Turn on thread page Beta

Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist' watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    People have a right to be free from interference. It is morally universal that one should not be harmed against their will.

    As such, if I trade my time for some money, and then some money for a car, then no-one else has the right to initiate force or fraud to take that. The only time someone may interfere with me (initiate force or fraud) is if I interfere with them first (that is, I initiate force or fraud).

    I do not have a right to a car in that I shouldn't have one if I choose to spend the money earned on oranges instead. Or I choose to use my time for leisure instead of work, and so forth.
    I have to sleep now, but I disagree with how you seem to understand this, let alone with your view on rights, imo people should have lots of rights to make sure they can be the best they can be and also for the benefit of humanity as a whole.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    I have to sleep now, but I disagree with how you seem to understand this, let alone with your view on rights, imo people should have lots of rights to make sure they can be the best they can be and also for the benefit of humanity as a whole.
    Then your definition of "rights" becomes vacuous and largely meaningless. I'm not saying you couldn't argue that people should have universal access to healthcare, or a certain standard of living (I disagree, of course, for the reasons Simon's mentioned above) but that to call it a "right" would imply, as stated, some form of moral universality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's always worth remembering that a 'right' isn't something you can have, it's something no one can stop you having (not even the state).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I dont think Rights have to be morally universal though...I never said I did, you are the ones saying that.

    I think Rights are things that can allow people to reach there full potential and subsequently better the human race as a whole too.

    I am open to debate on what these should be, in terms of helping people to reach that potential, but I certainly do not accept that we should only have Rights that are morally universal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    I dont think Rights have to be morally universal though...I never said I did, you are the ones saying that.

    I think Rights are things that can allow people to reach there full potential and subsequently better the human race as a whole too.

    I am open to debate on what these should be, in terms of helping people to reach that potential, but I certainly do not accept that we should only have Rights that are morally universal.
    Rights are by definition universal though, so if they are not morally universal, then it means that for a section they are morally wrong. It seems strange to advocate that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Rights are by definition universal though, so if they are not morally universal, then it means that for a section they are morally wrong. It seems strange to advocate that.
    lets put it another way, surely having all of the following is morally universal aswel?

    Food
    Water
    Shelter
    Security
    Healthcare
    Education

    I dont know anyone who doest think they should have these things...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    lets put it another way, surely having all of the following is morally universal aswel?

    Food
    Water
    Shelter
    Security
    Healthcare
    Education

    I dont know anyone who doest think they should have these things...
    People having 'rights' to various material things places an imposition on others to provide them. The liberal view of rights is that people only may defend their personal sphere from intrusion, not force other people to work for them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    lets put it another way, surely having all of the following is morally universal aswel?

    Food
    Water
    Shelter
    Security
    Healthcare
    Education

    I dont know anyone who doest think they should have these things...
    No. I don't think people have a right to them. That doesn't mean I wouldn't contribute towards someone else's food if they couldn't afford it, for example. However, to make it a right means that you are saying it's morally universal to take forcibly from others to give something to another group. If it's done forcibly it can't be morally universal.

    Even then, of some of the things listed, it being a Right doesn't mean the State should step in. Food and Water for example are allocated through the free-market (apart from the distortions which harm both foreign producers and consumers (read poor African farmers and children), and domestic consumers).

    Healthcare and Education I certainly wouldn't argue is a right. It is someone else providing that service, and you have no right to access these things any more than you do an iPhone or a garden. It's much easier when you use vague categories, but where do you draw the line? Do we all have a right to gourmet food and university education?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think that it is okay though, people are not paid on merit and people should not be denied such things based on an arbirtary piece of paper.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    No. I don't think people have a right to them.
    You disgust me.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    and yes, if you dont think people have a right to those things, frankly I would suggest you are morally bankrupt and lack empathy...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    You disgust me.
    Just stop reading there did we? With selective reading like that you could work for the New Statesman.

    I don't agree that they aren't rights, but I agree that to forcibly take something cannot make it morally universal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    You disgust me.
    Likewise.

    and yes, if you dont think people have a right to those things, frankly I would suggest you are morally bankrupt and lack empathy...
    Where am I lacking in morals or empathy? Please do expand.

    I think that it is okay though, people are not paid on merit and people should not be denied such things based on an arbirtary piece of paper.
    Money is not an arbitrary bit of paper, it is another good that people happened to want. It is merely a way of assigning comparative values to gods, so that if I have sheep and you have gold, we can still trade even though you don't want sheep, but want cows, since I'll sell my sheep for money, use that money to buy the gold and you can then buy cows. It is just a way of facilitating trades between fruits of people's labour; not an arbitrary bit of paper.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    I don't agree that they aren't rights, but I agree that to forcibly take something cannot make it morally universal.
    This is a strange contradiction though. Rights are universal, by definition. If they are not morally universal (as you say) then you are arguing that a certain Right is morally wrong, yet you still advocate it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Likewise.


    Where am I lacking in morals or empathy? Please do expand.


    Money is not an arbitrary bit of paper, it is another good that people happened to want. It is merely a way of assigning comparative values to gods, so that if I have sheep and you have gold, we can still trade even though you don't want sheep, but want cows, since I'll sell my sheep for money, use that money to buy the gold and you can then buy cows. It is just a way of facilitating trades between fruits of people's labour; not an arbitrary bit of paper.
    you dont think people should have those things as rights, how anyone who has morals or empathy can think that is beyond me.

    yes it is, the value such paper has is made by a retarded and overly complex system that not even people who work in fully understand...

    its a way of letting some people get lots of things whilst denying others even simple rights like the ones I stated.

    its because of people like you that African children are dying.

    I hope you like there blood on your hands and your conscience.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    This is a strange contradiction though. Rights are universal, by definition. If they are not morally universal (as you say) then you are arguing that a certain Right is morally wrong, yet you still advocate it.
    To be honest, this debate about rights is above my head.
    I believe that everyone should have an education, healthcare, etc. (What SciFiBoy listed), but whether this makes them rights I don't know.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    its because of people like you that African children are dying.

    I hope you like there blood on your hands and your conscience.
    ROFL
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    you dont think people should have those things as rights, how anyone who has morals or empathy can think that is beyond me.
    So let me put this to you, if they are all universal rights, and the choice comes down to someone's shelter versus someone else's healthcare (since even if you abolish money, there are still finite resources, money is just a measure of that), or someone's food versus someone else's water? Where you have these contradictions they cannot be rights. To argue otherwise is logically wrong. You're getting hung up on the word rights here. It's not that I want to see people without them.

    yes it is, the value such paper has is made by a retarded and overly complex system that not even people who work in fully understand...
    As I just explained to you, it's not. Any points against that or it just is because you say so? Money and the free-market is what allows me to trade things with people I have never met, never will meet and might even hate if I ever did meet them for the benefit of both of us. It is money that enables this to work, else you end up in a barter economy.

    its a way of letting some people get lots of things whilst denying others even simple rights like the ones I stated.
    No, it is a way of reflecting, not determining resource allocation. We could just as easily make those bits of paper into fish, as long as everyone wanted fish; or bottles if everyone wanted bottles; or gold (which money was initially backed by).

    its because of people like you that African children are dying.
    On the contrary, it is because of people like you. However well intentioned your political proposals make everyone worse-off, especially those already worse off. It is people with trade protectionism like the EU, those that collectivise ownership of land reducing incentives to improve it and to make it sustainable and it is corrupt government, which is much easier when government is big. It is endless regulations and restrictions on businesses which deter entrepreneurship. It is people like you that have blood on their hands.

    I hope you like there blood on your hands and your conscience.
    See above.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    its because of people like you that African children are dying.

    I hope you like there blood on your hands and your conscience.
    Then why is it that Africa is run more how you would like, whereas places that aren't starving are run more how libertarians would like?



    Correlation between poverty and lack of property rights is quite strong.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    you missed my point entirely, well done.

    the only reason these nations are in poverty is because humans took there land and resources in the name of Profit and Greed, if we had let them be, they may even have become better nations than our own.

    the only reason they are still in poverty now is because people like you refuse to help them on the basis that it "costs too much"

    I do not put a price on the lives of humans, imo we all deserve a decent quality of life, regardless of where we are born, I want to see all people given help, regardless of how much this costs, heck if money is the problem, then we can just be rid of money alltogether...



    its a case of whether or not you think its okay for poverty to exist, I do not and I would advocate that the human race do whatever is needed to end it.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.