Conversation

I feel a little weird when people talk about 'rights' that require someone else doing something for us, like 'rights' that require someone else's labor to be fulfilled. I mostly feel my rights are to a *lack* of interference from others - e.g. a right to freely express.

436

Replying to

Classic liberal vision that do not believe in society and protect bosses.

Replying to

and

Of course CL's believe in society. We just want one based on mutual agreement and working together, not one ruled by violence and threat of violence.

Replying to

and

There's no "mutual agreement" when you're under the threat of starving, die of illness or not having shelter. Also, I repeat, this is classic liberal propaganda. Hobbes with the State-Leviathan, the dream of a "social contract" that protect from natural violence etc

Replying to

and

Generally, I think a cl society has lower rates of starvation/dying of no shelter. It might have higher rates of accidents though, and a greater mental load on people, but I suspect the section of people at the 'very very bottom' would reduce a lot.

4:46 PM · Aug 15, 2019

Replying to

and

Under capitalism it does only on expansion of economic cycles. And only in specific geographical areas of the world. And only by increasingly shifting the load on environment@other animals. And also by taking in other benefits that shouldn't really be connected to the economy.

Replying to

and

Ans even with "good" % the threat is very present. So yes, the idea of "basic rights that just don't need interference" roots in essentialising naturalism, forgetting society, property relations and for profit dinamics etc