You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: dTube OPINION: The Problem with the Battle of Ideas and Principles
While I recognize and have studied the difference between positive and negative rights, I do not believe that the commentary is significantly altered by reinterpreting the right to life as positive vs negative.
In fact, it's not even really a commentary about any PARTICULAR right, but more about the sophistry and pseudo-intellectualism that has surfaced among a contingent of the internet
I appreciate the sophistry and pseudo-intellectualism critique, but I also think it's a trap we can fall into when we don't agree with something or fully understand it well enough to steel-man the argument we're critiquing.
I actually do believe voluntaryism principles can and do work in the real world, and I have evidence I've explored to support my position. Holding to principles which actually increase well-being in the world, to me, is not irrational pseudo-intellectualism, but real, pragmatic, useful philosophy which has historically improved the world as we move from one paradigm to another. Going from the divine right of kings to representational democracy probably seemed crazy at some point also. I imagine a future where going from representational democracy to a voluntaryist society with no rulers and self-ownership may not seem so crazy as it does now.
The example rights you gave, to me, exposed a potential flaw in the criticism. From a certain framework ("We need police in order to be safe..."), the arguments that don't involve police can seem irrational, overly simplistic, etc. I think it may more be a case of a completely different frame of reference which is what removing the myth of authority is all about.
I also think talking this stuff through is really valuable and important so people who disagree can be understand each other and those who are undecided can see multiple sides well argued.