But no, as a matter of conscience I refuse to say everything is fine when a government demands by threat of force that I give what’s mine so that it can distribute it to others. — NOS4A2

But you'd just agreed that these are your preferences, comparable to the preferences of other for different things. Yet here you refer yours to your "conscience" yet the others you labelled "wants and desires". Do you have any good reason to believe that those who want different things to you aren't also acting according to their conscience?

The fact that most people want this kind of authoritarianism does not suggest that I need to accept it. — NOS4A2

No, we've literally just established it does suggest that exact thing. The fact that you agree other people have different ideas of what a right is, that those ideas are no less subjective than yours, and that the best way to resolve these differences is by democracy. You've just agreed that. So you do, by your own admission have to accept it.

FWIW, I never meant this to be an argument about the merits of small government, just about what exactly people mean by that, as illustrated by the argument over UBI I related earlier.

I myself am a philosophical anarchist in principle, but in practice where we live in a world that has states anyway, a lot of self-identified “small government” people chide me for “supporting big government” because I don’t like the de facto power caused by wealth differences any more than I like de jure state power, and if we have to have either I’d prefer they keep each other in check.

But you'd just agreed that these are your preferences, comparable to the preferences of other for different things. Yet here you refer yours to your "conscience" yet the others you labelled "wants and desires". Do you have any good reason to believe that those who want different things to you aren't also acting according to their conscience?

No, we've literally just established it does suggest that exact thing. The fact that you agree other people have different ideas of what a right is, that those ideas are no less subjective than yours, and that the best way to resolve these differences is by democracy. You've just agreed that. So you do, by your own admission have to accept it.

I assume they are acting according to their conscience. But so did slave owners.

It is true that by democratic decree we can name this or that idea a “right” and turn it into law, but what I’m trying to say is I do not accept their reasoning and think they are wrong. I believe there are good ideas and bad ideas. Majorities can and have often been on the side of bad ideas. I do not need to repudiate democracy to know a bad idea when I see one.

FWIW, I never meant this to be an argument about the merits of small government, just about what exactly people mean by that, as illustrated by the argument over UBI I related earlier. — Pfhorrest

"Small government" is code for those who wish to endow government with no capacity to interfere with their particular set of interests. So, those who resent programs of environmental regulation (which definitely interferes with some profit making enterprises), small government has no mandate to regulate use of water, land, and air. For those who resent programs of social benefit (everything from Social Security to Head Start programs, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc.) they would like to see a government too small to be able to raise sufficient revenue to carry out these programs. (In fact, Social Security was resented and suits were launched against it -- as well as against Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)

"Small Government" is usually not called for in the face of military procurement (which benefits corporations in the businesses of supplying military equipment); it usually isn't called for by farmers receiving substantial subsidies.

"That which governs best governs least" sounds attractive, but I think most people usually want government available enough, and powerful enough, to assist them effectively. The population of people who want government to help them includes both billionaires and those who are abjectly poor.

The positive right to housing is just the negative right to not die from exposure. The positive right to health care is just the negative right to not be left to die.

Rights are claims on individuals or the government. While it's unfortunate if someone dies of exposure, we can't conclude that their rights were violated. If I wander off into the woods and die after getting lost - sure it's awful, but my rights weren't violated unless you want to be silly and say that "nature committed a crime" or something like that. Even if a homeless man dies on the street are we to say that everyone who passed him by violated his rights?

Rights are not simply wants or desires either. Otherwise I'd have a right to constant back massages.

I do not accept their reasoning and think they are wrong. I believe there are good ideas and bad ideas. — NOS4A2

Hang on, just now it was nothing more than a list of wants. Now there's reasoning? Reasoning which can be good or bad too?

OK. Apart from your own personal preference, what is your 'reasoning' why a government should protect your property?

Rights are claims on individuals or the government. — BitconnectCarlos

OK

Even if a homeless man dies on the street are we to say that everyone who passed him by violated his rights? — BitconnectCarlos

We could do. As you just said, rights are claims on individuals or governments, there could be one to ensure citizens don't die from exposure.

Rights are not simply wants or desires either. Otherwise I'd have a right to constant back massages. — BitconnectCarlos

So what are they then? All you've given so far is that they are claims on individuals or governments. Nothing in that prevents you from declaring a right to constant back massages.

So what are they then? All you've given so far is that they are claims on individuals or governments. Nothing in that prevents you from declaring a right to constant back massages.

Yes, anyone can declare a right to constant back massages. That doesn't mean that that right exists.

If you've violated someone's rights you've seriously wronged them, do you agree? Are you seriously wronging someone who desires constant back massages by not giving them that?

O

If you've violated someone's rights you've seriously wronged them, do you agree? Are you seriously wronging someone who desires constant back massages by not giving them that? — BitconnectCarlos

What if I said yes? To what are you appealing here? If I said, yes, not providing constant back massages is seriously wronging someone, you'd like to tell me I'm wrong, yes? But to what measure are you appealing to do that?

If you agree that you're wronging that person then.... congratulations, you win, I guess?

I'm appealing to basic moral intuitions.... like that if I demand constant back massages from you that you're not actually obliged to give them. If you just want disregard this then you do you.

I'm appealing to basic moral intuitions.... like that if I demand constant back massages from you that you're not actually obliged to give them. — BitconnectCarlos

Right. But basic moral intuitions don't help us with issues of rights because people disagree. Basic moral intuitions are not agreed upon.

So if we take your "If you've violated someone's rights you've seriously wronged them", and include that by 'seriously wronged' you mean 'committed some widely agreed on moral transgression', then what is preventing the homeless person from claiming a right to housing? Allowing harm to come to someone (say by them sleeping rough) when you could easily prevent it (say by paying more in taxes to fund social housing) is a moral transgression for many people.

Right. But basic moral intuitions don't help us with issues of rights because people disagree. Basic moral intuitions are not agreed upon.

There actually is widespread agreement on basic moral issues. How many people do you think are okay with wanton murder or rape? A sense of justice is built into us and I think you'd be surprised at the large number of issues that people agree upon.

then what is preventing the homeless person from claiming a right to housing?

It's a fundamentally different type of claim than claiming a right to life, which just involves that no one kills you or maims you intentionally. If I claim a right to housing I'm claiming that someone else must pay for and build a house for me. Also someone must repair and maintain that house now. Now other people are burdened whether through their time being taken or their money being taken.

There actually is widespread agreement on basic moral issues. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, but these don't help us resolve differences over rights, which extend frequently into areas of morality over which there is far less agreement.

It's a fundamentally different type of claim than claiming a right to life, which just involves that no one kills you or maims you intentionally. If I claim a right to housing I'm claiming that someone else must pay for and build a house for me. Also someone must repair and maintain that house now. Now other people are burdened whether through their time being taken or their money being taken. — BitconnectCarlos

Right. But all you've done there is point out the difference. I could quite legitimately point out that the right to property and the right to life are very different too (in different ways). That doesn't prevent you from declaring both to be fundamental rights. You can't just arbitrarily say its not a right because it burdens someone else. Why doe burdening someone else prevent it from being a right?

Yes, but these don't help us resolve differences over rights, which extend frequently into areas of morality over which there is far less agreement.

Yes, it's not absurd to say that someone has a right to housing or healthcare. On the other hand, if one could gain a right simply by proclaiming it as a want or desire it would result in absurdity like if everyone were just to demand constant back massages.

Now, of course, if absurdity doesn't bother you then, well, more power to you, but I see it as boundary for moral discussion.

You can't just arbitrarily say its not a right because it burdens someone else. Why doe burdening someone else prevent it from being a right?

I noted an important distinction. If you choose not to accept it as meaningful then okay.

Another way you approach it is an appeal to fairness: Imagine we were on a passenger plane and that plane crashed into an island and all the passengers now had to rebuild society. Everyone is working and planning and maybe they've elected a leadership, but I just flat out refuse to contribute. I'm happy to take whatever food or clothing the tribe gathers, but I personally refuse to contribute anything despite being able-bodied and perfectly able.

Now I demand a house and a sufficient income from the tribe.

If everyone were to do this there would be no civilization.

Again, you can dig your heels in and demand that these rights exist but I mean God...

if one could gain a right simply by proclaiming it as a want or desire it would result in absurdity like if everyone were just to demand constant back massages. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not advocating such a thing. I'm asking how you are justifying your rejection of some of these claims.

I noted an important distinction. If you choose not to accept it as meaningful then okay. — BitconnectCarlos

No, you noted a distinction. You offered no justification at all to support a belief that it was "important".

If everyone were to do this there would be no civilization. — BitconnectCarlos

Yep. That's a reasonable line to draw. If everyone followed the same principle civilization would fail. So with a claim to a right to housing in a modern capitalist economy, how will civilization fail as a result of that right?

Isaac, what is your response to the parasite case that I presented earlier on our island civilization? Does he have a right to the community's continued support through housing and food?

I never meant this to be an argument about the merits of small government, just about what exactly people mean by that — Pfhorrest

Depends upon who you ask. There is no single accepted answer. It's a motto, a slogan... most often employed by people who cannot further explicate it.

Isaac, what is your response to the parasite case that I presented earlier on our island civilization? — BitconnectCarlos

As I said. I think the likely collapse of civilization is a reasonable ground to deny a right. We can't very well justify a claim to something which itself will cease to exist as a consequence of that claim, the would be somewhat contradictory.

There are, however, plenty enough houses. If everyone claimed a house, everyone would have a house. I don't see any evidence at all of immanent civilization collapse resulting from such a claim.

Earlier on in the thread you mentioned the right to sufficient income. If everyone is given a house and a sufficient income just as a matter of right then you've destroyed the incentive to work for a lot of people. Sure, civilization can survive with a few parasite but if everyone is incentivized to become one then the system collapses.

There are, however, plenty enough houses. If everyone claimed a house, everyone would have a house. I don't see any evidence at all of immanent civilization collapse resulting from such a claim.

Are we talking about a dorm or an actual house? How much house do people have a right to?

There are more unoccupied houses than homeless people in the US.

Also, if the principle were that everyone were entitled to an equal-ish share of what is available, and too many people stopped producing as a consequence of that, then how much is available to be shared would go down, as would the size of an equal share of that, which would then incentivize people to work more again.

That would also be in line with the Lockean proviso that people are free to appropriate so long as there’s enough and as good left for others. If there’s not enough and as good...

There are more unoccupied houses than homeless people in the US.

Ok, but who owns these homes? You can't give homeless people a home that someone has just left for a few months to go on vacation. It's still theirs.

Also, if the principle were that everyone were entitled to an equal-ish share of what is available, and too many people stopped producing as a consequence of that, then how much is available to be shared would go down, as would the size of an equal share of that, which would then incentivize people to work more again.

We're getting way ahead of ourselves here: When you say entitled to an equal-ish share are you talking about land appropriation? If I'm imaging this correctly this seems to be saying we're just fleecing millionaires and billionaires. Am I getting you right or no?

If everyone is given a house and a sufficient income just as a matter of right then you've destroyed the incentive to work for a lot of people. — BitconnectCarlos

Woah, you've jumped from a simple example with only one variable to this massive assumption in an extremely complex multi-variate environment. What evidence are you using to support the idea that people will not be incentivised to work if they're given sufficient income? And how on earth did anyone construct the control group to eliminate all other potential variables?

If we did somehow learn that people weren't incentivised to work when given sufficient income, we could link that income to work. It still could be a right (even though you'd have to work for it), like a right to employment.

But these are taking extremes. The right to clean air, clean water, good working conditions, freedom from abuse, a decent wage, freedom from discrimination, an education. None of these things have even the slightest evidence that they'll end civilisation, so why shouldn't we allow them as claims?

To go back to basics, what concerns me is that someone needs to build those homes, manage those homes, HVAC.... and they don't have a choice in it. This is fundamentally different than just not killing someone. If someone has a right to a home that home must be built. Similarly, for upkeep, maintenance workers basically become slaves... the task must be done and ideally done as soon as possible. Additionally I asked you earlier how much home these people are entitled to.... a dorm-style room with the essentials or the average house which costs around $225k in the US? Or something more expensive for all the troubles these people have been to? A dormitory style home runs into difficulty when you consider that many of the homeless are drug users and not mentally stable so they would be difficult neighbors. Unsupervised, these places probably turn into drug dens. Supervised - we have to turn people away. The problems balloon if we're now going to provide every homeless person with their own average American house.

But these are taking extremes. The right to clean air, clean water, good working conditions, freedom from abuse, a decent wage, freedom from discrimination, an education. None of these things have even the slightest evidence that they'll end civilisation, so why shouldn't we allow them as claims?

We're bouncing around too much here. You bring up a lotttt of issues here which each could warrant their own debate.

I'd just like to stick to the topic. We were talking about housing and "sufficient wage."

Ok, but who owns these homes? You can't give homeless people a home that someone has just left for a few months to go on vacation. It's still theirs. — BitconnectCarlos

That statistic is about continuously unoccupied homes, not just people on vacation. And I’m actually not for just redistributing homes like that, but my point is that at this time there not being enough homes to go around isn’t a problem. There are more than enough homes to go around, if only their ownership were somehow distributed differently.

We're getting way ahead of ourselves here: When you say entitled to an equal-ish share are you talking about land appropriation? If I'm imaging this correctly this seems to be saying we're just fleecing millionaires and billionaires. Am I getting you right or no? — BitconnectCarlos

“Fleecing” suggests a that they would be left with nothing. I’m actually not advocating forced redistribution (just talking about the consequences of hypothetical rules), but even if I were, taking a lot from people who have unfathomably more than that still left is not “fleecing”.

but my point is that at this time there not being enough homes to go around isn’t a problem. There are more than enough homes to go around, if only their ownership were somehow distributed differently.

Yeah, the issue is complicated. I do feel bad for the homeless. Ultimately, though, if a home belongs to someone then the homeless can't just have free-range on it. We also need to keep in mind that drug addiction and mental health issues are rife among the homeless and shelters will turn people away who aren't clean or safe to be around. It's just a very tough issue. Would you be willing to let the homeless into your home? Would you trust them when you're not around?

What do you think makes a government “small” rather than “big”? — Pfhorrest

Stakeholder owned and/or controlled public institutions & private businesses, where the latter is well-regulated and accountable to the former, rather than shareholder owned and/or controlled public institutions & private businesses, where the latter is subsidized, bailed-out and effectively unaccountable to the former. No monopolistic, or cartel-like, Big Businesses without a subsidizing & hegemonic Big Guv'mint (re: neoliberal, national security, corporate-welfare, state capitalism). In other words, democratize the economy in order reduce the size of the corporatist 'merely formal democratic' state.

what concerns me is that someone needs to build those homes, manage those homes, HVAC.... and they don't have a choice in it. — BitconnectCarlos

Why don't they have a choice in it? Where did I suggest we get slave labour to build houses?

If someone has a right to a home that home must be built. — BitconnectCarlos

Nope. Someone could have a qualified right to housing. A right to a house, presuming there's one available. A right to a house, presuming there's enough GDP to build them. A right to a house, no greater of lesser than the average. There's all sorts of qualifications we can put on rights without abandoning them.

We're bouncing around too much here. You bring up a lotttt of issues here which each could warrant their own debate.

I'd just like to stick to the topic. — BitconnectCarlos

No, the topic is 'small government'. You were advocating small government on the grounds that the government need not supply the things some people were claiming to be 'rights'. The very substance of my argument against that is that you cannot justify that position at all. One of the reasons you can't is because the issues are multi-variate and complex, you cannot simply dismiss these claims on the basis of a simple philosophical position, you're now having to demonstrate that each claim is unsustainable on its own merits. If well-educated expert economists don't even agree whether these things are sustainable or not, then we're not going to resolve the matter by putting forth what we 'reckon' might be the case.

The point is that you've agreed these claims are not denied the status of 'rights' on some categorical philosophical basis. We agreed that harm to society resulting from satisfying these claims is the only reason to dismiss them. Seeing as the harm to society these claims may cause is still a moot point among experts, that should be the end of it.

Giving everyone what they need to live a decent life (at the expense of those who have more than they need) would be a nice thing. Letting people starve on the streets (so that others can afford a second yacht) is not a nice thing. So if the jury is still out on whether it would cause any long-term harm to secure everyone a decent life (and it definitely is), then anyone still choosing to not even try is just either selfish, dogmatic or hasn't thought it through properly.

Hang on, just now it was nothing more than a list of wants. Now there's reasoning? Reasoning which can be good or bad too?

OK. Apart from your own personal preference, what is your 'reasoning' why a government should protect your property?

A right to healthcare is a desire for healthcare. I don’t disagree with your want, just your reasoning for calling them a right. No need to twist around what I say.

A government should protect my property simply because I pay it to do so. If I don’t wish to pay I should defend it myself or perhaps with the help of my neighbors and community.

A right to healthcare is a desire for healthcare. I don’t disagree with your want, just your reasoning for calling them a right. No need to twist around what I say. — NOS4A2

I'm not twisting anything. You called rights 'wants'. You never mentioned that some had 'reasons' to be included as rights while others didn't. So what are the criteria for something to be a 'right' that you think say, free speech, qualifies for but healthcare (where its available) does not?

A government should protect my property simply because I pay it to do so. — NOS4A2

So? The same could be said of healthcare.

Are there any real world examples of small governments?