New face of capitalism

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What's the relation between his comment and yours?

Are you tempted to send all your cars back to Germany?

What nonsense.

He wants to make Europe a separate trade bloc, cutting off ties to the rest of the world. I don't.

Originally posted by karnachz
My point is that you have a moral right to survival without being exploited in that way.

These "life boat situations" are not conducive to discussions on morality. We end up getting into endless 'what ifs'.

Yes, humans have right to survival, but all this means is that other humans do not have a right to end your survival, it does not mean that other humans must provide you with the means of survival. So the cold hard fact is that the person dieing of thirst is not due a liter of water, either free of charge or at any set price.

Originally posted by Wajoma
These "life boat situations" are not conducive to discussions on morality. We end up getting into endless 'what ifs'.

Yes, humans have right to survival, but all this means is that other humans do not have a right to end your survival, it does not mean that other humans must provide you with the means of survival. So the cold hard fact is that the person dieing of thirst is not due a liter of water, either free of charge or at any set price.

What are your reasons for thinking that rights should be understood in this way? Why is it beneficial to society for rights to be understood in this way?

Originally posted by karnachz
What are your reasons for thinking that rights should be understood in this way? Why is it beneficial to society for rights to be understood in this way?

A right is the sovereignty to act with out the permission of others. It is a right to action rather than to an end or a physical object. You don't have a right to property, you have a right to acquire property. You don't have a right to happiness you have a right to the pursuit of happiness.

A shirt is not a right, a roof is not a right, a burger is not a right.

If the person dieing of thirst is due a liter of water, who is it that owes that liter? you?

Originally posted by karnachz
My point is that you have a moral right to survival without being exploited in that way.

And my point is that the moral right to survival is a man made construct. For example, who gave you this right and why is it a moral position?

In this world you either survive or you die whether you view it to be tastefully done or otherwise. I am just glad to be offered a chance to survive and that is all that is being done here. Then once I am offered the chance to survive I will then choose the best offer, if you know what I mean.

Originally posted by karnachz
My point is that you have a moral right to survival without being exploited in that way.

Why not say merely that the exploiter here is cruel and opportunistic, and not appropriately sensitive to the suffering and vulnerability of the thirsty man? We can assess the behavior here, condemn it and the character that led to it, without the invocation of rights. In any case, assessments such as these are generally more informative than those wedded to talk of rights (since the invocation of rights typically glosses over the actual wrong), which I think has impoverished our cultural discourse about ethical matters. Why not reserve the label 'right' for those protections that ought be codified into law?

Originally posted by Wajoma
A right is the sovereignty to act with out the permission of others. It is a right to action rather than to an end or a physical object. You don't have a right to property, you have a right to acquire property. You don't have a right to happiness you have a right to the pursuit of happiness.

A shirt is not a right, a roof is not a right, a burger is not ...[text shortened]...
If the person dieing of thirst is due a liter of water, who is it that owes that liter? you?

Whatever poor sucker decides to walk out and say "what's wrong, buddy?" I guess.

Originally posted by karnachz
What are your reasons for thinking that rights should be understood in this way? Why is it beneficial to society for rights to be understood in this way?

Because this way nobody's getting their wealth taken from them by gunmen.

Originally posted by bbarr
Why not say merely that the exploiter here is cruel and opportunistic, and not appropriately sensitive to the suffering and vulnerability of the thirsty man? We can assess the behavior here, condemn it and the character that led to it, without the invocation of rights. In any case, assessments such as these are generally more informative than those wedded to ...[text shortened]... ers. Why not reserve the label 'right' for those protections that ought be codified into law?

I imagine he would like to see his beliefs codified into law.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Whatever poor sucker decides to walk out and say "what's wrong, buddy?" I guess.

I can give karnachz some directions to people dieing of thirst, but something tells me he wants somebody else to owe the water, and therefore, someone else to supply the water.

It's pretty hard to get these guys to put their money where their mouth is, they're all about spending someone elses money.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I can give karnachz some directions to people dieing of thirst, but something tells me he wants somebody else to owe the water, and therefore, someone else to supply the water.

It's pretty hard to get these guys to put their money where their mouth is, they're all about spending someone elses money.

This is a baseless personal attack that is not based on any information that you have about me personally. Try to stick to the issues.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Because this way nobody's getting their wealth taken from them by gunmen.

Circular reasoning. You're presupposing that rights should be understood in the way described. My question is why this should be the case in the first place.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I imagine he would like to see his beliefs codified into law.

In some cases, yes. I do support Good Samaritan laws where someone's life is on the line or where there is some other kind of emergency situation that puts people's health at risk. In return, anyone who provides aid should be indemnified from being sued as long as they were acting reasonably and in good faith.

Originally posted by whodey
And my point is that the moral right to survival is a man made construct. For example, who gave you this right and why is it a moral position?

In this world you either survive or you die whether you view it to be tastefully done or otherwise. I am just glad to be offered a chance to survive and that is all that is being done here. Then once I am offered the chance to survive I will then choose the best offer, if you know what I mean.

Surely libertarian property rights are no less a human-made construct than what I'm proposing. My question is why is one model of ethics better than the other? (As an aside, I'm not agreeing that ethics are a human construct, but I do agree that theories about ethics are a human construct.)

Originally posted by Wajoma
A right is the sovereignty to act with out the permission of others. It is a right to action rather than to an end or a physical object. You don't have a right to property, you have a right to acquire property. You don't have a right to happiness you have a right to the pursuit of happiness.

A shirt is not a right, a roof is not a right, a burger is not ...[text shortened]...
If the person dieing of thirst is due a liter of water, who is it that owes that liter? you?

The obligation to provide water to the person dying of thirst comes from the fact that the other person is present and has water that they don't need for themselves, in other words that they can save the person's life at no cost to themselves except a trivially small one.

You haven't answered my question. You've merely described your position, rather than provided any reasons to support it. Are you saying that the libertarian model of property rights leads to better outcomes for society? Or are you saying that the libertarian model of property rights should apply regardless of whether it's better for society? Or both?