Message from @DanConway
Discord ID: 380779691155521547
Well here we go Dan, these are the words to the argument I had drifting around in my head unable to articulate.
the problem of democracy was disscussed by our founding fathers at length
it needs checks and balances
but they could have never predicted the idea of positive rights
Yeah man that's a really helpful concept. So libertarians basically don't like positive rights for the most part, sort of as an inherent general rule?
I like my positive rights
only if they are held as a monopoly by the government
Positive right are more of a pragmatic argument
if you had a choice between social secutiy or keeping your money an investing it yourself
social security could only benifit because now it has to compete
You can invest your money here
it would have to provide more positives than negatives to survive
but here you dont have a choice if you can keep the money to pay into SS
You can split the tax money you have to pay between the goverment and private investment here
So a positive right is the notion that something is required to be provided to you. So if someone *other* then govt is required to provide it, then it's okay?
if someone was providing a service to you
it would no longer be a right
it would just be something you choose to pay into
It is more of a positive privelege
I go away for an hour and now I have to catch up on a debate about voting
k bai franti
I am staying
oh I see
I already went away
Regarding voting, You are part of the citizenry, as whole the goverment serves the whole citizenry
Sure, so one example of a pretty solid positive right would be police protection. But then again... that's tricky. As far as I'm aware, police aren't actually required to protect you, correct?
Police are for law enforcment
police protect property rights
They are not a protection sevice
They solve crime
Police presence serves as a deterrent
they are a physical manifistation of the idea of protecting private property
so i would put a police force as more of an example of the nessesary evil of government
So if we're to say that your body is your property and you have a right to your property, are police required to protect you?
i wouldnt say so
i would say that it comes down to the individual to protect him/herself
Goverment will always be very powerfull because people like beeing told what to do
They just dont admit it
Protecting private and public property.
Or people as a whole.
If everyone just "Protected themselves" what's to stop a bunch of gangs roaming the streets?
Sure people could form a mob and stop it. But isn't it better it gets stopped before that happens ?
You pay protection money