I'm not who you're arguing with, but I'd also take the opposite side of that argument.
Your analogy does seem workable, though - let's examine:
> If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them.
Yes! 100% agree. They probably have a right to ask for food in countries that protect free speech, but they have no right to have requests fulfilled.
> If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face,
Sounds great. You have the right to say no. You did say no basically, but you did make a counteroffer. (This is arguably also especially true due to free speech, though that's unrelated to our points.) Your exact counteroffer doesn't seem relevant to me, it could also just be that you'll give it for $50, or $1,000,000 and nothing changes.
He thinks it's a bad offer and gets none of your food.
> "nothing wrong has happened"?
I do think nothing wrong has happened! Is it only because you used food, which a necessity, that you think it's wrong? What if it's a PS5? Would this be ok if the asker is seeking a free PS5? Visiting a foreign country is much more like a PS5 than it is a potato.
> If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the face a precondition of giving them food", does that create a "right to food"? Of course not.
That is the worst policy I could imagine since it's vague and undefined. Can one ask for a kick to the groin? An elbow to the funny bone? If you did the policymaker's job correctly you'd need to make the policy like "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s" -- that exactly creates a right to food/PS5s. Or you could make the policy "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s but one may require compensation, which may only be less than $50 in US Currency. Compensation in the form of a service or a trade may not be required."
That creates a right to pay $50 or less for food/PS5s.
tempfile
yesterday at 9:09 PM
> That is the worst policy I could imagine since it's vague and undefined.
Every ethical problem is vague and undefined. If you can't find an infinitely precise specification of the ethical problem, that doesn't make it invalid.
However, even at the level of policy, your analysis does not go through. It is routine and unproblematic for laws to exist that prohibit "you can't enter this bar if you're black" or "I won't hire you because you're a woman". It simply does not follow that employers are "forced to hire people". They are forced to apply consistent, legitimate rules when hiring people. Whether a rule is consistent and legitimate is usually decided by a judge. This is not an unusual thing.
P.S. are you writing this with an LLM? If you aren't, I'm sorry. But it really sounds like you are. If you are, please stop.
Sorry, I don't know any LLMs that would argue politics without using their own heavy bias and getting caught up in trying to not harm people, I'm afraid you just hate my writing style. Maybe you don't like the inline quotes? idk. Also I can't imagine wasting the effort to have a bot debate people online if I don't care enough to do it myself.
The whole reason we have those types of employment and public accommodation laws is a special case though. In terms of employment, we prefer this to a world where black people or women can't get jobs, because jobs are necessary, or can't enter half the establishments because people witnessed that Jim Crow was a shitty and shameful situation. And I do stipulate that that doesn't mean the same as "all women have the right to a job at my company upon demand."
But why don't we also have laws criminalizing things like refusing to be friends with $SKIN_COLOR people? I think it's because it's only in those specific realms like employment and public accommodation where we have created rights. The right to shop in a place that is open to the general public is a right Black people got from a law. And the right of people to be considered for a job without regard to their membership in certain protected classes is something the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 created. There is no right of foreigners without a green card to enter in the first place - CBP can completely legally say no to anyone, so no 'counteroffer' of conditional admittance could be inappropriate. The only exception I can think of is misconduct of the officer, e.g. 'I'll admit you if you give me $10,000' or a more unsavory favor. But with that already being illegal, I don't think it is too relevant here.
zahlman
yesterday at 10:26 PM
> But why don't we also have laws criminalizing things like refusing to be friends with $SKIN_COLOR people? I think it's because it's only in those specific realms like employment and public accommodation where we have created rights.
Not just that, at least in my understanding of American political theory. It's because of the existing right to freedom of association. If it is criminal to refuse association, that association becomes compulsory, and thus not free.