No, I see positive obligations as analogous to God.
Maybe they exist. Sure.
But the burden of proof isn't on me.
And, if we assume that they exist, for the sake of argument, I get to start asking about the traits of the positive obligations and then you can start questioning my motives, my honesty, and my intelligence because of the stuff that everybody knows.
Put another way, it seems to me that very much of the reason that we are here today where we are is because of a tacit assumption that our web of interobligations includes a lot of things that are not, in actual fact, obligations.
I am not obliged to have you not smoke pot in your free time, to use the War on Drugs as an example. I am certainly not obliged to your drug-free state to the point where it's cool for cops to kick down your door.
As a matter of fact, I think that the War on Drugs only kicked in in the high gear we see it in today after Johnson's War on Poverty kicked in. Why? Well, because of this interconnected web of obligations we all share.
We all agreed that "we" had a responsibility to "them" to make sure that all children were educated, had clean running water, decent nutrition, and whatnot. And... after that, suddenly stuff that was never considered "our business" before was now "our business".
You can't smoke that! You're getting a welfare check! You shouldn't have a color television! You're getting a welfare check! You shouldn't have any pleasure in your life that isn't Church-related! You're getting a welfare check! And so on.
This web of interconnected obligations has a lot, I mean a lot a lot, of unintended consequences. And I deeply suspect that the War on Drugs is one of them. I deeply suspect that the sheer stupifying number of people in prison is one of them.
The person holding out their hand in the water is a great example of my obligation to help folks... and then, after I help them out, don't *I* have the right to put restrictions on their lives?
And, before you say "of course not!", please look at what's happened over the last 50 years.
What obligations do all of those people out there have to me? Do they have any?
For example, if they are in water, do I get to say that they should stay away from water in the future? Or purchase water wings for them to wear in the future? What if I find them in the water again without the water wings I purchased?
If part of my paycheck goes toward paying people to be on lifeguard duty, do I have a right to set up obligations for those who swim?
Do the obligations only go one way?
Hypothetically, I mean.
I know that *YOU* are meeting all of your obligations to me.
I don't see how I'm treating you like an idiot, BlaiseP. Your examples, as great as they are, aren't helping *ME* understand *MY* obligations. I suppose this deals with Stillwater's issues as well.
What do I need to do?
Is it something like "well, you need to write a check to the following organizations"? Is it something like "you need to volunteer your time with kids?"
Here is my fundamental issue: if I do not see you as owing me anything and if I see your obligations to me as being met (and, seriously, I do!) then it's tough for me to come up with a situation where I am not meeting my obligations to you.
So when it comes to the obligations I have for, say, Affirmative Action... what have you done that I am not doing?
Please give me examples of stuff that you have done to address your obligations with regards to Affirmative Action that would be possible for me to do in the next few months or so.
Because, again, it seems to me that my obligations are met.
Does it come down to some squishy "we as a society have a responsibility to be more X" when it's not really incumbent upon me to be more X? Should I spend more time yelling about how we need to be more X in the hopes that it will prod along those who are prodable?
I'm one of those folks who sees, for example, The War On Drugs as something that needs to end, like, not just yesterday but, like, 1973.
It seems to me that this idea that it's good the The Federal Government have the power to name certain drugs as "Schedule 1" (for, of course, The Children) has resulted in such things as full prisons.
As such, I think I can safely say that the federal government is, itself, violating the negative rights of huge swaths of the country.
As such, I push for such things as ending the WoD, sunsetting laws automatically (if they can't get re-passed, they shouldn't be on the books), taxation only of corporations, and other ideas that get dismissed out of hand as being pie-in-the-sky Libertopian bullcrap.
So... fine. Let's establish that the line between positive and negative rights is exceptionally blurry and I have obligations to you (and others) that I need to start meeting.
I don't know what they are.
I'm trying to figure out what they are.
So far, I've been told that I ought to be able to figure them out for myself... in response to me saying that I can't figure out much of anything past "negative rights".
This is unsatisfying.
And, of course, thanks for the "I don’t think even you would say blacks are genetically predisposed to criminal behaviour."
Do you conversely see any particular actions you take, which, if generalized, create a situation in which people’s right would be violated, or certain harms would result?
I'm sorry. I thought we already hammered out "negative rights" and how I know that I have obligations to not violate them.
The problem is that I am under the impression that I am meeting all of my obligations to not violate your negative rights, right now.
(Rights not limited to the examples I am about to give.)
I am not limiting your freedom of speech, nor your freedom of peaceful assembly, nor your right to worship (or not worship) God(s) as you are inclined to, nor am I quartered in your house, nor am I violating your right to privacy.
I'm pleased to say that, as far as I can tell, you're respecting *MY* negative rights.
Awesome.
It's when we get to my positive obligations to you that I start wondering exactly what they happen to be and how I can best meet them.
From where I sit, it seems to be as simple as public declaration. (It'd kinda have to be, given that we're two folk on the internet)
So, ignorance does not excuse you from honoring a moral obligation, it is still an obligation that went unmet.
This is why I'm trying to end my ignorance.
What obligations am I leaving unmet?
You telling me that I have reason and can figure this stuff out for myself is a help until I say "well, they're all met!" and you point out that ignorance is no excuse for my failure to meet my obligations to Cecily Miller in Akron, Ohio.
It’s not like you’re incapable of making these determinations on your own.
From my perspective, I'm meeting every single obligation that I have. That's the determination that I've made. There may be a handful of cans I've kicked down the road (vacuuming the basement, for example) and some more obligations I've amortized (my mortgage, for example) but it seems to me that I've met every single positive obligation that others have toward me at this particular moment.
But it seems that the focus is almost exclusively on the various obligations that "we" get to ask "them" to do.
Here are a handful of things that I wonder... do "they" get to ask things of "us"?
Let's say that "we" are getting subsidized health care. Can "they" ask us to exercise more? Eat better? Quit smoking? Drink less?
Or that "we" are partaking in the social safety net. Can "they" ask that we use protection when we have sex? Or that we pass a drug test in order to qualify for continued benefits?
Do "we" have any obligation to those who are giving stuff to "us"?
Or, I suppose, vice versa?
Because it seems to me that when I lived under my parents' roof, they had something akin to a right to tell me how to live. What about when more and different people are paying for my roof?
Well, we're talking about my obligations to you and your obligations to me and our obligations to everybody else and everybody else's obligations to us.
To be perfectly honest, this very much seems like everybody is up in everybody's business.
I'm one of those crazy people who believes in a "Right to Privacy" and, as such, the idea that all y'all have positive obligations to me beyond merely not getting all up in my business creeps me out.
How much of your life am I entitled to know about?
(Please understand, I think that I am entitled to know damn near nothing about you... but if you volunteer the info, that's totally cool and thank you for that. And the same for me.)
We are now in completely different parts of the country (I assume, anyway) and it seems to me that my obligations to you are completely and entirely *MET*.
If they are not, I'd like to know which ones I am not meeting.
For the record, I can't think of any obligations that you have to me that you aren't meeting.
That we were sold health care coverage in the guise of being promised health care.
The current reality is that a handful of very small but powerful sectors of the economy have inordinate amounts of power. Do you deny that?
Not at all. I'm in support of decentralizing that power, actually. Lowering barriers to entry, that sort of thing.
If not, how is it the fault of congress that having to accommodate them is necessary to advance the ball?
Because was was being sold was not accomodation to insurance companies but health care for people who cannot afford it... stuff like "Look at Canada!" and "Look at Denmark!" was used as an argument in response to why we needed this bill when, at the end of the day, this bill makes us nothing like Canada or Denmark.
I am familiar with the general utilitarian argument (and with some of its historical misapplications) but I don't know which of Peter Singer's thought experiments you mean.
The "by sacrificing our luxuries, we could save the lives of children" thought experiment?
Would I be allowed to ask questions like "How many children could have been helped with the health care that an additional $15k in the system would have been able to provide?" or is that completely different and doesn't take into account the stuff that happens in practice rather than some idealized theory about resource allocation?
And did Congress pass a law making us more like Canada and Western Europe?
Did congress make us more like one of those actually functioning health care systems that work?
Or did Congress collude with lobbyists to give one hell of a giveaway to corporations from citizens?
Remember, Greg: We're not going to get health care from the system that your intentions envisioned. We're going to get health care coverage from insurance companies that wrote the law that Congress passed.
And pointing at Western Europe will not change that we are going to get health care coverage from insurance companies that wrote the law that Congress passed.
Greg, I've said, again and again, that if you want more health care that there are ways to do that. I've written essays. I can repost them for you to ignore again, if you'd like.
On the other hand, I have seen essays accusing those who oppose Congress colluding with lobbyists of allowing children to die. Do you want links? I have them. (One's even to this very site!) When I cry "what about the children?", it's not mocking arguments that haven't been tossed about but arguments that have been given in support of Congress colluding with lobbyists.
But, hey. At least the Progressives get to feel warm and fuzzy when they accuse the "enemy" of not caring about The Children, right?
Because it doesn't matter what you do. It only matters that you *CARE*. Screw that. I'd rather callous and indifferent resulting in better health than caring resulting in regression to the mean.
On “Incoherent Democracy, Again”
Er, I mean, let's say that I agree with that.
Let's say that I am obliged to help the drowning man at little to no cost to me. Let's say that that obligation absolutely exists.
At what point am I allowed to start dictating terms with regards to swimming regulations?
"
Sure. Let's say that I can save the drowning person at little to no cost to me.
Now.
Can I put up a sign that says "swim at your own risk" after I do this? Or should I have more respect for the personal choices of other people?
"
No, I see positive obligations as analogous to God.
Maybe they exist. Sure.
But the burden of proof isn't on me.
And, if we assume that they exist, for the sake of argument, I get to start asking about the traits of the positive obligations and then you can start questioning my motives, my honesty, and my intelligence because of the stuff that everybody knows.
"
Put another way, it seems to me that very much of the reason that we are here today where we are is because of a tacit assumption that our web of interobligations includes a lot of things that are not, in actual fact, obligations.
I am not obliged to have you not smoke pot in your free time, to use the War on Drugs as an example. I am certainly not obliged to your drug-free state to the point where it's cool for cops to kick down your door.
As a matter of fact, I think that the War on Drugs only kicked in in the high gear we see it in today after Johnson's War on Poverty kicked in. Why? Well, because of this interconnected web of obligations we all share.
We all agreed that "we" had a responsibility to "them" to make sure that all children were educated, had clean running water, decent nutrition, and whatnot. And... after that, suddenly stuff that was never considered "our business" before was now "our business".
You can't smoke that! You're getting a welfare check! You shouldn't have a color television! You're getting a welfare check! You shouldn't have any pleasure in your life that isn't Church-related! You're getting a welfare check! And so on.
This web of interconnected obligations has a lot, I mean a lot a lot, of unintended consequences. And I deeply suspect that the War on Drugs is one of them. I deeply suspect that the sheer stupifying number of people in prison is one of them.
The person holding out their hand in the water is a great example of my obligation to help folks... and then, after I help them out, don't *I* have the right to put restrictions on their lives?
And, before you say "of course not!", please look at what's happened over the last 50 years.
"
So let's put the shoe on the other foot.
What obligations do all of those people out there have to me? Do they have any?
For example, if they are in water, do I get to say that they should stay away from water in the future? Or purchase water wings for them to wear in the future? What if I find them in the water again without the water wings I purchased?
If part of my paycheck goes toward paying people to be on lifeguard duty, do I have a right to set up obligations for those who swim?
Do the obligations only go one way?
Hypothetically, I mean.
I know that *YOU* are meeting all of your obligations to me.
"
I don't see how I'm treating you like an idiot, BlaiseP. Your examples, as great as they are, aren't helping *ME* understand *MY* obligations. I suppose this deals with Stillwater's issues as well.
What do I need to do?
Is it something like "well, you need to write a check to the following organizations"? Is it something like "you need to volunteer your time with kids?"
Here is my fundamental issue: if I do not see you as owing me anything and if I see your obligations to me as being met (and, seriously, I do!) then it's tough for me to come up with a situation where I am not meeting my obligations to you.
So when it comes to the obligations I have for, say, Affirmative Action... what have you done that I am not doing?
Please give me examples of stuff that you have done to address your obligations with regards to Affirmative Action that would be possible for me to do in the next few months or so.
Because, again, it seems to me that my obligations are met.
Does it come down to some squishy "we as a society have a responsibility to be more X" when it's not really incumbent upon me to be more X? Should I spend more time yelling about how we need to be more X in the hopes that it will prod along those who are prodable?
"
I'm one of those folks who sees, for example, The War On Drugs as something that needs to end, like, not just yesterday but, like, 1973.
It seems to me that this idea that it's good the The Federal Government have the power to name certain drugs as "Schedule 1" (for, of course, The Children) has resulted in such things as full prisons.
As such, I think I can safely say that the federal government is, itself, violating the negative rights of huge swaths of the country.
As such, I push for such things as ending the WoD, sunsetting laws automatically (if they can't get re-passed, they shouldn't be on the books), taxation only of corporations, and other ideas that get dismissed out of hand as being pie-in-the-sky Libertopian bullcrap.
So... fine. Let's establish that the line between positive and negative rights is exceptionally blurry and I have obligations to you (and others) that I need to start meeting.
I don't know what they are.
I'm trying to figure out what they are.
So far, I've been told that I ought to be able to figure them out for myself... in response to me saying that I can't figure out much of anything past "negative rights".
This is unsatisfying.
And, of course, thanks for the "I don’t think even you would say blacks are genetically predisposed to criminal behaviour."
I'm sure that was difficult for you to write.
"
Do you conversely see any particular actions you take, which, if generalized, create a situation in which people’s right would be violated, or certain harms would result?
I'm sorry. I thought we already hammered out "negative rights" and how I know that I have obligations to not violate them.
The problem is that I am under the impression that I am meeting all of my obligations to not violate your negative rights, right now.
(Rights not limited to the examples I am about to give.)
I am not limiting your freedom of speech, nor your freedom of peaceful assembly, nor your right to worship (or not worship) God(s) as you are inclined to, nor am I quartered in your house, nor am I violating your right to privacy.
I'm pleased to say that, as far as I can tell, you're respecting *MY* negative rights.
Awesome.
It's when we get to my positive obligations to you that I start wondering exactly what they happen to be and how I can best meet them.
From where I sit, it seems to be as simple as public declaration. (It'd kinda have to be, given that we're two folk on the internet)
"
So, ignorance does not excuse you from honoring a moral obligation, it is still an obligation that went unmet.
This is why I'm trying to end my ignorance.
What obligations am I leaving unmet?
You telling me that I have reason and can figure this stuff out for myself is a help until I say "well, they're all met!" and you point out that ignorance is no excuse for my failure to meet my obligations to Cecily Miller in Akron, Ohio.
"
If I do not know that I have an obligation to you to X, I do not know how it can be said that I have an obligation to you to X.
Indeed, the phrase "you are obliged to me!" seems to be inaccurate for a lot of the positive obligations posited.
Discussion of hypothetical children in hypothetical water notwithstanding.
"
It’s not like you’re incapable of making these determinations on your own.
From my perspective, I'm meeting every single obligation that I have. That's the determination that I've made. There may be a handful of cans I've kicked down the road (vacuuming the basement, for example) and some more obligations I've amortized (my mortgage, for example) but it seems to me that I've met every single positive obligation that others have toward me at this particular moment.
That's my determination.
How wrong am I?
"
So how can I know whether I'm meeting my obligations or not?
Is it something as simple as singing the doxology after the offering (or otherwise repeating sentences by rote when called upon to do so)?
"
So it's an odd prime?
On “Defending teachers from the noise machine”
(I got what you were doing, North)
On “On Free Markets”
But it seems that the focus is almost exclusively on the various obligations that "we" get to ask "them" to do.
Here are a handful of things that I wonder... do "they" get to ask things of "us"?
Let's say that "we" are getting subsidized health care. Can "they" ask us to exercise more? Eat better? Quit smoking? Drink less?
Or that "we" are partaking in the social safety net. Can "they" ask that we use protection when we have sex? Or that we pass a drug test in order to qualify for continued benefits?
Do "we" have any obligation to those who are giving stuff to "us"?
Or, I suppose, vice versa?
Because it seems to me that when I lived under my parents' roof, they had something akin to a right to tell me how to live. What about when more and different people are paying for my roof?
"
Well, we're talking about my obligations to you and your obligations to me and our obligations to everybody else and everybody else's obligations to us.
To be perfectly honest, this very much seems like everybody is up in everybody's business.
I'm one of those crazy people who believes in a "Right to Privacy" and, as such, the idea that all y'all have positive obligations to me beyond merely not getting all up in my business creeps me out.
How much of your life am I entitled to know about?
(Please understand, I think that I am entitled to know damn near nothing about you... but if you volunteer the info, that's totally cool and thank you for that. And the same for me.)
We are now in completely different parts of the country (I assume, anyway) and it seems to me that my obligations to you are completely and entirely *MET*.
If they are not, I'd like to know which ones I am not meeting.
For the record, I can't think of any obligations that you have to me that you aren't meeting.
"
What’s your complaint here?
That we were sold health care coverage in the guise of being promised health care.
The current reality is that a handful of very small but powerful sectors of the economy have inordinate amounts of power. Do you deny that?
Not at all. I'm in support of decentralizing that power, actually. Lowering barriers to entry, that sort of thing.
If not, how is it the fault of congress that having to accommodate them is necessary to advance the ball?
Because was was being sold was not accomodation to insurance companies but health care for people who cannot afford it... stuff like "Look at Canada!" and "Look at Denmark!" was used as an argument in response to why we needed this bill when, at the end of the day, this bill makes us nothing like Canada or Denmark.
"
I am familiar with the general utilitarian argument (and with some of its historical misapplications) but I don't know which of Peter Singer's thought experiments you mean.
The "by sacrificing our luxuries, we could save the lives of children" thought experiment?
Would I be allowed to ask questions like "How many children could have been helped with the health care that an additional $15k in the system would have been able to provide?" or is that completely different and doesn't take into account the stuff that happens in practice rather than some idealized theory about resource allocation?
"
This law did?
Knock me over with a feather.
I thought that stuff didn't really start happening until 2014.
healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html
That website doesn't say a lot of what's, apparently, going on.
"
So this bill helped you, then?
Or are you counting on it helping you in the future if something like this happens again?
"
Who measures the detriment?
How would she measure it?
"
I probably am going to die someday. I don't know when, though.
"
Which of my obligations to you am I failing to meet right now, E.C.?
For the record, I think I feel pretty safe in saying that I am meeting all of my "negative" ones.
Which of your obligations to me are you failing to meet, right now?
"
And did Congress pass a law making us more like Canada and Western Europe?
Did congress make us more like one of those actually functioning health care systems that work?
Or did Congress collude with lobbyists to give one hell of a giveaway to corporations from citizens?
Remember, Greg: We're not going to get health care from the system that your intentions envisioned. We're going to get health care coverage from insurance companies that wrote the law that Congress passed.
And pointing at Western Europe will not change that we are going to get health care coverage from insurance companies that wrote the law that Congress passed.
"
Greg, I've said, again and again, that if you want more health care that there are ways to do that. I've written essays. I can repost them for you to ignore again, if you'd like.
On the other hand, I have seen essays accusing those who oppose Congress colluding with lobbyists of allowing children to die. Do you want links? I have them. (One's even to this very site!) When I cry "what about the children?", it's not mocking arguments that haven't been tossed about but arguments that have been given in support of Congress colluding with lobbyists.
But, hey. At least the Progressives get to feel warm and fuzzy when they accuse the "enemy" of not caring about The Children, right?
Because it doesn't matter what you do. It only matters that you *CARE*. Screw that. I'd rather callous and indifferent resulting in better health than caring resulting in regression to the mean.
At the end of the day, feelings don't mean crap.