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

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

Other people have responded, but I wanna say that I agree this issue isn't clear cut. How loud do you have to shout in public before you're infringing on other people's rights to not have their eardrums hurt? I still like the original distinction despite the grey areas, tho.

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

Generally I agree with this - 'obligation' is a kinda bad concept, and I wish people would use other ones. I am slightly more comfortable using that word in terms of 'you are obliged not to make me do things I don't want to do,' although I agree it's not fundamentally sound.

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Aella

@Aella_Girl

Replying to

@realtimeai

I imagine the 'ideal' outcome would be something like, people work to create value, exchange value for property ownership, if there's too many people then they bunk up, live together, but own their bunk bed.

4:51 PM · Aug 15, 2019

Replying to

and

The island is helpful to dig this out some, but the best indicator of wealth in Europe is land ownership, derived from a might makes right level of value unfoldment AND NOT value created by “work.” Arriving at how to adjust the flow of resources hoarded via force is complicated.

Replying to

and

I don't think this addresses the least-convenient-possible-world version of this question, where a resource is simultaneously rivalrous and scarce, and there is no non-egregious initial distribution to start with. I agree with the principle on the margin, though.