| richardhutnik said:
Me: I was looking at the dicussion here of negative vs positive rights. This argument of separating them comes normally from individuals who consider taxes as theft. What I was arguing here is that if you do make being free from crime something to expect, it then would be considered a positive right, and place demands of tax dollars be taken from individuals, even individuals who believe they can pay for their own protection, and don't need to pay for the protection of others in the process. If expressed as a negative right, then I argue it really isn't a right at all but a duty someone must exercise for themselves and act upon to make happen, and also a negative duty to not act on someone else. |
I don't think taxes are theft or something. But constructing from "violating a personal right of someone else is wrong" to "there has someone to enforce, that my rights aren't violating" is moving the whole thing to another level. No ethical system can enforce anything. That are laws and law-enforcement for. The ethical system is for providing a theoretical base, on which the laws are founded.
| richardhutnik said: In regards to ethical systems that work better than a rights-based one, presuming that ethical systems need willing compliance to work, I would say one that is duty-based, where individuals look after one another, mutually care for one another, and act in a kind and loving matter would work better than one where everyone argues they have rights for things. The net impact of the society as a whole would be better overall. |
No, because a duty-based system has the same issues: it cannot enforce compliance. You can find situation, in which the duties are contradicting each other or are leading to harm if followed to the word. No ethical system can provide that.
