Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

Hallelujah, was going to post the same thing. This is sad to me, because I see this so overused that it's lost nearly all its important original meaning.

All the time I see "health care is a human right", "shelter is a human right", "food is a human right" - that always drives me a little bonkers, and it's not because I don't support guaranteed assistance in these areas. It's because these things require real cost, time and effort from somebody else to acquire. Saying they're "human rights" implies that you're willing to force other humans to acquire these goods for you, for free. This is very different from things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc. which are the "default" state of things until someone uses violence to try to take them from you.

Similarly, it costs time, effort and money to assemble information in ways so that it can be consumed online. Saying "it's a human right" just means you want it for free.

View on HN

> It's because these things require real cost, time and effort from somebody else to acquire.

What you are writing there is a frequent complaint on discussion threads on news-for-nerds sites, but it misses the point: of course those things require real cost, time and effort from somebody else, and that is why there is a longstanding distinction between positive and negative rights.[0] Yes, the prominence of negative rights is a big feature of American culture due to the 18th-century Lockean context that the USA’s Founding Fathers operated in, but a lot of things have happened in the interim, and other views on rights have arisen. And even the USA gave lip service to the positive rights enshrined in the UN’s founding human-rights charter.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Positive rights advocates have had some success in achieving the lawful creation of positive rights across the States, the most prominent examples being Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and public school systems.

But those are also the most expensive line items in Federal and State budgets, massively expanded the public bureaucracies, and had variable success in achieving their stated goals and are some of the most contentious and controversial political topics, with public education in particularly attracting the full brunt of the culture war in recent years in part due to lockdown policies during the pandemic giving more parents more insight into the education their children are (or are not) receiving, and that’s just one positive right.

To put it bluntly, the mere arising of new views around “rights” since 1789 is insufficient if those new views do not represent a qualitative improvement over prior thought, and positive rights advocates have not exactly covered themselves in glory. The mere conjecture of a new positive right in the way activists and advocates proceed is also insufficient; the nature of them is such that you actually do need lawful agreement, and that agreement is only binding in the jurisdiction which created it.

Yes, you get it: with your detailed argumentation for one position you show you were already well aware of the distinction, unlike apparently the OP. But I suppose it is best that we refrain from further political battle here.

> But those are also the most expensive line items in Federal and State budgets,

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_s...

Two things missing:

1. Non-discretionary spending.

2. 50 additional links to breakdowns of the public budgets for the 50 States.

If I look to nations that are the most bullish when it comes to positive human rights they beat most other nations in nearly every human-centric metric conceivable. Last time I have been in Copenhagen it didn't look like they were worse off for doing all that positive right stuff — quite the opposite, I'd choose Copenhagen over literally every US city every day.

I know the US is good at pretending their problems are so unique that all the rational and numbers-based approaches everywhere else in the world won't fly, but in my eyes you either want to live in a society and want it to be good or you pretend you don't live inside one and deal with the consequences. The former gives me a happier life, the latter gives me dystopian vibes and a bit more on the bank account so my choice should be clear.

Sure, but Denmark does have a different culture. Even most European countries are different from Denmark.

We value property differently. We value entrepreneurship differently. We are a military superpower and provide most of the muscle in NATO that both the US and Denmark are part of. We have a larger border with both of our immediate neighbors. There isn’t a North American equivalent of the Schengen Area. We’re a lot more religious despite not having a State religion. Our Head of State is not Royal, but an elected position that churns every 4 to 8 years. We’re not a unitary State, but a Federation of 50 States, each with their own laws and histories and yeah, culturally we take that seriously here. We don’t even have a single Parliament, and our legislature does not function like one. Denmark is 86% people of Danish descent, while Americans aren’t 86% anything in particular, ethnically nor racially.

No matter how you slice it, the differences do define us, much like the differences between Japan and Denmark or Australia and Denmark. As I already pointed out, America has lawfully implemented some forms of what are called positive rights, but what those look like do not closely resemble the Danish analogues, and one of those differences is how much we disagree with each other as much as we disagree with the rest of the world, but hey, one if the nicer things about the world we live in is if you find a place you like more, it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals and there’s nothing wrong with that. :)

There is nowhere to go for Americans who have become completely disenfranchised.

I read recently that many political philosophers think the U.S. has become a (de facto) oligarchy.

In Republic book eight 552 it's argued that oligarchies "admit the greatest of all evils... Allowing someone to sell all his possessions and someone else to buy them...". Now this is particularly true in regards to land (which even when "owned" is essentially rented from the government in the form of property taxes). I don't know the history but I've seen hints that much of this land acquisition was pretty coercive.

I think it's difficult for many Americans to admit this because their thinking is biased in the same way that someone becomes biased about a person they love - no matter what anybody tells them, "loving eyes never see". Only the love here is the love of "the good life" - the materially rich one.

Yes, we (which is to say those of us of European descent) conquered much of our land, and also purchased lands that others conquered, and yes made some odd trades for land with cultures that didn’t understand our (as in historically Christendom’s) conception of property ownership and trade, but what does that have to do with this discussion vis a vis positive rights? We’re not discussing property rights, so please make the connection to this discussion since I’m afraid I’m not seeing it.

A place to live is not only a positive but a natural right.

If you want to argue against homelessness, I’m not the one you need to convince, but as stated above you cannot effectively conjecture a positive right into existence merely by claiming that it is a right. Positive rights are lawfully agreed upon, even public education has its own basis in statutes or written constitutional laws.

I was basically just responding to your flippant suggestion that someone just "go somewhere else" if they don't like it where they're at.

Ah, this part:

> but hey, one [o]f the nicer things about the world we live in is if you find a place you like more, it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals and there’s nothing wrong with that. :)

This wasn’t flippant, nor limited to just Americans moving elsewhere. I actually took a small look into the difficulty of migrating to Denmark from America before I wrote that to see if there were any special difficulties and near as I can tell, the bar is much much lower than I was expecting, but it should be noted that if more people took advantage of that, then it’s probable Denmark would raise the requirements and immigration has at least somewhat recently been a political issue for them.

> it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals

It is often possible, but what I did not claim was that it was universally so and that’s because it’s not universally possible for all people. That was intentional. It requires the ability to actually meet the requirements of the host country, the ability to cover the travel and moving expenses for yourself and them accepting you into their country, at least if they have solid immigration controls, or the ability to live within their society without going through the official channels if not, as long as you can get yourself there. Almost all of that should have gone without saying though.

Sure, going elswhere is something you can do, if you can afford it. But:

A) There are societies, in which the circumstances which would make it reasonable for you to leave are the reason why you cannot. E.g. if you are living in slavery or quasi-slavery moving somewhere else would be good, but the ones profiting from your labour wouldn't like that, so they make it hard. And the reason why you ended up in that position e.g. lack of funds, lack of education might also make it hard or impossible to move somewhere else.

B) We are discussing human rights. I would think they should apply universally. That is of course not the reality of the world, but we should aim for those rights to be defended in each part of the world.

Human rights are a thing that has to be defended by those that are able defend them — and those people are typically not the victim of such violations, but precisely the opposite in terms of social, economic and education capital than the people that would benefit from moving away.

That means just move away as an answer from the standpoint of the affected people is just profoundly naive, as if one would say to "just get rich" when someone isn't or "just get healthy" when someone is ill. On top of that it is an answer that hurts the society of those that give it, as the society as a while accumulates injustices it fails to answer.

So why give thwt answer? Because it has one benefit: It is a simple cure for the nagging feeling of cognitive dissonance that each good person has to get, when they see that the society they are part of produces injustices. It is the answer that allows them to move on and change nothing. "It must be their own fault then".

Rights be it positive or negative have to be weighed against each other. This is where societies tend to differ. Does your law side with the property owner or with the humanitarian rights of people who would need access to that property?

Typically, because those creating the laws are property owners themselves the law makers side with the property owners. Now if you are lucky you live in a society where the law makers recognized the crisis needs to be addressed and they usually find a way of throwing money at the problem (if you are less lucky, they do it corruptly by supporting their own property or that of their pals).

That means systemically we live in a society where those with power tend to accumulate more power, a phenomenom which leads to suffering and instability, which is why societies need certain guardrails against such accumulation of power (e.g. term limits, ethical frameworks, anti-corruption laws, taxation that doesn't tax poor people a bigger fraction of their money than rich people etc.)

But on the topic of the conversation: yes, you can claim a right that is not universally agreed uppon. That doesn't make it so, but throughout every progressive movement there ever was, this was a strategy. E.g. women claiming that voting is a universal right (in a context where they are barred from doing precisely that) is not stupid, it is clever. By appealing to the universality of a right you are also including those who already excercise that right on your side. In the example of women protesting for the right to vote framing it as an universal right includes men as well, this way a women issue becomes one of universal rights and will be discussed differently.

Everyone needs a place to live, but how would you begin to figure out who needs to live where? Seems like an impossibly complex challenge to sort out without either private or state ownership of property.

Oligarchy, yes maybe, but also a weird modern form of feudalism, where companies try to make you pay tribute after they sold you a thing. If you are worried about ownership, this is the top issue you should be thinking about.

But ownership is not the issue. The issue is that people conflate ownership and especially money with happiness and live in a society where a lack of money is indeed a source of unhappiness — all while forgetting there are things that make you happy which you as an individual cannot buy with money.

E.g. if I were rich in a poor society I am sure I would feel less happy than me being slightly above the median in a wealthy society. That is because a rich person in a poor society is not free and has to constantly worry about loosing their wealth, getting robbed, mugged, kidnapped or otherwise becoming a victim of crimes. And even if you manage that, you are still living with the fact to be part of a society that sucks for most people. Sure you got money, and have it nice in your gated community, seeing only people of your choosing, but that to me wouls not only be utterly dystopian, but an egocentric capitulation of a person who made their wealth from the fruits of a free society.

Maybe I am naive, or stupid, but for me it is like this: Either I live in a society and want to improve it, for the benefit of myself and all those around me, or you can become a total recluse and build your own hut, melt your own iron, live your own live in isolation.

> Saying they're "human rights" implies that you're willing to force other humans to acquire these goods for you, for free. This is very different from things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc. which are the "default" state of things until someone uses violence to try to take them from you.

Copying information online is also 'default' state of things, until some government uses violence to stop it, block access, and etc. Sci-Hub does not rely on any 'violence' to operate, unless you consider 'entering library without permission' to be violence. But that concept of violence is too general: we can call 'violence' pretty much anything we do not like. Someone offended us with their opinion? Violence! (and yes, sometimes opinions hurt)

> you're willing to force other humans to acquire these goods for you, for free

it is wrong. One thing, is to say to other human: do something for me! that is, to force someone. But having a right to use what is already available, is a completely different thing. The two cannot be conflated.

The missing word from this conversation is "duty": a moral obligation to others.

People pretend rights can exists without duties because, like you said, they're trying to get good things for free. They're asking for work from others and not being upfront on the price of the work. I say "I have a right to good service at the DMV", because I can't say the DMV must give me, let alone everyone, good service. In a larger view[1], a language of rights without duties undermines the broader social contract, confuses conversations with indirect terms[2], and provides the selfish with the illusion of care for their fellow man.

As it so happens, the original declaration of human rights[2] specifically calls out the necessary union of duties and rights. However, the UN declaration does not do so, likely because no one, bar a few western countries, actually had the power to enforce those rights on a global scale. Hannah Arendt commented on this topic at length, though it's hard for hyper-individualists to digest[4].

[1] https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/samuel-moyn-rights-dut...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights#C...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Declaration_of_the_Ri...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt#Critique_of_huma...

In the USA, we take human rights so seriously that soldiers and police commit to defending the Constitution, not king and country. The Constitution and its amendments enumerate rights the Federal government is not allowed to infringe.

We need to be careful about what we call rights. They cost us a great deal in blood and treasure.

>implies that you're willing to force other humans to acquire these goods for you, for free.

Or, y'know, actually that we require the costs to be shared equally...

Like we do with fresh water or firefighters or the police or armed forces. Like, I don't smoke, so why should you get your firefighter for free?

What good are any other human rights if you are denied access to the law, or drinking water for that matter?

> Saying they're "human rights" implies that you're willing to force other humans to acquire these goods for you, for free.

Well, sure. IMHO it's not so much an implication as it is the whole point of designating them human rights.

What this looks like in practice is that government funds homeless shelters and other social programs.

Hah! In 2021, the USA provided 28.5 billion dollars in farm subsidies. For fossil fuels, we spend about 20 billion dollars a year in subsidies.

People are ALREADY getting this stuff "for free" - it's just not you and me!

This is all before we spent ~815 BILLION dollars on our defense budget - and we're at peace!

Everyone gets it for free but YOU and ME, and you're carrying their water by defending this system! We give it out for free with one hand, and then pretend everyone has to work for it, and along the way there's no free food, shelter, or medical care!

> Saying "it's a human right" just means you want it for free.

No. Wanting it to be a human right in that context means I want to live in a society where people don't have to worry about that thing. Living in a society that catches people that has some humane quality to it is a value in itself.

That being said, there are actual human rights. Rights our political representatives deemed so important, they enshrined them in law, be it in the Magna Carta, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention, in national laws etc.

On the question of resources: It can and will happen, that your society will have to expend some resources to prevent humans from having their human rights violated. The collective pooling and use of resources is a hallmark of what it means to live inside a society. And that is not bad — a society as a whole benefits from doing this (the ones who so this most seem the fare quite well in every metric you can think of, e.g. the whole of Scandinavia).

Now if you ask me, you certainly have the right to work and get rich. But you don't get to do so on the achievements of a society and then pretend that it never did anything for you, so you won't need to give back all while driving on the roads that got built during times with a 90% tax bracket.

I don't know you, so don't take anything I write personal, but if this was about me, I'd rather live freely in a world where no-one around me is devastated and poor by paying my fair share, than having to spend that same money because I have to live in a gated community.

The goal of life is not to earn money, it is to lead a happy life. And a major, major part of just how happy that life is depends on your environment. This is why the most liveable cities in the world are typically not capitalist hellscapes in areas of high income disparities, but in working social democracies with good social systems and a good mix of all income brackets throughout the city.

When I have the choice between your right to pay a little bit less taxes and another one's right to not starve, my choice is very simple. You probably already have enough, the other one hasn't, I profit from them not starving more than from you having that money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com