Shue should have added education and internet access, because, as modern day- capitalism proves, someone who can control your access to information, can get you to "consent" to anything, just as aeasily as someone who can blackmail you with the things you need for physical survival..

I'm a law student specialising in human rights and I think your videos are very well-informed. You would make a good lawyer!

First of all, thank you for this video The philosophical distinction between formal and substantive access doesn't just apply to refugees for me as a member of the disabled community this distinction is also important for thinking about disabled issues. for example in my home country of Ireland disability rights groups are preoccupied with lobbying the government to ratify the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and while this is an important step forward some people seem to Believe mistakenly in my view that when this convention is ratified disabled people Will finally have concrete Rights and legal recourse however for me the convention Falls into the category of formal access when what we actually need is substantive access and societal recognition of the issues we face thank you for making this video and helping me articulate this position keep up the good work

I guess one might say the answer is. Build up popular support Take over the state *Eliminate the Capitalist's role in the economy.* Start reorganising society?

@Marniuhhh

7 жыл бұрын

"Build up popular support" that requires that the current state of the left undergoes some major changes, don't you think?

@Millionsofpeas

7 жыл бұрын

That could only work if the West,'s in particular the US', capacity or will to disrupt is limited. This plan has failed time and time again because of Western meddling and we are weaker now than we were. Any plan that doesn't start with "reform the West" will not work.

@enfercesttout

7 жыл бұрын

Take over bloody flags? No thanks.

@enfercesttout

7 жыл бұрын

+peas yeah, simultaneous revs in china, northern america and europe would be needed. Basically big nuclear powers need to go first. And this seems unlikely to me. Thats why i think building alternative power to states is better than using states. When you sit om the throne, you become a participant in global gam of thrones and you either lose in global market or lose your socialist edge. Just like a cooperative.

@HxH2011DRA

7 жыл бұрын

With American in the spot it's in geopolitically speaking? LOL

I'm so into this refugees & human rights series!

We're studying the politics of immigration in my Political Studies course this term and my study group spent two hours debating these exact points. One point in particular that stuck with me was that how your rights were, for the most part, dependent solely on your ability to identify yourself. We were given a reading by Dimitris Papadopoulos and Vassilis Tsianos (The Autonomy of Migration, 2007) which had a whole segment dedicated to a group of migrants who would burn all of their ID documents upon entering Spain. Know as 'burners', these people would burn their documents because doing so would make it impossible for the Spanish government to identify them and thus deport them. Papadopoulos and Tsianos referred to this process as "voluntary dehumanisation" since it represented a break between your body and your "name" (identity as defined by the state), thus reducing yourself to the status of non-human, an animal. While this made it easier to move, Papadopoulos and Tsianos also pointed out that this also stripped the migrants of all their rights since, as a "non-human", there was no obligation to afford you access to basic rights. For me, this showed that the idea of "universal" human rights was flawed since your rights are dependent on recognition by the nation-state which you reside in and if you are suddenly not recognised (if for example you completely erase all traces of your identity like the migrants above), then the state is seemingly free to do with you as they please.

thank you so much for uploading reading material; helps a lot to build upon your ideas especially here in India where a pedantic education system is killing critical faculties in exchange of uniform bathes of skilled idiots

I appreciate how you approach this as if we were students in a classroom and you are the professor, the words on screen acting as a whiteboard or a projector almost. Pretty cool, helps me focus.

Human rights is a subject dear to me, so I appreciate you going over the philosophical aspects of it. Thank you, Olly!

Thank you so much for these videos.

Thank you for the video. It is really a wake up call to my mind. I thought I had a strong opinion about refugees and their rights (especially in such a complicated country like mine) but you totally made me rethink about everything I knew about this and now I just have to learn more.

I think its also important to talk about the intersectionality between islamophobia and the refugee crisis. this is CRITICAL.

Thanks for this series. It really opened my mind. Keep doing your work. It's awesome and hell, importantly in these times.

Obligatory "My rights only extend as far as my power"

@enfercesttout

7 жыл бұрын

So you have none. We live in societies, every right is a collective creation. You standing there alone is a collective decision as much as you dont give society a reason to lynch you. Power is a collective creation unless you have an iron man armor you solely made for yourself. And came into being ex nihilo and was never a baby.

@Millionsofpeas

7 жыл бұрын

Sounds like "Might is right" rebranded

@nuthying3156

7 жыл бұрын

Except that it's explicitly amoral, whereas "might is right" is a moral statement.

@TaylorjAdams

7 жыл бұрын

+WikiJippo that makes perfect sense so long as you stick to rights/powers that nobody thinks you shouldn't have. If it were "My rights *can* only extend as far as my power" or "My rights cannot exceed my power" it might work better, but as is it can sound like "I deserve more rights because I have more power." (don't get me wrong, I agree that the word 'only' is enough to show that that's not what it means, I'm just not surprised that not everyone sees it that way).

4:12 there is a short essay by french anarchist Emile Pouget called "Revolutionary Bread" that very succinctly makes this point.

@AudibleAnarchist1

7 жыл бұрын

Which will soon be available on my channel in audio form :)

I really liked this video, it was super informative and interesting :) Plus your hair looks great ;D

There is a distinction not being made clear here, and very frequently not made clear in discussion of rights in general, between "having a right" in a descriptive sense (as in, someone WILL give you whatever it is you have that right to), and "having a right" in a prescriptive sense (as in, you are OWED, morally due, whatever it is that you have that right to). I'd argue that the latter is the true sense of the word "right": a claim of rights is a claim about moral or ethical obligations. And as we know all too well, it's entirely possible for people to neglect their obligations. So you may have a right, as in be owed something by someone, and yet still not receive it. That doesn't mean you DON'T HAVE that right: it means your right is being violated.

@Pfhorrest

7 жыл бұрын

Also not being made sufficiently clear here is the distinction between claim rights and liberty rights. That's the difference between "you have the right" as in "there's nothing wrong with that, go ahead, it's not prohibited" and "you have the right" as in "others are obliged to provide this". (That's not the same as the difference between positive and negative rights; there are positive and negative versions of both of those). And that's not even getting yet to the difference between those first-order rights, and second-order rights like claims and powers. (E.g. a liberty right to free speech by itself only means that speech hasn't been outlawed; what the First Amendment of the US Constitution provides is more than that, an immunity against laws that would prohibit free speech, as in it's not only not illegal to speak, but it IS illegal for it to BE illegal to speak.) I like O'Neill's suggestion that we stop talking about rights entirely and instead talk of obligation (and conversely permission, and inversely prohibition) instead, because it clears up all of this confusion. There are so many different senses of the word "right", but they all flesh out to someone or another being or not being obligated to do or not do something to or for someone, so we may as well just get to the point and say who is or isn't obligated to do or not do what to or for whom.

You responded very well to the feedback from last week! Thanks for paying close attention to your commenters, Olly!

@PhilosophyTube

7 жыл бұрын

Hah, I actually filmed them back to back, but I'm glad Part 2 built on Part 1!

Love the way you can summarise succinctly in 8+min !

I strongly recommend reading Martha Nussbaum's Creating Capabilities if you aren't tired of human rights philosophy. Her framing of human rights is really fascinating and roots itself in both Rawls and Aristotle. Her theory frames human rights as the things and institutions we need to potentially achieve human flourishing (Eudaimonia). She also discusses the issue of secure access to rights or capabilities. The healthcare debate we have had in the US lately has relied on equivocation of this word: many have said we should have a right to "access" healthcare, but few mean secure access, i.e. something we could all manage without unbearable cost to our general well-being. Nussbaum's framing is more holistic and argues that some capabilities support additional capabilities and some structures can be corrosive to our access to multiple capabilities. Thus, an American who has limited resources such that they can only afford healthcare or higher education is forced to sacrifice some of their potential for human flourishing by making the choice.

I love this channel. I learn so much from your videos

*_Who's going to enforce these obligations comrade?_*

@Edralis

7 жыл бұрын

this

@DrSpooglemon

6 жыл бұрын

We all can if we collaborate.

@fl00fydragon

6 жыл бұрын

Multi-pronged approach 1)Global scale post monetary networked economy to eliminate poverty and raise the minimum living standard of humans tothat of a millionaire (Yes it's possible) 2) democratic miniarchy where past the mostly automated(if not completely) resoruce management algorithms laws would be specifically designed to promote the retention and proliferation of rights 3)Use the surplus ofhte system to accelerate human progress to invent more solutions untill we invent the way to elevate ourselves past the limitations of our darwinistically evolved bodies and spread our civilisation across the solar system to utilise the unimaginable wealth of resources it posesses.

@nicolaaaasss8404

5 жыл бұрын

morality itself hopefully

i feel like this topic is practically screaming out for u to talk about agamben tbh

awesome video as always

I was interested when you brought up the idea of "human obligation", which reminded me of the fact that many countries' charters/constitutions feature a list of rights AND responsibilities. None that I know of are so direct as to suggest that you should assure that the rights of others are fulfilled, but it is a precedent that exists.

great video here, thank you.

Dunno if this is a KZread problem but many videos are playing with really low volumes. I have 2 android devices with the volume up to Max and I can barely hear you Olly.

Question on the topic of who is responsible for upholding some human rights. In the Bulgarian constitution a couple of lines regarding the rights of citizens explicitly mention getting "protection from the State and society". Does that imply that when it comes to those rights every citizen is responsible for upholding the rights of others?

This is your best video

Hi Olly, Legally, the UK is described as having an unwritten Constitution with the Supremacy of Parliament (with other constitutional elements such as the Rule of Law, etc). Do you think that having a written Constitution ( with a Section on Rights. Assuming the Rights/Obligations section is reasonable/"good") would change the actual issues on Human Rights in the UK? Wouldn't a written Constitution place itself above the state? Also, concerning people who are unable to get their rights enforced. Do you think that allowing better legal aid would help in enforcing rights? Side note: The LASPO 2012 induced heavy legal aid cuts in the UK. Thank you for answering and keep the great work! And btw, you had amazing French during the live stream

@DPGrupa

7 жыл бұрын

So, rights to bare arms will guarantee rights to food and shelter... how? What if the guy who owns the food and shelter also has a gun? Oh, and in the end rights to life has to be maintained as well. By the way, how does rights to bare arms protect from getting shot in the back?

Thought provoking and useful but this 2-parter seems to be more about what "human rights" can't do for refugees and migrants.

Unfortunately, there are no objective human rights. In the state of nature, we are rightless. It is only with the formation of government that rights come into play. As you said, the big problem with this is that the government can take away rights just as fast as it gives them. But as far as the abortion example.. there is no "right" to have an abortion in the U.S. It's just not illegal to have one, which is very different from it being a right.

I'm a bit surprised your recommended reading list on this subject doesn't include Joseph Carens, David Miller, David Owens, or Andrew Shacknove.

7:15 is there any change this being another nomination of self-valorisation

This was quite thought-provoking. And the the whole problem of who's responsible for fulfilling/enforcing human rights sounds a lot like the Bystander Effect - except at a more macro/international scale. Perhaps by making it a social more to be obligated to help others (if capable and willing to doing so, and within reason of course) is a good place to start - rather than just making it a law or set of laws. Because the law is a tool, and is essentially value-neutral (can be used for good and ill), relying on it may not be the best basket to put all your eggs in (by all means, formal access can be a good starting point for substantive access, but waiting for the books to [magically] change before you decide to roll up your proverbial sleeves can seem... complacent?) But, how to make this more be actionable is a sticky situation that I don't really know if there's a universal solution... just context-based ones.

THANK YOU for the heads up on Cacho! I'd been on a line of thinking that placed the state as a required entity for the subsistence of contemporary humans. That a nations power management and physical logistic systems were the only stable way to conduct ourselves. But her argument perfectly circles some of the fundamental issues with that framework. Specifically the concentration and often centralization of power, I know you've talked at length about anarchy but do you have you ever come across anything that outlines concrete alternatives to centralized bureaucracies? (obviously beyond the naive assertions of political libertarians "without government it will all work out")

@kaitlyn__L

7 жыл бұрын

informal communes and collectives, which is generally what anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists want. that's kiiiiiind of what the USSR originally promised to be, but turned out not to be. the idea was, that a "soviet" was a workers' council. the soviet union was in theory going to be... a union of all of the soviets! the idea was that each town had its own soviet, its own workers' council. when the time came to make larger-scale decisions, (because telecommunications were still in their infancy and not widespread in russia at the time) the people of each soviet would send off someone to be their representative (the decision being made each time, rather than "representative" being necessarily an entrenched position), hopefully after talking over all the things they care about, to wherever they were going to meet next. local issues were to remain locally managed, by the soviet. however, after the red army came into power, they basically said "actually, we like the idea of centralised control, so we'll do that instead". which is of course the problem with making a system whereby someone can do that at all. however, the general idea of people making their decisions collectively does and can work. there are many functioning smaller collectives, both today and historically. anarchist catalonia was by all accounts run well, but then franco was warring on them and it didn't last. today in central&south america there are many collectives of towns that had factories abandoned by the companies that previously managed them, and they're working well. the whole town owns any profits that get made by selling the products outside of the community vs buying the materials outside of the community. (by which i mean products made in excess of what the town itself uses). in one of the cases i'd read about, they used that money to build a clinic for the town in less than a year, when they'd been petitioning the local government for a clinic for years beforehand. these systems can work when not interfered with by outside forces. unfortunately the current iterations are also quite fragile to outside forces, just because outside forces are always bigger. NATO will always outgun a single town. but that's why anarchists want widescale system change such that all the collectives together would outnumber whatever remnants of current hierarchical power existed, because in that kind of scenario, the system could feasibly be resistant to outside meddling.

@kaitlyn__L

7 жыл бұрын

i can't find it now, but one time i saw an Anarchism Meme about the workers' councils thing, where it's the lionel hutz business card scene from the simpsons, but the text on the card is changed and he has lenin's face. the business card first says "all power to the soviets // no state control" then he says the "oh no, they've got this all screwed up" line and adds the ? and , and !, such that it becomes "all power to the soviets? // no, state control!"

Guy Standing's book from the Pelican Introducing series "Basic Income: How We Can Make it Happen" is a fairly good intor to the concept He argues that by providing everyone with a universal basic income that's enough to meet their needs in food and shelter - combined with a system like the NHS for their health - you can give all other human rights a floor.

@PhilosophyTube

7 жыл бұрын

"Give them a floor" - I like that phrase!

This is commie propaganda and I'm so on board

@aaron3157

7 жыл бұрын

Yeah guys! Desiring a more democratic form of economy sure deserves us to get slaughtered oh shit he sure told us!!

I like the idea of Human Obligations rather than rights but realistically speaking, how can they be enforced without an authority? It seems like an endless cycle; we rely on an authority to enforce the obligations but we can't trust them to enforce them. If we reject authority then there won't be anyone to enforce the obligations on those who seek to ignore them. This problem affects people on both a national and international scale as well. You could make it international law via the UN (or some kind of fictional benevolent global totalitarian regime) but then a country could simply choose to ignore it and live with the sanctions put upon it. You could make it national law, but a single country can't provide for the world, which means you run into the same problem of stateless and exclusion as stated in the morning previous video. Is there any way around this problem with a solution I'm not seeing?

@Crispman_777

7 жыл бұрын

Ert an But wouldn't that end in tribal-esque conflicts? Eventually a group of people will desire what another group has, and then we're back to square one. It wouldn't get around statelessness either if someone was exiled from a group for some reason.

@SomeoneBeginingWithI

7 жыл бұрын

In a democracy, you can argue that voters have a moral/philosphical responsibility to vote for leaders who will enforce the rights those voters believe should be enforced.

@Crispman_777

7 жыл бұрын

SomeoneBeginingWithI I agree with you but that isn't the problem. It's about trusting only those in power to carry out those values (such as human rights/obligations).

@kaitlyn__L

7 жыл бұрын

there exist working communes who look after each other and interface with the outside world for their needs. they don't need an authority because everyone there knows they're working to a common goal, and everyone there remembers what things were like before the commune began and they know the current system is better. even if there are unpleasant jobs, they're shared between everyone instead of one person having the unpleasant job forever, and they all know the value it holds in the whole system. this is more or less ideologically the federation in star trek. people work not for money, but to better humanity as a whole. either by making art, being a scientist, being a great diplomat keeping the peace with other forces who live on your doorstep, or just running a restaurant for your neighbourhood because you love cooking and the social contact your "customers" bring. people who join starfleet follow orders and have the less glamorous postings because they know the value of starfleet's defense for the whole federation. the federation isn't an anarchist system, and in fact ds9 explores precisely the limitations of having a large authority, but the federation is run by so many member planets who all gain a lot from peace (essentially free anything from the replicator in times of peace, to name just one) that they want to keep the good equitable balance intact. of course it is just fiction, but it's one of the more fleshed-out visions, even though they don't go into the how as much as the why and the what.

Wasn't the idea behind government that people give up some of their rights and freedoms in return for order and safety? So shouldn't the basic rights people have be those that they wold possess without government and not the other way around where government is "giving" people rights?

It would be cool if you did a more critical exploration of some of these thinkers. Summarizing their thought is valuable in its own right, but understanding the terms of the discussion and what the points of debate are would help us think more seriously about the ideas.

What is the name of the song at 5:00?

@davidarnold2456

5 жыл бұрын

Sandro Garcia “air on the G” by Bach

Are there any major non-right-wing philosophers who argue that rights are a human invention (as in, the word "right" denotes an activity, state of being, good or service that we as a society agree all people should have access to enjoying without interference but that they are merely a useful social construct)? I feel like philosophers all become Platonists when discussing "rights," like they believe rights exist independently and will continue to exist even after all intelligent life in the universe is extinct. It is that rights are socially constructed that makes state recognition the issue. Just like we don't give certain rights, in full, to children because we make an exception for their circumstances, we don't always extend them to non-citizens or non-residents based on different criteria.

i love how people think about rights as a thing......rights, any right only exists because people agree among themselves that those are things to be provided unconditionally (but only withing the confines of the nation) No nation = no human rights No people = no human rights In the middle of the junggle = no human rights Deep inside a bear cave = no huma rights It's that easy, they are made up things, they dont exist, we agree to provide them but only because we agreed upon doing so. Nothing more. In reality, anyone can do anything, human rights or regardless, nothing will stop you, maybe other humans that think "human rights" are a thing, but if there's no one to stop you, human rights are as good and effective as owning 1 trillong tons of gold in a galaxy that is 1000 light years away.

7:07 -7:24 Could you elaborate on this point please and give some examples?

@louiscyfear878

7 жыл бұрын

Slimy Weasles communism he means.

I liked and then unliked this video just so I could double-like this. You're awesome, your videos are awesome. Keep being awesome.

Can we just become the Borg already?

My God. 😍 your accent is amaising.

Let's say you have the right to own a firearm stemming from a right to effective self defense and you live in a state like NY. Technically you have a right to buy a firearm, but in reality it's next to impossible except to a very select few people like military or body guards or police officers because the requirements for qualifying are made so difficult. People have the right, but in that state the right just exists on paper. Hey I'm all for substantive access!

@SomeoneBeginingWithI

7 жыл бұрын

Should that substantive access include the state giving everyone guns for free, or just doing nothing to prevent the sale of guns?

@Overonator

7 жыл бұрын

SomeoneBeginingWithI no rights are absolute so I imagine there would be some restrictions. I don't think the state would have to provide firearms.

Will you do a video on animal rights and/or whether we ought to go vegan?

@PhilosophyTube

7 жыл бұрын

It was one of the first videos I ever did! Which IMO means it isn't very good, but it might at least have some interesting recommended reading: kzread.info/dash/bejne/maKsssZ6lc_XptI.html

@insertUSERNAMEhere65

7 жыл бұрын

Whoops, sorry for not checking that. The link in the description isn't working for me btw, might wanna replace it with this: people.creighton.edu/~wos87278/Stephens/Vegetarianism/5_Args_for_Veg~Phil_Contemp_World_1994.pdf It might still be time for a renewed version. After all, it is an important issue and reflection on it can change the way we act, making a big difference in the long run. I think it would be a shame to miss out on that (especially considering how many people you can reach). You might have already guessed it, I'm an animal rights activist myself and that's certainly part of the reason I am telling you this (though it's not the reason I am here, I've been watching your channel for a long time). If you're up for it, I might consider helping in making a new video on animal rights. I study philosophy myself and know several others that have a lot of expertise when it comes to the philosophy of animal rights. Those others are active in the same group as me and might very well want to chip in. I hope to hear from you again (no matter what your reply will be).

@kaitlyn__L

7 жыл бұрын

i hope this doesn't come off as aggressive, but here goes: i hope you're not the kind of animal rights activist who in practise ends up valuing animals' rights over human rights, instead of thinking them equally? many vocal vegans will end up actually saying that farm animals' rights trumps the rights of people of colour in, say, the global south. for example, the recent surge in popularity of quinoa has completely priced-out the people who grow the crop - people who lived on it for hundreds of years - because people in the west will pay so much more for it than them. or people who will simply insist poor people should spend the same money on less food because it's vegan, rather than first dismantling the economic systems that lead to meat being cheap and veggies being expensive, and working down from there. since you watch philosophytube i'm going to hope you're not, so largely i'm just curious what you think about that. my mother was one of those types of vegans who values animal life over human life (even my human life), so i have somewhat of a personal investment in this aspect of the topic. (she actually wanted to try and keep a "vegan cat", even though such diets are known to make cats very very sick, because her distaste for meat was so strong!) in my opinion, part of animal rights includes accepting and understanding that certain animals' existence depends on other animals feeding that existence, which can include humans in many circumstances. to force a cat or dog to live off of grain based food (like "dry pet food") instead of their natural diet of raw meat (but not just raw meat of the cuts humans like, their bodily systems depend on eating practically every part of an animal) is just as cruel, in my mind, as inhumane farming (their immune system depends on very high acidity stomach acid. grains increase the pH and lead to them getting sick far more often. this is a large contributor to the upsurge of sick and overweight pets, but vets largely just tell people to restrict their same dry diet instead of switching to a diet that is far more natural for them. this may put a dent in some of the symptoms, but doesn't address the cause.). but then i also don't have much of a problem with farming animals so long as the environment they're given is natural and free and nice. i don't buy battery hen meat or eggs, but if i know they've lived a happy and fulfilled chicken life and that it wasn't ended early just for someone's profit, then my objections largely go away. but then, i personally would go for a deal where i lived in basically paradise, knowing that when i'm starting to get old i just wouldn't wake up some day, and then i'd help some other being keep living. but i imagine a lot of human beings wouldn't go for such an ideal existence if that was the way it were to eventually end.

@insertUSERNAMEhere65

7 жыл бұрын

I'm gonna put some comments inbetween your text to make it easier to read: i hope this doesn't come off as aggressive, but here goes: Don't worry, it doesn't. i hope you're not the kind of animal rights activist who in practise ends up valuing animals' rights over human rights, instead of thinking them equally? I'm not a deontologist, but if I were to adobt their language, I would say that you cant flat out rank the rights of some species over the rights of another. Which rights take priority depends on the particular rights concerned in the particular situation. I'm not a misanthropist if that's what you're trying to get at. I get why you have that worry though. Being vegan it's tough to get yourself to help people who still eat meat etc. Your perspective changes. I just recently heard from someone who wanted to study something to help people who are worse off (I don't know the english word right now) but didn't go through with it because she couldn't see herself help people who are still contributing towards the cruel animal industry. I wouldn't write this off as simple misanthropy, but rather as a discontempt for vices that takes a lot of strenght to overcome. Imagine you're living in a society of 80% fascists, it's not easy to want to help people in such a society. many vocal vegans will end up actually saying that farm animals' rights trumps the rights of people of colour in, say, the global south. You'll have to be more specific about which rights trump which. Flat out saying that the rights of group X trump the rights of group Y is clearly wouldn't be right. for example, the recent surge in popularity of quinoa has completely priced-out the people who grow the crop - people who lived on it for hundreds of years - because people in the west will pay so much more for it than them. Agreed, that's an issue. Wouldn't really say that it's a vegan issue though, just capitalism doing capitalism stuff (that's not to say that we shouldn't do something about it). You also can't overlook that the animal products we consume are produced by feeding food (soy, corn) that was imported from impoverished countries to animals. I think this is the bigger issue. We waste so many resources this way. or people who will simply insist poor people should spend the same money on less food because it's vegan, rather than first dismantling the economic systems that lead to meat being cheap and veggies being expensive, and working down from there. Vegan food can actually be a lot cheaper than meat (think lentils, beans, rice, non-whole-foods-tofu etc.). Still, the poor are definitely the last I would blame for not going vegan. Systemic change is definitely a goal, it's just not something you have a straight forward influence on. I think you need to change the opinions and behaviour of a large amount of indiviuals first, otherwise systemic change is a hopeless endeavour. since you watch philosophytube i'm going to hope you're not, so largely i'm just curious what you think about that. my mother was one of those types of vegans who values animal life over human life (even my human life), I'm sorry to hear that. so i have somewhat of a personal investment in this aspect of the topic. (she actually wanted to try and keep a "vegan cat", even though such diets are known to make cats very very sick, because her distaste for meat was so strong!) In principle I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting your pets to "be vegan" (the same ethical issues still apply), whether or not it's doable without harming the pet to much is an empirical question that I can't awnser. I just know some "vegan" dogs that seem to be really well off. Cats I don't know. in my opinion, part of animal rights includes accepting and understanding that certain animals' existence depends on other animals feeding that existence, which can include humans in many circumstances. to force a cat or dog to live off of grain based food (like "dry pet food") instead of their natural diet of raw meat (but not just raw meat of the cuts humans like, their bodily systems depend on eating practically every part of an animal) is just as cruel, in my mind, as inhumane farming (their immune system depends on very high acidity stomach acid. grains increase the pH and lead to them getting sick far more often. this is a large contributor to the upsurge of sick and overweight pets, but vets largely just tell people to restrict their same dry diet instead of switching to a diet that is far more natural for them. this may put a dent in some of the symptoms, but doesn't address the cause.). Again, this largely depends on an empirical question that I can't really awnser. Apart from that I think it's doubtful that forcing your dog/cat to go vegan (there are wet foods as well btw) is just as bad as inhumane farming. If you were to look at the practices there, I think you might change your mind. but then i also don't have much of a problem with farming animals so long as the environment they're given is natural and free and nice. i don't buy battery hen meat or eggs, but if i know they've lived a happy and fulfilled chicken life and that it wasn't ended early just for someone's profit, then my objections largely go away. You can't buy such products though. The animals always get killed way too soon (www.aussieabattoirs.com/facts/age-slaughtered) and don't get to live a fulfilled life. And yes, that even holds for dairy cows and even for organic farms that were intented to meet ethical requirements (I just recently saw a documentary on such a farm that was portrayed as an ideal and even there cows were killed when they weren't giving enough milk anymore [after like half their normal lifespan at best], calves were taken away from their mothers and slaughtered and the cows didn't get to live with males). Apart from those factual issues, you could never make enough meat/dairy/eggs for everyone whitout violating ethical standards. but then, i personally would go for a deal where i lived in basically paradise, knowing that when i'm starting to get old i just wouldn't wake up some day, and then i'd help some other being keep living. but i imagine a lot of human beings wouldn't go for such an ideal existence if that was the way it were to eventually end. I don't really get this part, sorry.

@kaitlyn__L

7 жыл бұрын

i have looked into farming conditions, my mother shoved footage into my 9 year old face. i have been to local free range farms too. one examples of what i mean when i say that some people think animals' rights trump people's rights i mean white vegans using holocaust and slavery imagery because people think it's the same, and when the jewish and black people tell them that's offensive and dehumanising to them, the white vegans say they obviously just don't get it. "vegan food can be a lot cheaper than meat" is one of those arguments that is so geographically relative and usually speaks over the experience of people living in food deserts, or even just poor areas of new york, due to travel costs etc. i know you said you wouldn't make it beholden on poor people, but it's worth recognising that bringing up that fact first instead of just agreeing to dismantle the systems that make people have to make those choices makes it seem like you care more about it being cheaper in some places (usually it's the white and middle class places, with access to large supermarkets and wide diversity) the thing about quinoa does most definitely involve capitalism, and capitalism heavily contributes to the destruction of our planet, but also hardly any other white demographic consumes quinoa except vegans, and the price directly tracks with quinoa's promotion and visibility in vegan magazines. i'm not sure if you're saying wet vegan pet food exists, or just pointing out that wet food exists. but either way forcing an animal to have a diet that makes them sick is abuse. you yourself said that you can't directly compare things sometimes, so yeah. dogs are far more omnivorous than cats. but dogs and cats are, relatively speaking, sick even when eating cooked wet food compared to raw whole chickens (for dogs) or mice or parts of chickens (for cats and small dogs). plenty of animals "seem to get on fine" but have dry coats, are lethargic and depressed, and get diseases easily. when human beings domesticate an animal it is the human's responsibility to look after their health and wellbeing, and both pets and farm animals are domesticated. the bit you don't understand is me saying i would happily give up my life to be meat some day if it was in exchange for having a good and carefree life beforehand. because honestly so far my life has been stressful as shit and if it would take even 3/4 of my lifespan away from me to just have no more stressful shit going on, i would go for it.

I question the rhetorical and social effectiveness of "obligations" over "rights." I haven't read O'Neil, but it seems like going to, say, the Texas state legislature and saying "Hey, you have an obligation to aid women in getting safe abortions," is going to be met with continual resistance--the disagreement will shift from being what rights exist to being who is obligated to provide. Perhaps I'm looking at O'Neil simplistically, but it seems that a right does carry with it an obligation on the part of the State to protect their citizens. The advantage of having this discussion in the context of "rights" is that we can, once a right is agreed upon, then criticize states and governments which do not provide for those rights in relation to their citizens, just as you did in this video.

No one should have the right to receive "free" stuff. There could be the opposite claim that free stuff could instill a lazy attitude in people as what's the point of working up economically if the government gives me free stuff. The part about America that I value is that we work on merit. What I work for is what I get.

I don't entirely agree, but it does seem correct to say that granting legal rights implies a federal obligation to ensure such a right can be fulfilled without the attempts by opponents to undermine it indirectly (or directly of course). Of course, for the US, although reproductive rights were mentioned in the video, it is key to remind everyone this also means that many blue states would have many of their gun laws undermined given the current SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and who knows what else may be considered an "indirect attempt to undermine a right". The government could just check to see that people ARE exercising their right to decide if there's a problem, but this would pose a problem for any place that legitimately has few people concerned with exercising that right. Edit: one thing I must say though, is this sense of discrimination is a possibility even without a strong government. It seems like this critique misses the source of the problem if it's looking at the problem of protected rights, classes, etc. from a bottom-up or top-down approach.

When a government can set up a place that strips humans of their basic right of freedom, a place outside of the judicial system like Guantanamo Bay, then that government has too much power. Once they have that power they'll never give it up and will only seek to extend it. At least with monarchies there was the opposing force of the Church, and in any case the only "outlaw" or homo sacer was the King or Queen, a single visible entity, not a nebulous ill-defined group like terrorists.

Our Rights are our might. If we disagree then my Rights is my might.

I really like the idea of human obligations/responsibilities. I don't think it is possible to have rights without also having responsibility and the most basic responsibility is to refrain from making the world a worse place.

@louiscyfear878

7 жыл бұрын

Rua O'Neill "Obligations" without means of enforcement is a stupid, meaningless promissory note.

I really love this channel and the topics you cover. I'd like to support you on Patreon, but would prefer to make a one-time donation instead of monthly. Is it possible to do this? Thanks!

@redmilo92

7 жыл бұрын

He has a PayPal also

@andrewwaters1658

7 жыл бұрын

Sweet. Thanks!

@PhilosophyTube

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks, I'm glad you like it! And yeah, PayPal would be the way.

Eat soylent green

@enta_nae_mere7590

7 жыл бұрын

The soylent green factory would have required more energy than growing crops, makes you wonder whether there was another reason they ate soylent green.

@enfercesttout

7 жыл бұрын

Climate i guess

@kaitlyn__L

7 жыл бұрын

if you had perfectly automated vertical farming with hydro/aeroponics, such that absolutely everybody had enough to eat.... then where would you send the political dissidents?!! much tidier to make people unknowingly rely on them for the food, nodnod.

Instead of people having f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶d̶ ̶ obligations to one another. Wouldn't it be better make these "necessary services" to one's survival more affordable and accessible. Instead having people providing something against their will.

Could you imagine an AI being imbedded with those 3 rights in mind. So that no matter the state that comes in everyone is given those 3 things by it and some sort of army. Someone write this book

Are the people who benefit from established human rights, especially the rights they could not provide for themselves, say through money, under any obligation to pay back the supplier of those human rights in some fashion? Such as, hypothetically, having to serve in the military for a certain period of time in order to receive healthcare paid for by that government? If the institution that defines the human rights that should be applied is the same one supplying the money, goods, and/or services needed to fulfill those established rights? A large complaint I hear among the more conservative people I know (in the United States) is that people who benefit from government-sponsored things that are defined as human rights such as food and healthcare, is that this system can be abused so that the recipient of these benefits do not have to do any work and contribute to society. Should they be responsible for earning their human rights by being contributing members of society, or at least working for the institution that provided their human rights? I'm not too well versed in economics, philosophy, ethics, etc., but am curious for different perspectives on this idea.

@enfercesttout

7 жыл бұрын

Okan Sangy only if we dont give those to any one who didnt serve society in any meaningful way.

@adamlee6389

7 жыл бұрын

Well thanks for the response, but I'm looking more for a "why"? If the new thought is "human obligations", that the "haves" must provide for the "have-nots" (if that is not what this term is implying please correct me), why would there be any necessity to pay them back?

@enfercesttout

7 жыл бұрын

If haves have anything thats because armies of have nots allow them to have so.

@enta_nae_mere7590

7 жыл бұрын

Provided that these people receiving such don't somehow live in a void and contact no other people than they are already providing a benefit to society by interacting and enriching others lives, providing new perspectives, making art, teaching children, you don't have to be a useful economic tool or cannon fodder to contribute to society.

@adamlee6389

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your perspectives. I probably should've made it clear that I am not against free healthcare or any of the ideas expressed in this video (my only caution being how difficult it is to properly regulate such policies to avoid abuse). I just noticed that the ideas Ollie expressed were mainly from the outside perspective, and directed at the people who defined and provided human rights, and the establishments that would engage in "human obligations". I have never heard too many ideas directed at the recipients of healthcare and other human rights, or if there were any schools of thought from that side of the matter. Not necessarily playing devil's advocate, just trying to look at things from multiple sides.

I think that abortion rights in the U.S. are a bad example if you want to make that point about substantive rights requiring positive rights like healthcare, food and shelter. The main reason that women have difficulty getting access to abortions in the U.S. isn't because of lack of funding (federal law prohibits that), or because of poverty, it is because of regulations pushed through by Republicans designed to protect the "safety" of women. These are regulations essentially limit the number of abortion clinics, and so limit access to these services in states that have them. I would agree that access to things like courthouses, a government and a basic education are important for enforcing negative rights, but that doesn't necessarily mean that things like healthcare or housing are necessary for exercising personal freedoms. To do that I think one first has to deal with Nozick's "forced labor" argument, and establish strong enforceable duties of assistance.

@quleughy

7 жыл бұрын

While I agree and that's correct, I think he might have been using two slightly different examples to support the same overall point there? For instance, abortion would require an additional right to have readily available and easy to access abortion clinics on top of the given right to choose. Technically, I think this right is granted in the undue burden standard, but it is basically all politics (whoever controls the SCOTUS at the time) as to whether the standard will be enforced.

@curtherring7732

7 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I guess the point I was making was that there is a significant difference between excepting the idea of substantive protection of rights (i guess in this case liberties), and excepting the arguments for broad positive rights. I would disagree with the idea that the right is granted in that situation, because the government has taken actions to impede the right holder's right to pursue an abortion. I also think that some positive rights like k12 education might be essential for the enforcement of certain liberties (for example I can't consent to a contract if I can't read it), but I don't think that that necessarily extends to thing like healthcare, or housing, since one can still protect their rights without them. I guess that means I agree with the general theme of the argument, if not the finer points.

@enfercesttout

7 жыл бұрын

Any labor is forced labor under capitalism. A gun isnt only way to coerce someone.

@curtherring7732

7 жыл бұрын

"Any labor is forced labor under capitalism." That is a very strong stance to take. So if I work and then decide to buy say, some fruit from a local farmer, because I like fruit and arguably need fruit (at least to live a full and healthy life) then that farmer has enslaved me? If so how? The arrangement benefits everyone involved. They have chosen to grow fruit, because they want money, which they can use to provide a variety of goods for themselves (or other people if they are feeling generous). So what is wrong with me exchanging the fruits of my labor in exchange for the fruits (no pun intended) of theirs? I agree that a gun isn't the only way to coerce someone (I hear knives work well too), for example if a doctor performed a life saving operation on me without my consent, then they would not have the right to charge me (although they may have the right to refuse to save me). Most market exchanges don't work this way though, even if they are providing goods like healthcare, or food. In most market exchanges one has time to look at a wide range of competitors and compare their prices, and the quality of their services. Even with things like last minute procedures I have probably had time to purchase insurance beforehand, which means that the transaction at least can be a voluntary one.

@enfercesttout

7 жыл бұрын

"So if I work and then decide to buy say, " this is pure fiction. Like social contract theory, history didnt happen that way. People produced for themselves and their lords before. All of their surplus went to owners of the land. Markets were for exchange of goods that arent imminently produced in an area. People were forced as serf back then. After industrial revolution economy changed and then markets become central to an economy. Then people were forced to sell their labor at industries to survive because new technologies opened new areas for owners to invest and bourgeois became dominant. People were torn apart from their livelihoods and thrown into factories even with their whole families.

I'm not sure I fully agree with this. I think you are right in emphasising that rights should be enforceable. But it seems difficult for me to justify how states can have obligations to everyone on account of them being human. It would be impractical to expect-even theoretically-that one state should provide, for example, basic rights to every person on earth. It seems more realistic to say that each person has a right to have a citizenship, which allows them to express rights demands to the state of which they are a citizen. Human rights (by this I also mean basic rights) are political rights: they enable persons to effectively veto government decisions that affect them and to effectively influence the political decisions in a society. You have a right to free speech, because you wouldn't be able to influence political opinions without it (I understand 'political' broadly here). You have a right to shelter, food, healthcare, because you are effectively a slave to whoever can fulfil your biological needs at whatever cost without it. And if your rights are not satisfied, even though you have used every legal remedy available to you, and have been confronted with obvious injustice, you have a right to enforce your political rights through civil disobedience, or even-in extreme cases of injustice-organised force. But that force would be addressed to the state which is obliged to enforce your rights. You have no claim against other states of which you are not a citizen. So, I basically think that migration is really within the discretion of the receiving state, while third states have an obligation to briefly accommodate refugees if they can't fight to reclaim their country. But the main means by which refugees can have full rights is either to become citizens of another state (if the other state accepts them), or return to their home state and fight for their rights. I know this sounds harsh, but it seems to me to be the only universalisable conduct that is practical in the long term. The world would be a much scarier place if all the residents of liberal Europe had migrated to the US as soon as World War II began.

But do people have a right to live? If so to whom does the jural duty extend? Would your presumed human right to life be the responsibility of everybody else? Even you enemies? I don't have the facilities to delve much deeper now but the more I think about it. The more I disagree with the idea of unalienable or basic human rights. It sounds nice but is functionally difficult to realize because it assumes something begotten from nothing. How can you as an individual have the absolute right to life if there is a case where there's nobody to fulfill those rights? I think rights only have a place as relationships between 2 or more parties. But alone, nobody can have any rights. Therefore there can not be any basic human right. Maybe there's another way a singular person can acquire "basic human rights" without a social structure but at this point I can't see it. Is it even needed in that situation?

There is a big problem in your argument: You cant force people do do good things. Like, there is a part of this video in which you say that Human Rights have to either be more demanding, or that people should just give up and admit that they are fictional. But thats a very childish thing to say, because I am betting that you dont actually want that choice to happen. Why. Because many of those people may actually choose the SECOND OPTION. People are compassionate and loving, but not UNCONDITIONALLY so. That is a romantic ideal. People wanna help, but they have limits to how much help they are willing to offer. The more people are obligated to do to help, the more likely that any of those people rebel and simply choose to do nothing. And that may hurt to an idealist like you, but in the end that results in less people being helped over all. Lets take an example: Imagine if we asked a group of standard italians in the street if they wanted to help 10 thousand Libyan refugees ressetle in Italy in a refugee camp. Guess what percentage would agree. Now do that again, but instead of a refugee camp, say that those refugees would stay in the houses of the people who said yes. Im betting a good chunk of those people would change their minds. And as a result, less people would get to leave Libya. My point is not, of course, that we shouldnt strive for better human rights, or to improve the situation of refugees. But demands of unconditional love and Moral Purity Tests are not helpful in doing that. Like, imagine if we did that to Christians: "Either you follow the Bibles laws to the letter or admit that they are bullshit." I rather have a society in which christians pick and choose the nicests parts of the bible, in order to reduce conflict between them and secular values, than one in which they simply give up and reestart the Middle Ages.

@maciejglinski6564

5 жыл бұрын

yeah, it's a fair point. We can't have human rights without state. State may be the thing that may take human rights away but it's the only institution that can enforce them and make them a real thing. And without someone to enforce there is no law. Even more, most good actions that were taken by the state to date, (for example our child support program in poland which gave every family 500 zloty for every child and was a huge success in terms of social politics (though not in rising birth rates, weirdly)) were faced with huge outrage from people more selfish then others or just subjected to propaganda from the other side. No matter how much we would like to we can't just hope that people will take tha couse in their hands becouse, as the history showed, democracy is fair better at giving power to people like Trump and Reagan and smaller movements, through directly attacking the state, are better at making human rights happen.

can you have a human right to a commodity? maybe all human rights should just be rights to things you can do yourself! :) then you can always cash them in! :)

I disagree with almost all the words you say, but that transparency about who you read, what you think... Esc.. was very honorable and I respect you for it ...

That's why the abstract notion of human rights will eventually die.

We should all have a right to a mansion, universal healthcare and education, and a miniature pet winged unicorn in my backyard

Fellow anarchist?

This video is lacking constructivism. Say we agree that state should not enforce the human rights, then who should? If “the people”, then how should they organize it? Should Olly do it on his own and hope others chip in? Perhaps there should be some collective effort to provide these rights. What if such organization does not have the resources because lack of enthusiasm and support from society? Perhaps such organization should collect resources involuntary. Now that looks a lot like government. Who should oversee this institution? All these questions have to be addressed and we haven't even asked “where do the rights come from?”

@enfercesttout

7 жыл бұрын

Not even close. It is a myth that governments born from collective necessity. They are born from rulers' need to rule. Collective may need organisations to fulfill some ends. They need none to rule the collective, it is contrary to notion of a collective having common ends.

@DPGrupa

7 жыл бұрын

I'm not suggesting that governments that exist today were created by collective necessity, but rather that organization that would have a means to enforce human rights would look a lot like government, or a branch thereof. True, I have not mentioned another means of coercive organization structure, namely, church and the like, but Olly doesn't seem to buy the whole religion thing, so I'm not even proposing that.

@enfercesttout

7 жыл бұрын

Why would an organisation that really benefits people would have to coerce people to do so? Are people suicidal by birth?

@DPGrupa

7 жыл бұрын

Because that organization would benefit some more than others. Ever heard of freeloaders? Biologists have studied this phenomena in the wild. I personally liked the example of bats.

@enfercesttout

7 жыл бұрын

Well existing institutions benefit some in expense of others and most seem to be ok with that. Humans regularly produce more than needed. Why not meet all needs when we all potentially can be in need some day?

Aren't rights just abstractions which are give a standard of "equality" among everyone? To declare one has a right to something is abstract and useless if one does not have access to said right, rendering rights to be an idealist conception of equality. Not to mention that rights are mainly determined by the state, which as a consequence, gives the state supreme power over whether rights are enforced or not, or that certain rights are even "created" in the first place (this "creation" and enforcement being mediated primarily by law and its ensuing institutions). And as we should know, just from the state which politics is in, the state nor its laws are a neutral party in society but that it enforces the interests of a certain group of people, a certain class in society, the capitalists. I feel that to "resolve" the issues of inequality (equal rights) we must abolish the class nature of society, thereby abolishing the state as well. Really, the only way to go about rights (abstractions) can only be done in the real world, where there is no longer a separation between theory and practice, where the contradiction of theory (in this case, equal rights, the contradiction being our inability to fairly or even always, enforce them) can only be resolved in practical activity in the real world.

The people being "obligated" to provide, do.. do they have rights? You kinda skipped that.

@PhilosophyTube

7 жыл бұрын

Sure! Nothing prevents someone from having both rights and duties

Shouldn't we be pragmatic in implementing stuff like this? If you are too kind too many people become freeloaders. (or will look like freeloaders. will have the same effect either way.) The forgotten voices, often the poor and people from 'lower class/poor' subcultures, in society will see scares resources flow away from their loved ones. After which they blame the factor of change, 'the other'. And what will be the effects of that? What will the in-house desperate do? The 'people who matter' subculture won't pay a dime extra to support a greater number of 'needy' people. In my country disabled people and the elderly have already seen reductions on their tight wallets, and aids. What will their families think? what will they try? The people who choose will not be the people that are impacted, Should they force their ideals onto another? Should I force my ideals onto another? What will that cause?

If we stop letting the state determine the value of human life we have a problem. The basis for boarders and citizens is an us them divide. To maintain a border a state would have to make some evaluation that those on the other side either are or are not worthy of crossing. This is an implicit call for a borderless world and while I like the idea it seems to me to be possibly the least practical way of guaranteeing rights.

When you've been researching stress, gender identity, gender roles, transphobia, economics, discrimination and entitlement, prison dynamics (milgrim & stanford prison experiments), ethics, care, philosophy, sociology, feminism and patriarchy, brain neurotransmitters, hormones, politics, empathy, psychopathy, the monomyth, .... ....and then you wake up from a dream in-which you lived in pre-first world war europe trying to survive an episode of zombie attacks and then undergo a buddhist ritual that effects gender but goes wrong and leaves you in stasis to be found in rubble during the inter-war period!!!!! xP

Please don't use gifs in videos, especially when talking about a serious subject like this one. Still, it's been a good series!

@holali8899

7 жыл бұрын

i think they are too distracting and overly redundant. I never followed Idea Channel and of their videos that I saw that's the last thing I'd want anyone to inherit from them tbh.

@Huonous

7 жыл бұрын

Oh, I really liked the one with Ron Weasley, I think it suited that moment very well. For me personally something surprising (the contradictory between serious talk and comical gifs) makes it easier to follow a video, because I tend to lose focus easily.

@PhilosophyTube

7 жыл бұрын

I think a well placed gif can really help explain stuff, especially if people are more visual or metaphorical learners

@elliottmcollins

7 жыл бұрын

+Philosophy Tube - Please use more .gifs in your videos! Idea Channel is gone and *someone* needs to help me understand philosophy through passing pop culture references.

@upublic

7 жыл бұрын

@holali, i myself not being so highly educated as thyself, would simply ask you kindly to fuck off with your elitist/ pretentious/ gatekeeping / whatever sensibilities.

The concept of human rights is flawed because nothing is free.

@Muykle

6 жыл бұрын

Nothing is free, but sometimes it is worth paying something to get something better. In a society that respects rights you have to pay the price of being punished by society if you violate someone's rights. On the other hand, you gain the respect from society with the same rights that society gives you.

Less politics more hard philosophy please :) A bit more metaphysics would be fab! I do like the politics but it's been a lot of leftist political philosophy lately and it's seeming more like a leftist politics channel than anything else

@PhilosophyTube

7 жыл бұрын

That's fair: I've got one coming up on epistemology and religion, then a 4-part series which is a bit political again, and then I'm planning a big series on epistemology to come sometime after it

@Flippyfloppy007

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks!!

i don't believe the state should care for our needs. and i kinda don't believe in charities. they puzzle me. you have, say, 100 people that need food. and in order to care for them you need dozens of volunteers that are willing to give up food, transport food, prepare food, dispense food, and care for clean up. that doesn't make sense. there's 100 able-bodied individuals that have nothing to do - why aren't they the volunteers that volunteer to get their own food? the problem i see with charities is the enable laziness and disempowerment. they tell people that think they have no power that they have no power, when, instead, they should be empowering those people. --- i read an article about a year ago where the guy asked rich people what they would do if they lost all their money and people-network. pretty much every one of them said they would use the skills they developed while making their first fortune to bootstrap themselves out of poverty as quickly as possible. take a rich guy that inherited all his wealth and he'd be SOL unless he had inate skillz. point being, we need to create "charities" that identify how best to empower those in need to bootstrap their own lives back out of poverty. empower people to care for themselves. give them the skills they need. don't let them sit there doing nothing with their hand out. --- this all, of course, assumes those in need are not disabled to the point where they can't care for themselves. but even then, there's countless examples of people whose bodies were practically destroyed yet they themselves got back up and got their own lives back on track. we shouldn't assume everyone is worthless and needs cared for hand and foot. everyone has something they can offer. no one is just black hole that consumes and excretes and nothing else. i'm already giving thought to how to do this. once i get my lottery millions i'll be putting more practical focus on this issue. we need to help ourselves, not let government or even charities do the work for us.

@sourcedrop7624

7 жыл бұрын

before a troll makes a comment about winning the lottery is going against what i said: i live a minimalist lifestyle. i have only what i need, little else. i work to care for everything - but business, or even nonprofits, require capital and/or marketing skills to pull off. i have neither of those and have things that require my time and attention where i can't work 18hr days to make all the extra money i would need for some side project. so if i win a crapton of cash, that will just enable me to fulfill my dreams with little effort. i have no plans on using lottery to live a non-minimalist lifestyle. i don't like material things, unlike most americans. so there you go. now give me your lottery winnings, you greedy bastards, so i can help society with it. lol

@djdhchjdjdjf9019

7 жыл бұрын

You're assuming that the 100 people dependent on the charity for food are sitting around all day too lazy to acquire food but when is that ever the case? For one, very rarely is a charity's goal 'give these specific people some food', they're providing a service that the recipient otherwise wouldn't have access to e.g. foodbanks give food, homeless charities give amenities and services, mental health charities provide care and support etc. etc., the rule of thumb for a charity is probably to provide a service to people who can't attain it independently. And just for example, I think something close to 30% of London's homeless are employed, they just can't afford to rent in the private sector and aren't provided for by the public sector so have to turn to charities for support or sleep rough. People who need support aren't worthless, the vast majority (so vast, I would argue, as to be functionally representative of the whole lot) strive and work hard for their lot, but life doesn't always reward work as we'd like it to. As to what you said about the rich bootstrapping their way out of poverty, I'm sure many people can tell you their plan for a zombie outbreak, i personally can tell you how i'd survive being stranded on a desert island, that doesn't mean i'd get so far as to construct a raft and get sad about losing my volleyball. People saying 'i'd totally do this trust me bro' should not be grounds for any argument about charities. Also, just a side point but you say you live a minimalist life-style with only everything you need, but have you stopped to consider how much that is? A roof over your head, food on the table, access to hygiene, clean drinking water, an internet connection, electronic devices, the free time to post comments on youtube videos, these are things millions (possibly billions) don't have access to, and even in your own country there are people who are not as lucky as you. If you have everything you need you are blessed, and you are not pious for not consuming more, nor can you use this position as a rod to admonish those with less. Not trying to call you a bad person (I have all these things too, and i probably don't live as minimally as you), just saying you sound like you need to stop and think about where you are and be thankful, or to put it more triggeringly, check your privilege. (But maybe you're actually Diogenes back from the dead to crush capitalism, who knows?)

@sourcedrop7624

7 жыл бұрын

Scott I had a friend that has bad ADHD problems and the government pays for everything for him. But that dude can sit and talk like a normal person with his friends, he is able to care for himself, and he plays videogames all day. Sorry, but that dude is perfectly able to work but the system _disempowers_ him and programs him to think he can coast by contributing nothing and taking everything with his hand out. That needs to change. For people who are legit retarded and can't even care for themselves, I said in my original comment that I'm not counting these people. Society should care for the needs of people like this. It's a moral obligation.

@sourcedrop7624

7 жыл бұрын

Djdhch Jdjdjf many of the wealthiest people in America were broke immigrants. They literally had nothing but a presence in this country. They used their skills to bootstrap themselves. It's been done and any person can model their success. So I'm not talking about what-ifs.

@sourcedrop7624

7 жыл бұрын

Ert an I stated very clearly that the poor should be _empowered._ so if a homeless person is addicted to something, he needs locked up so he can sober up and get the care he needs. If a person has a mental illness he needs to be treated so he can get better. I know not all mental illness can be worked away with a wand, but most trauma-based mental illness can be greatly improved, not through pharmaceuticals, but through alternative healing modalities, such as EFT. These people should be given the care they need so they can get back to living. I already said it, twice, but if a person is mentally retarded on whatever level, society should be looking after them. We have a moral obligation to do so from a government level. And those that had everything but lost everything and got kicked out to the streets, they mostly need access to work and other basics to help them jump back on board. The reason many in that situation linger in poverty is because they have been traumatised by the experience of loss. Therapy to relieve that would be the first step before all other steps.

If we are talking about abortion and human rights then what about the baby rights?

We aren't equal and shouldn't be.

@wilius1428

6 жыл бұрын

Turpentine if you are shit it would be a disservice to lie

@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat

5 жыл бұрын

Why shouldn't we be? What makes me better than you?

We should all have a right to a mansion, universal healthcare and education, and a miniature pet winged unicorn in my backyard

@coaxill4059

3 жыл бұрын

I can't tell if you're joking, trolling, or just weird. You put two things that are completely normal that many countries already do between two things that are absurd with no clear separation.