual and real human rights” that the UN is betraying with their heresy any more than there’s an “actual Ten Commandments” that God is still hiding from us. Free birth control and malaria nets still are human rights, what else is a human right then
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Seethe
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
sinophile cope ^
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
And? Chyna's going to the dominant world power for the next century.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Chad China dominate my bussy vs Virgin No we must protect the sanctity of democracy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I hate rightoids so much
Sometimes correct in a large scale sense but illiterate and factually wrong and thus dumb and useless
what does he even think a human right is? It’s literally what the United Nations do
And “Pakistan and China are on the council” is the precise complaint of idiots. Yeah if you want sovereign nations to protect human rights you either have to kill their leaders or work with them. The US hasn’t exported their ideals by just conquering, we do multilateral value added cooperation and global leadership.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
LMFAO what the heck is this high school-level political take? You think the United Nations is an authority on what constitutes a human right?
The United Nations is a useless-by-design international political quagmire designed to prevent countries from starting WW3 by ensuring that absolutely fricking nothing gets done. That's literally their entire purpose. They are not a moral or philosophical authority and you can stop sucking their peepee whenever you want.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
yes the united nations is an authority on human rights. The US is an authority on democracy freedom and equality, China is an authority on Common Prosperity and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, Zulu is an authority on what precisely constitutes Zulu patrilineal indigenous shamanism, etc. maybe one or more of them are slightly inconsistent, but they are the ones who define and implement them.
The UN promulgated, defines, believes, and occasionally implements human rights laws.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
This is enabled by the fact that the court must just straight up dismiss your case if they can't accommodate it. So the right holds, the state just has a huge incentive to make sure that they can actually try cases.
What right are you even referencing here? The state controversially maintains the ability to conscript basically for this reason.
This is more nonsense of the "healthcare" as a right variety.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So... if you don't see state protection as a right, you must be cool with me coming in, cumming in your bussy, raping your sister-wife, and taking all your funkos? Or is someone supposed to stop me? For free?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Are you under the impression that, if somebody comes in your house and murders your family, you would be able to sue the government for failing to recognize your human rights? Are you actually r-slurred?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
yes if the government fails to adequately “protect your rights to a fair investigation” or “tampers with the evidence to protect the criminal” you can sue them. What even is a right? Who cars?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Which of those things has anything to do with failing to protect you from violent crime?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you can literally sue EMTs for not treating you if you’re very in danger. And what does that have to do with rights?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Before there was an organized police force in the united states there was the second amendment. But seriously, you understand that police don't actually have an obligation to intervene right? This right that you think exists doesn't. I think you're confusing a lot of things about how the legal system works.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
that’s a bit confused. It’s true that there wasn’t “a single organized police force” or a modern one but there were absolutely sheriffs and magistrates with local very concentrated power and they absolutely exercised authority and violence to enforce for instance local morals (depends) so it’s not like the US was totally anarchist, just it’s hard to have a big concentrated power in the days when the Pony Express was still a century and a half away
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The courts didn't act as interventionist agencies. They dealt with the fallout after the fact. It was common to have something like a court put together a warrant or bounty and rustle up a militia like group to enforce its edicts. The state did have violence at its disposal but it was absolutely not attempting to stop crime directly or criminals in the act. Which is my whole point, the state clearly cannot guarantee that you don't come to harm, and that's fine, the police are useful for other tasks, it just makes it not a right.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If we had hypercourts that could decide things instantly they would intervene. That’s not happening ever though, as the other hypercourts could just do crimes as fast. Courts often issue injunctions to pause and intervene before they decide. Other government organs intervene constantly. I don’t see what this hasn’t to do with rights. The stage constantly directly stops crime and criminals in the act, epa, atf, whatever
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
how can you seriously argue that something not being universally guaranteed but merely enforced after the fact makes it not a right? Everything else is like that, poor enforcement doesn’t make something not exist
Also the state absolutely does attempt to stop violent criminals in the act. “Conspiracy to <x> charges”, etc. this also happened in the past, if there was some plan to steal something the sheriff could try and stop it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Because that's just literally not what the word means. I genuinely think you just don't know what words you're using.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Is that a yes? You're cool with me doing all the things I mentioned?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, I would kill you dead 4 seconds into the attempt. Committing a crime is not a violation of my rights, what authority could possibly guarantee such a right? If not one can guarantee it what good is it?
A right is not "we'll try our very best to have this outcome", it's an order of things guaranteed by the collective violence of society. Something that cannot be guaranteed because it is not at the whim of the people, such as your ability to do me harm, cannot be a right.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Aquota pictured trying to stop me from stealing all his funkos, because it's his right to own them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I genuinely have no idea what this is even supposed to critique. You are claiming I'm a consoomer type because I correctly pointed out that the cops were never going to intervene in my defense anyways? Does this make sense in your head and you're just totally incapable of articulating it or were you not even attempting to convey a coherent idea?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
the reason we have smooth and complex economies is not your gun or self defense it’s cops and feds and laws and contracts. State protection is a service the government grants, how is it different from other ones
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Honestly, the largest source of social order comes from most people's informal rules and formal rules imposed by numerous non-government organizations, groups, and ideas/ideology.
How those compare to government's effect has been largely unresolved.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I don't know why you think this is an argument against anything I said.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
see my other reply above. I agree that International Rights are gay, but nobody else does.
Negative rights and the Night Watchman state are neither perfect nor great. Governments today provide a LOT of services, and it’s hard to imagine a state without a “call 811 for cable and pipe info before digging ” (although it really should be a website...) or the guys who mandate you follow building codes or go to jail (or the NSF). I don’t see any reason positive rights in a practical sense are taboo even if they’re dumb in a theoretical one
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Literally everyone does, hence why they ignore them entirely. China has accurately called them total bullshit.
Negative rights are the only legitimate rights. No one has advocated for the night watchman state here and I do not advocate for it.
I'm not arguing against providing services, the state acts as a mechanism for solving many game theoretical problems that arise among free citizens. When incentives align such that there is a gain to be made through coordinating through a government I think it is good that this happens. I only oppose calling these services rights, in part because it erodes the status of actual rights as idiots think the """""""""""""""""right""""""""""""""""""" to healthcare is the same order of things as the right to free association, free speech and self defense.
If the calculous of incentives changes and we as a people decide to discontinue the 811 number then your rights have not been violated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is a libertarian slash ancap argument hence night watchman state. If state only enforced rights and only negative rights, then that’s quite limited.
Also other stuff that isn’t game theory like providing water and courts!
I agree that they aren’t rights fwiw. But nothing is, and in particular if human rights are meaningful then healthcare and food can easily be human rights.
(If it isn’t replaced by a fricking website which it already should have been, hey there’s ur startup idea if not already done lol) But then I’ll lose electricity and water and lots of rights to property and negative rights will be violated. How can we prevent this hm
Also: satellite based location demonstration. Either “reverse gps” where sattelites light triangulate a pulse from you or just something boring for if ur in generally the right area. If ur in the right place then u can see pipe locations. Not rly workable because you can just fly there or be nearby. Still a website where there’s a big database of all pipes and if u have the rights to an area it’s one click away? And no calling and waiting 2 days! Yay
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The state does things other than protect rights. A state can do something with no relation to a right. If a state issues me a ticket fir J walking there was absolutely no right involved at all in the action.
Those are trivially game theoretical. Courts are pretty much a central case of game theory, they act with the rest of the rule structure as an oracle. It's game theoretically necessary for a state body to serve this function because a private version would have perverse incentives.
Water is a tragedy of the common bulwark. Left to the private sector you'd either have massively redundant systems built or a natural monopoly. Gane theory says a central nonprofit authority is more optimal.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Paags are happiness and happiness is a human right. Government supplied paag harems when?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
zoz
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
zle
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
zozzle
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
What do you think rights are? Rights are something civilization/society gives itself, it can be whatever we decide it to be.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
It's my human right to punch a nazi.
R-slur.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Pinkie seriousposters OUT
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Enjoy the drama you idiot. Pearls before swine indeed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Lolbert r-sluration. In MY rDrama.net?!?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Are you illiterate or do you just pretend to be?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm not the one making r-slurred lolbert arguments that rely upon ridiculous pedantries. And if you weren't aware, hospitals are already obligated to serve people in emergencies regardless of ability to pay, so we've already determined their right to choose who to serve is already outweighed by the allegedly nonexistent right to healthcare.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If you go to the nearest hospital and they don't treat you because they literally don't have any beds available, can you sue them for violating your rights?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Amazing how all the countries that consider healthcare a right they don't have a problem of getting constantly sued due to a lack of available care even when there is a a shortage. Im an r-slur but trying to argue about the meaning of a word in this argument is just a way to intentionally distract from the point at hand.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Dang maybe that's because there are no countries that consider health care to be a human right?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
... dude please google that
Please
https://americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-of-healthcare-in-the-united-states/health-care-as-a-human-right/
http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2019/05/APLPJ_-20.2_Brack_.pdf
The Chinese government is clear about the right to healthcare its role in the provision of healthcare services and essential medicines. China has ratified several international treaties that guarantee the right to health, including the ICESCR in 2001.109 In addition, there are multiple provisions in the 1982 Chinese constitution that address health: Article 21: The state develops medical and health services, promotes modern medicine and traditional Chinese medicine, encourages and supports the setting up of various medical and health facilities by the rural economic collectives, state enterprises and institutions and neighborhood organizations, and promotes health and sanitation activities of a mass character, all for the protection of the people's health.110
Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right tomaterial assistance from the state and society when they are old, ill or disabled. The state develops social insurance, social relief and medical and health services that are required for citizens to enjoy this right.111 In addition to these constitutional provisions, various statutes and regulations address the protection of labor, women, and the environment that offer additional health-related guarantees.112 And in a 2009 policy document, Opinions on Deepening Pharmaceutical and Healthcare System Reform, the Chinese government declared healthcare to be a basic right and further claimed that the state had the ultimate responsibility to provide healthcare to its citizens.113
19% of countries had some sort of right - https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17441692.2013.810765#.UehiPWSgk3Y - lol
They do. You r-slur.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is a really long way of saying you don't frick.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Tàrd
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
If the cops kill you and then you sue them and it gets dismissed for a stupid reason, can you sue them? No? Then there’s no right to not die.
But there’s also a thing called “triage” where EMTs have to treat severely injured or risk if dying people and you can sue them for failing to do that. This is seriously enforced. So there is a right to treatment?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Whether or not there are legal consequences for your rights being violated has nothing to do with whether your rights are violated. Legal institutions are imperfect. This doesn't impact the philosophical question of what is and isn't a right.
No, there is no right to treatment, which is what I literally just said.
Read a fricking book.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Me: “you may have a right, roughly, as much as to anything else, to government assistance against harm, and you can be said to have a right to medical treatment as much as to life or counsel”
You:
So you argued you need legal consequences for there to be a right.
Yet now you say the opposite - “Whether or not there are legal consequences for your rights being violated has nothing to do with whether your rights are violated. Legal institutions are imperfect. This doesn't impact the philosophical question of what is and isn't a right”
EMTs and hospitals are legally required to treat you if they can.
And for if they can’t, ”Whether or not there are legal consequences for your rights being violated has nothing to do with whether your rights are violated. Legal institutions are imperfect. This doesn't impact the philosophical question of what is and isn't a right”
Healthcare can be a right
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
...
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
if a virus (an external living agent) breaches the NAP (infects your trachea and nasal mucosa) the government (a nurse funded by federal insurance) will defend your rights to freedom and life (provide you with IV fluids) and prosecute the virus attacking you (give others a vaccine and give you IV antivirals) and set up a security perimeter to ensure the suspect can’t leave the area (masks, filtration, lockdowns). Negative rights rock don’t they
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
That is a privilege conditional on the nearby operation of a hospital with excess capacity. Rights are nonconditional.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Okay, cool story bro. So if someone were to instead say "healthcare is a
rightnecessary entitlement everyone should be able to receive depending on availability" would you stop pedantic lolbert cute twinkry?Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
dang Im an r-slur but words have meanings or something
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I could also go into not how everyone defining rights exactly the same as stupid amerimutts do.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'd prefer "A good society is one where reasonable resources are devoted to minimize easily preventable human suffering" make no guarantees beyond that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
drones spraying a mix of carfentanil/diacetylmorphine across all major cities followed by mass nukes and stripping the atmosphere of oxygen would take care of that
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I mean yeah there you go
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context