What’s not possible in ungoverned society is gathering more resources than you can personally protect.
I don't know that that is true or really what it's supposed to mean, so I'm going to challenge it.
> It only gains its legitimacy when it’s preferable to an ungoverned society and other achievable alternatives.
I have a feeling there's a lot of suppositions or beliefs one must have prior to making statements like these that I don't share.
> it’s rather trivial to build yourself a decent shelter and gather food (if you’re able-bodied).
Is it? I've watched a few episodes of "Alone" on Netflix and it sure doesn't look easy to me. Some seasons seem to devolve into "fattest man wins" because he starves last.
> What’s not possible in ungoverned society is gathering more resources than you can personally protect.
Why is that true? Could I not ask others to help me protect these resources? I don't need a government to do that.
Do you agree that you can choose to not follow the law? Would you also agree that if enough people chose to not follow the law, government would cease to exist?
> Is it? I've watched a few episodes of "Alone" on Netflix and it sure doesn't look easy to me. Some seasons seem to devolve into "fattest man wins" because he starves last.
Natural law doesn't really preclude you from cooperating, unlike reality shows. Also, in the natural world you generally migrate to places where resources are not scarce.
> Why is that true? Could I not ask others to help me protect these resources? I don't need a government to do that.
Why would they protect these resources rather than take them? Perhaps if you knew them personally and rewarded them generously, they'd do it, but then I'd say you're personally involved in protecting them. That doesn't scale to the extremes we have right now. There are no billionaire equivalents without government violence.
Not only can you do not follow a law, but people in power do it successfully today. Immigration law is the obvious example. Those in power flout the law so blatantly that the law might as well not exist. Deportation virtually doesn't happen anymore. When there are no consequences for disobeying a law, it is the same as if the law didn't exist.
> Would you also agree that if enough people chose to not follow the law, government would cease to exist?
I think it might be better to word this as "enough people choose to rebel against their government." When that happens, there is usually some fighting that goes on and the government either wins or gets replaced. There is never a point with no government, however. The reason for this is because just about every government, no matter how tyrannical, is still preferable to anarchy.
> Natural law doesn't really preclude you from cooperating, unlike reality shows
If you think it's that much easier to feed yourself as a group via hunting and gathering, then I don't know what else to say: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/hunter-gat...
> Why would they protect these resources rather than take them?
Probably for cooperative reasons! It doesn't matter, though. These are hypothetical situations that I don't think there is much value in considering. I'm totally in the "anarchy is so bad I'd prefer tyranny to it" camp.
That's exactly what it means, though...
No. I don't think so. As an example: A starving person does not have an inherent right to food. On the other hand, if someone has enough to feed his own self, family and then some, one can argue he has a responsibility to assist others who do not have enough.
I do not see one to be the same as the other. Positive rights force other people to give you something. Responsibilities, on the other hand, direct you to give to others. Giving is not the same as taking.
Responsibilities are also hierarchical and some take precedence over others, and it is up to the person's discretion to decide how and when to fulfill them. Rights, on the other hand, are generally not seen as hierarchical but all-or-nothing. From https://www.unfpa.org/resources/human-rights-principles: "Consequently, all human rights have equal status, and cannot be positioned in a hierarchical order. Denial of one right invariably impedes enjoyment of other rights. Thus, the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living cannot be compromised at the expense of other rights, such as the right to health or the right to education."
I can say I probably agree with nothing from the above link, but it at least provides evidence that people do not view positive rights as either hierarchical or at the discretion of the giver.
I lastly think it can't be undervalued that giving viewed as a responsibility is more likely to inspire gratitude in the receiver, whereas taking viewed as a right tends to inculcate a demanding and ungrateful spirit in the taker.
What kind of psychotic reasoning is this? Of course people have an inherent right to food.
I'm not a fan of positive rights either - when it comes to code (I avoid GPL stuff whenever possible). But we aren't all on this planet together so we can deny others food, that's just crazy.
You surely don't have a right to food. You go out and get it yourself! I, on the other hand, have a moral responsibility to share my extra food with those who lack. I base my morality on my belief in God and what he expects of me. I am curious what you base your morality off of.
> But we aren't all on this planet together so we can deny others food
Speaking of psychotic, How did "I have a responsibility for the poor and needy" get converted in your head to "I am on this planet so I can deny food to others"?
People absolutely have a right to food. A positive right, no less, that can't be denied.
People used to get it from "the commons" - since we've enclosed them all to shift to our current modes of...well, everything, we have to replace what people would have gotten from the commons previously and provide it free of charge, as a right to things on this earth that people would have had.
Like food. Currently what we do is burn the excess to keep the prices up. We've long since been able to make the food free; we don't and it is immoral (like a good number of our social constructs, imo).
No, no religion on my end. I just think it's obvious people have a right to food, like they have a right to clean air, water and shelter.
I am definitely not surprised. Atheists seem to be the loudest about proclaiming positive rights. And, yet, it is within atheist governments where people are least likely to experience these "rights", or even the right to life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
That is no accident.
> I just think it's obvious people have a right to food, like they have a right to clean air, water and shelter.
That's neat. I can't help but notice you declined to justify this belief. And that's part of the problem. Secular humanism has no foundation. Instead, it relies on the foundations Christianity built. As that erodes, so too will human flourishing in general!
>>> "You're gonna want something that other people make or do or do to you. If they're not your parents or lovers or partners, you better have something to give in exchange for that thing you want. Otherwise, why would they give it to you ? Making something others want is work."
With respect to my presumption; yes, I'm responding to the status quo, my point may not be universally true but it also is in no way hypothetical.
You didn't actually disprove that life requires work. Quite the opposite. You instead seem to be saying that society is structured in such a way that some people can live off the fruits of the labor of others. No one has access to any resources without someone having done work to create/acquire those resources.
> IMO, expecting something for nothing is somewhat immoral
I can definitely agree on this, though. I am generally against the notion of "positive rights". I have yet to see a good argument for why any should exist universally. I do believe in what I think is a related concept of responsibilities. Parents, for instance, are responsible for the well-being of their own children. We can argue that society is responsible for its own poor and needy as well, but that is not the same as saying those people have a particular right to anything or that society can best fulfill its responsibilities through government programs like wealth redistribution or UBI.