Comments on: Positive rights

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:23:10 +0000

Carlos, I'm not an academic, but I play one on the Internet. Why don’t you travel to Afghanistan provinces and see how anarchy really works? Why don't you travel to North Korea and see how government really works? There have been a lot of anarchic societies in the past and none of you would like to live there. There have been a lot of statist societies in the past and you probably would not like to live in most of them either. Personally, I wouldn't mind living in a society modeled after medieval Iceland or the frontier American West

By: Carlos

Carlos — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:04:30 +0000

Weird how so many academics argue about the state and its moral duties. Why don’t you travel to Afghanistan provinces and see how anarchy really works? One of the most abstract, pointless discussions I’ve seen here. There have been a lot of anarchic societies in the past and none of you would like to live there.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 22:06:32 +0000

Jeremy, Hmm… I would imagine (without any statistics to back me up however) it is roughly as popular a position as is radical anarchism. Yep, you are indeed correct. If and when I meet someone who advocates communism on a global scale, I will have to think of a different argument to use against them. But since most people I talk to are either small-government libertarians/conservatives or Rawlsian welfare-state liberals, I find this argument useful and persuasive. I don’t need to convince the relative rare radical (alliteration!) anarchist with this argument since he already agrees with me.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 22:01:52 +0000

Chris, I agree that states work most efficiently when territorial jurisdiction is limited. But once we start talking about what is efficient and what isn’t, we’ve left the realm of ethical obligations and entered the realm of consequentialism. Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course, but the original discussion is about positive rights, not efficiency. Let’s go back to your original post, in which you postulated a “right to be saved from a situation of great potential harm by someone who can do so without unreasonable cost or risk to themselves.” For the sake of this argument, let’s say I agree with you about the existence of such a positive right. Thus, we both agree that it is both morally acceptable and morally required to force taxpayers and citizens in general to help save their fellow members of the moral community from situations of great potential harm so long as they can do so without unreasonable cost or risk to themselves. If so, I don’t see why this should not apply to all members of the moral community, regardless of nationality or present location.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 21:35:35 +0000

In the example of enslavement, is slavery illegal in that land? If so, wouldn’t a person’s right to not be enslaved be a negative right? Yes it would be. But that negative right doesn’t impose enforceable duties on others to assist you in case someone is trying to enslave you! The positive right to assistance means that if X tries to enslave you and I just stand around and let it happen (when I could risklessly and costlessly intervene) then I am liable to punishment even though I haven’t infringed your negative right not to be enslaved.

By: Nicholas Weininger

Nicholas Weininger — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:09:47 +0000

on the question of reasonability judgments: I don’t think it’s quite correct to say that libertarians “are perfectly happy” with reasonableness tests for e.g. self-defense. I, for one, think that all such tests are to be viewed with suspicion and disdain: the discretion they allow judges invites abuse and ambiguates the law. Reasonableness tests for self-defense, however, are necessary evils. The non-test-requiring alternatives are simply infeasible: one just can’t either forbid the use of force in self-defense outright, nor allow any amount of force, no matter how disproportionate, to be excused by the claim of self-defense. Either, in practice, would entail huge costs to negative liberty. But this does not hold in the case of reasonableness tests for a right to rescue. The alternative of no right to rescue at all is perfectly viable and does not infringe negative liberty. In the presence of such an alternative, therefore, the general undesirability of reasonableness tests is a decisive (though not the only decisive) argument against a right to rescue.

By: Mario

Mario — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:01:52 +0000

Involving negative rights, yes. But we are dealing with positive rights. In general, costs associated with negative rights are unavoidable; I can’t decide whether someone attempts to kill me or not, I can only respond. The only question for the law is whether or not I went beyond my rights and infringed on the other person’s. The law takes subjectivity into account. Wouldn’t an obligation to defend other’s positive rights also need to be subjective? And, if so, could it be enforced at all? Wouldn’t the most fair assessment be that people will automatically decide what they are willing to do, and that their actions will reflect this descision? If so, no law is necessary. In the example of enslavement, is slavery illegal in that land? If so, wouldn’t a person’s right to not be enslaved be a negative right? If it is legal, how could you assist someone to avoid enslavement without infringing on the other’s right to own slaves?

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:03:35 +0000

But what entails reasonable cost and risk? It seems to me that that descision would be highly subjective. Mario, if you’d read the post you’d have seen that considerations of “reasonability” enter into all kinds of judgments involving negative rights.

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:00:15 +0000

But that’s not a very popular position these days, so I’m not too worried. Hmm… I would imagine (without any statistics to back me up however) it is roughly as popular a position as is radical anarchism.

By: Mario

Mario — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:50:13 +0000

Chris: “All states should pass laws requiring people positively to assist you avoid enslavement (so long as they can assist you at reasonable cost and risk).” But what entails reasonable cost and risk? It seems to me that that descision would be highly subjective. If I consider jumping into a frozen river reasonable, should I force others to do the same? Alternately, If you allow the descision to be decided subjectively, would any law help at all? People already decide for themselves to what lengths they are willing to go to help others, so it seems that any course of action would already qualify.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:35:04 +0000

What makes Danish territory so special that those who live on it are entitled to greater moral consideration than those who were not lucky enough to be born there? Absolutely nothing. I take it that the law would also apply to foreigners who were just passing through. There’s absolutely no contradiction in believing both that a right is universal and also that it is best legally realised through a state with limited territorial jurisdiction. All states should pass laws requiring people positively to assist you avoid enslavement (so long as they can assist you at reasonable cost and risk). The fact that some of them don’t is hardly a reason for none of them to do so!

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:29:24 +0000

Jeremy, Yes, if Danes are entitled to tax themselves to assemble a police force providing protection of property rights within Denmark, they should also protect property rights in Ethiopia. Of course, I don’t believe Danes are entitled to tax themselves to assemble a police force providing protection of property rights within Denmark.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:27:32 +0000

Jeremy, I am not arguing in favor of a single world government, although that would satisfy my criticisms of national governments. I am an anarchist, and the “nationalistic bigotry” is one of the strongest arguments in favor of that positition, at least in response to deontological minarchism and Rawlsian welfare-state liberalism. As you already realized, the argument doesn’t work in response to global statist communism. But that’s not a very popular position these days, so I’m not too worried.

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:25:55 +0000

(Sorry, missed your most recent post)—If Danes are entitled to tax themselves to assemble a police force providing protection of property rights within Denmark, shouldn’t they also protect property rights in Ethiopia?

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:20:26 +0000

Micha—are you arguing in support of a single world government? It seems to me that any time a national government enacts (or for that matter fails to enact) a law, it is “discriminat[ing] on the basis of nationality” by your standard. The only way around this is to have all laws passed by a worldwide assembly, isn’t it? Or are you saying (a la Sartre), a government is only justified in passing a law if it would be desirable for the law to apply to everyone in the world?