> There’s no inalienable right to live in a popular place you cannot afford.
There's no right to anything that people don't stand together to say they have a right to.
> Can you articulate an ethical argument for why it’s a problem that not everyone can afford to move to the most desirable cities?
People shouldn't have to commute for hours so other people can live there because that impacts their health and opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If this is where the jobs are, there should be homes here as well.
> There's no right to anything that people don't stand together to say they have a right to.
This is ignoring the point: positive rights should not exist. They require taking rights from others, through violence, to enforce.
> People shouldn't have to commute for hours so other people can live there because that impacts their health and opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
> This is ignoring the point: positive rights should not exist
I’m confused by this statement. You don’t have an inalienable right to keep the area around your home exactly how you want it either. That’s a positive right and requires taking the rights of others, for example by enforcement of zoning laws that affect land owned by other people.
Positive right: somebody has to do something for me.
Negative right: nobody must do something to me.
The right of self-governance is a negative right. I can see how it can be confusing since you can re-phrase anything as either positive or a negative action e.g. "you must stop stealing my stuff so property is a positive right" and "you should not deny my need for healthcare ergo it's a negative right" so here is a trick you can use to distinguish one from another: a negative right will remain even in the absence of all other people while a positive right will disappear in such a case.
So, for this case, the right of self-governance will remain if everyone else disappears since you can still make laws, obey them and enforce them on yourself thus it's a negative right.
1) Property is a positive right. It requires that the state enforce your property claim. This does not come free; it requires taxes, a police force, etc.
2) Property is delimited in scope. You own your parcel. You do not own the neighborhood, even partially. If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you. You are, at that point, just a rent-seeking highway robber.
All rights, positive and negative require the state to enforce them so if we were to accept your definition, the negative rights would not exist and the whole positive/negative qualification became moot. You are free to not recognize the existence of negative rights but then how can you argue over the distinction between positive and negative in a good faith?
> If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you.
That's another POV you are entitled to but the courts found otherwise in the Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
>You are free to not recognize the existence of negative rights but then how can you argue over the distinction between positive and negative in a good faith?
My "faith" doesn't matter. The logic of the argument matters. And frankly, you don't seem to be putting forward very logical arguments.
>> If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you.
> That's another POV you are entitled to but the courts found otherwise in the Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
That's not what the court found in that case. In that case, the court found that zoning was a valid extension of the authority of local governments. Local governments do not create negative-rights claims. Indeed, the zoning ordinance in question didn't even purport to do so.
Now, I've never been arguing that local governments lack the authority to pass zoning restrictions, even if I think some zoning is bad substantively. I've been arguing that you, as a private individual, do not have a negative right to make up your own personal zoning code and enforce it on others, without the democratic authority of the local government.
My argument here is entirely consistent with Euclid vs Amber, and frankly, your reference to the ruling is a non-sequitur.
My logic is quite simple: positive right is a right to compel, negative right is a right to deny. It also makes the naming consistent. A right to compel disappears when there are no people to compel, the right to deny becomes absolute when there are no people to try the denied actions.
What is your logic and do you have an example of a negative right, that doesn't require enforcement?
And I agree that as a private individual I don't have a right to deny construction wholly. Same as I don't have a right to elect anyone. The community has the entire right, I only have a right to vote.
> Property is a positive right. It requires that the state enforce your property claim.
No it isn’t. We allow the state to enforce it on our behalf. In most reasonable states, you can defend against the commission of a felony on your property with deadly force.
Also, owning property is not a right. That’s the entire point.
Calling changing the feeling of your neighbourhood, or indirectly reducing the market value of your land, 'doing something to you' in this context seems kind of stretching it.
Neither is positive, both are negative. Also the former does not exist in reality, in fact you often don't have a right to build anything in a township thus you have to get a permission from the local government for almost any construction (with some things implicitly permitted).
I guess I don't understand the distinction or how the second one isn't a positive right. By your own rule of thumb, if you take away other people then the right to tell others what they can/can't build disappears.
> Also the former does not exist in reality
Irrelevant, we're discussing how things should work not how they are.
Who prevents you from telling anything if others don't exist? But I did not think you mean it literally, to be honest, I thought you meant allowing/disallowing construction in one's neighborhood. If other people did not exist you could just as easily allow and disallow construction, could not you?
No? If other people didn't exist then there is nothing to disallow. We are talking about how people will go to meetings to try to veto building proposals.
I am not sure I understand. In your view, if I live in the middle of nowhere, with no people around me, then I don't have the right to disallow people into my home because nobody is coming? How is it different from me living in the center of NYC and not allowing people into my home, the result is the same - people are not coming into my home, are they?
I mean, it's an option, but a just society could easily do better.
The majority are screwed over by an ultra-rich minority, personally I think that deserves addressing.
Positive rights for all do not require violence provided those who benefit from others not having simple rights will give up their excess for the greater good. The demos may need to use violence, but that's only because those who, by no greater virtue, have acquired wealth refuse to act justly and recognise the equal dignity of man.
Or work near where you can afford to live? If there aren't jobs that support living there, live somewhere else? You're presenting an absurd dichotomy.
> The majority are screwed over by an ultra-rich minority, personally I think that deserves addressing.
No, they aren't. Wealth inequality is not a real problem. It's politicized jealousy. Wealth is not zero-sum, and someone having more than someone else is irrelevant.
> Positive rights for all do not require violence provided those who benefit from others not having simple rights will give up their excess for the greater good.
"Right" means it must be enforced. "provided .. will give up" means taking by that same force if they choose to not turn over what they own.
Taking to support a right absolutely requires violence.
> but that's only because those who, by no greater virtue, have acquired wealth refuse to act justly and recognise the equal dignity of man.
Why should they? What is their obligation? You have undoubtedly acquired more wealth than a subsistence farmer in rural India: why do you refuse to act justly and recognize their equal dignity?
> Or work near where you can afford to live? If there aren't jobs that support living there, live somewhere else? You're presenting an absurd dichotomy.
And what happens when there's no jos where you live, and the only places where jobs exist have extreme housing shortages? You can spend hours commuting each day, but then you're probably burning just as much money through gas - not to mention destroying the environment.
> Then you start a small business, employing others and building up your community.
The idea that anyone can just start a business is seriously indicative of how our of touch this forum can be.
What if there's no goods or services that are in demand in your immediate community? What if your community is impoverished and dying? What if you have no capital to start a business?
> How do you think the ‘places where jobs exist’ started?
Often it was because of natural resources, or geographic factors that made it conductive to establishing a population center (like river or harbour access).
> If it’s intolerable to enough people, they won’t be able to hire. They’ll have to move, or pay more to overcome the housing shortage.
The latter is what's happening: prices of housing are skyrocketing and locking people into poverty.
That's like, your opinion man, and I don't know if you mean aspirationally, as in, there shouldn't be racist classist assholes out there so we shouldn't need positive rights to protect the dignity we all deserve, or you mean you so libertarian you side with the racist classist assholes like Ayn Rand, but surely if you meant to debate Kant and Shue: I wouldn't be the first to argue that a fundamental right to freedom is worthless if people aren't able to exercise that freedom, and you can just google search "criticisms of the virtue of selfishness" if you want; People write proper papers and thesis on this stuff, not internet comments.
So I still won't comment on whether positive rights should or should not exist, and instead say it is undignified to have to live in fear and that a lack of equity fosters fear, and ideologically I don't care how we do it, so I believe it ethical to support things like traffic laws, minimum-wage laws, health-and-safety laws especially in farms, restaurants and hotels, and maybe even a commuter-premium to prevent companies from exploiting another way humans are willing to degrade themselves.
Well, and the opinion of people that don't like slavery and theft.
> I don't know if you mean aspirationally, as in, there shouldn't be racist classist assholes out there so we shouldn't need positive rights to protect the dignity we all deserve
I mean positive rights cannot be established without evil. They should never exist, and any you can think of should be abolished.
> I wouldn't be the first to argue that a fundamental right to freedom is worthless if people aren't able to exercise that freedom
You don't need to take from others to be free. That is, in fact, the opposite of freedom.
> you can just google search "criticisms of the virtue of selfishness" if you want; People write proper papers and thesis on this stuff, not internet comments.
This isn't about selfishness. Well, kind of. Selfishness on the part of people demanding the positive rights, which _forces_ others under threat of violence to make their lives easier, regardless of whatever efforts they make on their own.
> So I still won't comment on whether positive rights should or should not exist
I maintain they should not.
> and instead say it is undignified to have to live in fear
So don't.
> and that a lack of equity fosters fear
Equity is impossible without violence and restrictions on freedom. It's not equitable that one person should be lame and another not: it only becomes equitable when we break the other person's legs.
> and ideologically I don't care how we do it
Neither did Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot.
> so I believe it ethical to support things like traffic laws, minimum-wage laws, health-and-safety laws especially in farms, restaurants and hotels, and maybe even a commuter-premium
None of those things are rights.
> to prevent companies from exploiting another way humans are willing to degrade themselves.
If someone is willing to 'degrade themselves', why are you preventing them from doing so?
> You don't need to take from others to be free. That is, in fact, the opposite of freedom.
But irrelevant: Things have already taken from others and they want it back.
> Equity is impossible without violence and restrictions on freedom.
Agreed, so because violence was used to obtain an UN-equitable position, they want it back.
(I feel a little bit like I'm repeating myself; what's another way to say this?)
People the color of your skin used violence to take people with different skin-colors freedoms and property, and they used it to finance schools and police forces that resulting in you opportunities or advantages that other people with other skin-colors no longer had the possibility of as a result. You don't deserve that advantage, and so they want it back.
> I mean positive rights cannot be established without evil. They should never exist, and any you can think of should be abolished.
If "positive rights" can also be established in response to evil, then I don't see why they cannot be used to correct for equity. Property-rights are enforced by taxes, so on some level, if these are "positive rights" then they're just like a minimum-wage law designed to correct previous evils. Maybe one day they will not be necessary and can be abolished, but in the meantime, I think we need them and I support them in that aim.
> It's not equitable that one person should be lame and another not: it only becomes equitable when we break the other person's legs.
I think that's fair. Your parents poison them which makes it more likely for them to be born lame, so I think it's perfectly fair to break your legs if you can't find another way to make that right.
I'd like to think I'm just trying to find another way that doesn't involve more violence; surely an expansion of minimum-wage is less violent than breaking your legs?
> If someone is willing to 'degrade themselves', why are you preventing them from doing so?
Why do I tell a slave that they do not need to be a slave? Gosh, again, people write papers on this stuff. We tell people they don't need to be slaves because that's how we stop slavery -- by making it so nobody believes they need to be a slave in order to survive. The only rights we have are the ones we can convince other people we have. I already said this, but you chose to narrowly interpret rights which will make it hard to understand why I can't help myself: I don't want to be a slave, I don't know what kinds of torture I would be able to refuse, but I don't think that would be a life worth living, so I tell anyone who will listing they don't need to be a slave.
> Well, and the opinion of people that don't like slavery and theft.
And yet here is someone who does not like slavery or theft, who does not have that opinion because I'm not a racist asshole.
See how that works? Don't characterize me. I don't deserve to have my supporting of taxation to be equated with supporting theft just because you don't like to pay taxes, any more than you deserve to be equated with other racist assholes just because you're quoting racist assholes. You want me to take you seriously? You have to do the same.
> But irrelevant: Things have already taken from others and they want it back.
Who took what, from who, when?
> Agreed, so because violence was used to obtain an UN-equitable position, they want it back.
Again: what, from who, when? There are two answers to this: something that isn't actually violence (agreeing to employment), or something from hundreds of years ago ('stolen land'). Neither are good arguments, in any way.
> People the color of your skin used violence ...
I'm brown. Want to try again? Maybe without criticizing someone's position based on their race?
> If "positive rights" can also be established in response to evil, then I don't see why they cannot be used to correct for equity.
I don't think you read that sentence correctly. Three things:
1) Positive rights should not exist, because:
2) Positive rights cannot exist without violence and slavery
3) Equity, and demands for it, are inherently evil.
> Property-rights are enforced by taxes
No, they aren't. Property rights are _usually_ enforced by the state, because of their monopoly on violence. There is nothing stopping me from defending my property myself.
> on some level, if these are "positive rights" ...
They aren't. As I explained.
> Your parents poison them which makes it more likely for them to be born lame, so I think it's perfectly fair to break your legs if you can't find another way to make that right.
Sins of the father, huh? Maybe we should punish out to 3 generations? Seems like you'd love the DPRK.
> Why do I tell a slave that they do not need to be a slave?
There are more slaves alive now than there have ever been in history. Someone working a minimum wage job in the US is very much not that, and it's patently absurd. Comparing a retail job to chattel slavery is disgusting.
> who does not have that opinion because I'm not a racist asshole.
Are you sure? You supported breaking my legs when you thought I was white. Now that you know I'm not, what now?
I mean, I know the answer: break them anyway, he's probably a counter-revolutionary.
This is exactly what's wrong with your entire philosophy. It's based on violence to get what you want, because you're incapable of achieving it any other way. Try harder.
> I don't think you read that sentence correctly. Three things:
> 1) Positive rights should not exist, because: 2) Positive rights cannot exist without violence and slavery
Violence exists regardless of whether "positive rights" exist. You are stating this again, but you haven't proven any kind of relationship beyond the tautological one.
I can't move on to the third point until you clear this up. Everything else seems like a distraction:
If we can agree that violence and slavery is bad, why can't we agree that some kind of retribution is required? Maybe this is why:
> something that isn't actually violence (agreeing to employment), or something from hundreds of years ago ('stolen land'). Neither are good arguments, in any way.
They're excellent arguments. Even agreeing to be "employed" for room-and-board in exchange for work could be slavery, especially if the person agreeing doesn't know if they have other choices. "Stolen land" was still stolen. What's the good reason for a statute-of-limitations on this?
I think you are dismissing these out-of-hand, and if you can't address them, maybe this is what is wrong with your entire philosophy?
> There is nothing stopping me from defending my property myself.
Of course there is. What are you going to use to defend your property besides violence?
There's no right to anything that people don't stand together to say they have a right to.
> Can you articulate an ethical argument for why it’s a problem that not everyone can afford to move to the most desirable cities?
People shouldn't have to commute for hours so other people can live there because that impacts their health and opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If this is where the jobs are, there should be homes here as well.