Are Positive Rights Materialistic?

Economics Political Theory
1

To some this concept may seem far-fetched, but when applied positive rights, besides being coercive, also seems materialistic. Even communist theory seems materialistic to me. We’ve all heard “property is theft”, but I believe it’s more so that someone else’s property, or private property, is theft. Why? Either I or someone else does not have ownership of it, so to take care of the situation everyone must have it.

A few days ago I was talking to someone who was a communist, and we got on the topic of co-op’s, and I had an example such as, “If I own a hardware store, and I hire someone to be a cashier, should they get half the shares of the business”, and his reply was “Yes”. Does this not seem greedy and materialistic?

A lot of what I read regarding material ownership (from a Marxist/communist view) seems to be materialistic, and yet they proclaim the people who support capitalism and private property rights are the one’s who are greedy and materialistic, but they focus more on sharing by force and collective control rather than simple private ownership, and once something is created, even those who took no part in it’s creation now become owners.

It seems rather odd to me that people would make such a fuss over someone else’s property whether it be their personal possessions or a business, and what they do with it (regardless if the contracts between various individuals are voluntary).

Such things as food, shelter, and clothing are seen as rights by some people, in which they are material possessions, and now healthcare, health insurance, and in the future whatever technological advancements we make will be seen as rights.

Has anyone else felt the same way about this?

2

I am not sure what you mean by materialistic.

That being said, I think that you can find materialistic people in all groups. I really don’t think there is anything wrong with being materialistic as long as one is honest about it.

Socialists for sure though, are not above economic concerns, as the crux of socialism is about how society should deal with those concerns. I think any Political-Economic theory could be called materialistic because of its concerns with the nature of who is getting money and why. Ultimately its judgments will make some people richer and some poorer if practiced.

3

Materialistic in the sense that a lot of it’s base (whether socialist or not) can be that others should or need to have certain material goods, and they should be provided for them by coercion if necessary.

On socialism; that the owners of production exploit the one’s who work for them, and there’s a hate towards the owner’s of production, so to make it equal everyone will have a share or ownership in production (by coercion).

Negative rights pertain to liberty from coercion and Statism, while positive rights pertain to liberty provided that it is obtained by some legislation or force.

4

I see what you are saying. You are saying that positive rights are obsessed with material goods being obtained, and negative rights involve abstractions like liberty. I agree.

5

Y’know, Proudhon said “property is freedom”, too. Positive rights and negative rights are materialistic.

One states, “one should have”, the other “one should be allowed to have”. The difference, as far as one being more materialistically biased than the other, is pretty negligible.

6

Well Bert how often do you hear them bellyache about wealth inequalities? x% of the population controls x% of the wealth.

I recognize that there are people who have obtained their wealth unethically, in fact I would almost be willing to say that our banking/financial sector is unethical per se for being the benefactor of massive wealth siphoning courtesy of the federal reserve.

But wealth isn’t unjust per se it is definitely possible to get wealthy through ethical means.

But let me ask you this: How much importance must you place on material wealth to make it your metric of justice?

I’m working on something right now in my free time about my concept of justice here’s a little preview

My concept of liberty is freedom from injustice. My market-anarchist anti-statist world-view comes from two ideas: first that laws ought to be applied consistently to everyone and second that injustice ought not be sanctioned.

First what does injustice mean? Justice is difficult to define but when I think of justice I think of someone who was the victim of a crime being given satisfactory restitution and the violator being given adequate punishment. When this happens the victim then has a feeling of justice. So justice is a state of mind where the victim feels he or she has triumphed over the victimizer. So my concept of injustice is an unethical act not being brought to justice.

Market anarchy is a position that calls for the consistent abolition of sanctioned positive injustice. Another way of saying this is market anarchy is a position of consistent negative liberty. So the vast majority believe in some degree of negative liberty. But some hold a position of positive liberty. Which can be stated as a position that calls for the amelioration of negative injustice. Negative injustice can be described as a claim that inaction is unjust. This position states that certain individuals have a duty to perform certain actions for other individuals.