So there was this claim:
Never mind Joshua’s response for the moment. Consider the original claim.
The inherent problem is that implicit Clara Sorrenti’s claims is that a “right” is something that someone (usually “the government”) must provide for you. That is arrant nonsense.
Something being a right simply means that no one can legitimately forcibly take it from you. It does not mean that you can force others, under threat of violence (which is what government is), to provide it for you.
Some things might be justifiable to have government use its license to use force to do/provide, but not because they’re “rights”. I have argued before that some small level of government is actually necessary if ones goal is to maximize liberty.
But to provide these things? No. Let’s put it another way.
Requiring “government” to provide these things mean you are willing to use force (for that is what government is–the license to use force to accomplish certain ends) to make other people provide them to you. You are forcing other people to labor for you, not in exchange for mutually agreed remuneration but simply to provide what you want with threat of violence for refusal.
There is a term for that. So:
If you believe that other people should be forced to provide you with housing, you are a would be slave owner and evil.
If you believe that other people should be forced to provide you with health care, you are a would be slave owner and evil.
If you believe that other people should be forced to provide you with education, you are a would be slave owner and evil.
Don’t be evil.