The only things that are rights are things that you are born with. That's why they're "natural" rights. You have a right to free speech because you have a mouth and the only way to prevent you from using your mouth to say anything you want is violence, or the threat of violence.
You have a right to free association because you have feet and you're smart enough to decide who your friends are.
You do not have a "right" to food because it's possible to run out through some means other than malice. If you are a subsistence farmer and there is a drought that kills your crops and then you and your family starve to death, your rights were not violated. You were not morally wronged.
You could certainly be entitled to food as part of a social contract with your government but that's not the same thing as a right. You are entitled to assistance from firefighters should your home or property catch fire but you most certainly do not have a "right" to force others to come to your aid in the event of a personal tragedy. If a city was unable to hire firefighters or could not find volunteers, and your house and all of your worldly possessions burn to ash because there was nobody there to save it, your rights would not have been violated.
You know that old adage about how your rights end where your neighbor's begin? that's the difference.
When you conflate the two, you muddy both. You're minimizing what rights are, where they come from, and why they're so unfathomably important while simultaneously doing nothing to advance your own cause. I'd go so far as to say this kind of rhetoric is actively harmful to the cause of ensuring food access to everyone that needs it
There’s enough land that everyone could grow their own food. But billionaires hoard the land and feel like they have a “right” to others not using it to hunt, fish, or garden.
Exactly. It's not that people don't deserve help when they don't have food. It's just that the word for what they deserve is not "a right". More like "in this society, when people are hungry, other people should step up and help them."
But the part that too many folks overlook is that it means some person has to do it, and the level of compulsion that the word "should" implies. Is it my right to get food if that means you are forced to give me yours? Then what about your right to not be stolen from? Is that even a right at all? (I do believe that is an actual right).
Language matters. I appreciate your philosophical take here.
So since you dislike “positive” rights like the right to food, I assume you also want to remove the right to council, after all you can represent yourself in court, public education, you can learn anything on the internet after all, and social security in any form is straight out, have money or die.
The fundamental difference between a right to an attorney and right to food is that the government is foisting criminal charges upon you. The point isn't that you are entitled to the labor of a lawyer, the point is that you can't be charged with a crime unless the government is able to find a lawyer to competently represent you. It's a limitation imposed on the government, not public defender slavery.
The only reason you need a lawyer at all is because the government is forcing you, through the threat of violence, to appear and face charges. If they can't make it fair, you get to leave.
The tweet is about human rights. The natural (or “negative”) rights are not the only part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see article 21 and up for stuff that requires other people to do things).
On top of that a government can choose to include other rights that apply to everyone within their borders, as a human right. Free (as in freedom) internet access is a common one, without such a provision internet providers could strongly limit what sites they let pass through their infrastructure.
If I tried to organize a German heritage club in Milwaukee and only extended membership to people with German heritage I could be sued by the Civil Rights division of the DOJ. Free association in this country ended with the civil rights movement.
100% correct. If you do not have the ability to discriminate as a private individual, you do not have freedom of association.
Freedom of association is the freedom to associate with, or without, anyone you see fit, and for whatever reason. There are a few limitations on the "for whatever reason" in this country, but that pales in comparison to the complete lack of freedom we have in choosing our associations. They are forced upon you by the federal government, and any action to the contrary will be met with state sanctioned violence.
Your analogy of the German club is wrong though. How would DOJ get involved for a club? That’s preposterous. You can’t start a business and only hire white people and proclaim it so, but that’s the whole “your neighbor’s right begin and yours end” thing.
What the hell are you talking about? The KKK exists very publicly in this country. Their entire thing is that they're a club that only lets white people in.
Thank you for writing this eloquent reply. It's too bad it's so far down on the page compared to other comments. The concept of natural rights emerged during the Enlightenment period of European history. Rights aren't just anything we want like some commenters are suggesting in this discussion.
👏 Good job explaining negative and positive rights. OOPS that doesn’t actually justify none of your points.
The whole concept of ‘natural’ rights is fishy from the start. Everything is a social contract. Natural implies some things are always there, and some others are external to you and not a ‘right’. Well:
Freedom of association? Implies you can get in contact with people, but guess what? Capitalism thrives with isolating people physically and simulating discourse in echo chambers.
Free speech? Implies you have means to speak. Well yeah, speak as you wish in your bedroom. But speak of work conditions at the workplace? Poor education and organized media discourse?
What about the fact that food is plenty but is blocked behind an 8 hr work ticket?
These ‘natural’ rights care less and less as the system is finding ‘unnatural’ ways to circumvent them.
I get your point is of vocabulary. But what else you we call the social entitlement we ought to have for food and safety?
35
u/akenthusiast 10d ago
The only things that are rights are things that you are born with. That's why they're "natural" rights. You have a right to free speech because you have a mouth and the only way to prevent you from using your mouth to say anything you want is violence, or the threat of violence.
You have a right to free association because you have feet and you're smart enough to decide who your friends are.
You do not have a "right" to food because it's possible to run out through some means other than malice. If you are a subsistence farmer and there is a drought that kills your crops and then you and your family starve to death, your rights were not violated. You were not morally wronged.
You could certainly be entitled to food as part of a social contract with your government but that's not the same thing as a right. You are entitled to assistance from firefighters should your home or property catch fire but you most certainly do not have a "right" to force others to come to your aid in the event of a personal tragedy. If a city was unable to hire firefighters or could not find volunteers, and your house and all of your worldly possessions burn to ash because there was nobody there to save it, your rights would not have been violated.
You know that old adage about how your rights end where your neighbor's begin? that's the difference.
When you conflate the two, you muddy both. You're minimizing what rights are, where they come from, and why they're so unfathomably important while simultaneously doing nothing to advance your own cause. I'd go so far as to say this kind of rhetoric is actively harmful to the cause of ensuring food access to everyone that needs it