What are basic human rights?

[westwall]

Interesting addendum to discussion.

'The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation' - 'When Defending Liberty, Less Is More'

Jacob Mchangama and Guglielmo Verdirame

"But there is also a darker agenda behind the expansion of human rights law. Put simply, illiberal states have sought to stretch human rights law to give themselves room to hide behind it. They have even used it to mount political attacks against liberal states. A critical look at the UN’s often dysfunctional HRC is illustrative. Although it cannot adopt treaties or pass binding resolutions, the HRC is an important forum for developing new human rights standards and shaping the international human rights discourse. Judged by respect for human rights, its membership covers a wide spectrum, from democracies to tyrannies.

States ranked “free” in Freedom House’s index tend to take a robust approach to human rights centered on what are called first-generation rights, such as free speech and freedom from torture. Although these countries are not necessarily opposed to what are called second-generation rights, which include quality of life issues such as housing and health, they are frequently skeptical about what are referred to as third-generation rights. This latter category encompasses ill-defined rights that protect collective rather than individual interests and includes the right to development, the right to international solidarity, and the right to peace."

The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation | Foreign Affairs

Only collectivist authoritarians would be concerned about the extension of civil rights to individuals. Makes them harder to control when they KNOW they have rights.

 

[dilloduck]

Interesting addendum to discussion.

'The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation' - 'When Defending Liberty, Less Is More'

Jacob Mchangama and Guglielmo Verdirame

"But there is also a darker agenda behind the expansion of human rights law. Put simply, illiberal states have sought to stretch human rights law to give themselves room to hide behind it. They have even used it to mount political attacks against liberal states. A critical look at the UN’s often dysfunctional HRC is illustrative. Although it cannot adopt treaties or pass binding resolutions, the HRC is an important forum for developing new human rights standards and shaping the international human rights discourse. Judged by respect for human rights, its membership covers a wide spectrum, from democracies to tyrannies.

States ranked “free” in Freedom House’s index tend to take a robust approach to human rights centered on what are called first-generation rights, such as free speech and freedom from torture. Although these countries are not necessarily opposed to what are called second-generation rights, which include quality of life issues such as housing and health, they are frequently skeptical about what are referred to as third-generation rights. This latter category encompasses ill-defined rights that protect collective rather than individual interests and includes the right to development, the right to international solidarity, and the right to peace."

The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation | Foreign Affairs

Only collectivist authoritarians would be concerned about the extension of civil rights to individuals. Makes them harder to control when they KNOW they have rights.

Depends. If all individuals actually believe that they have rights they spend all of their time fighting each other over them.

 

[dblack]

Interesting addendum to discussion.

'The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation' - 'When Defending Liberty, Less Is More'

Jacob Mchangama and Guglielmo Verdirame

"But there is also a darker agenda behind the expansion of human rights law. Put simply, illiberal states have sought to stretch human rights law to give themselves room to hide behind it. They have even used it to mount political attacks against liberal states. A critical look at the UN’s often dysfunctional HRC is illustrative. Although it cannot adopt treaties or pass binding resolutions, the HRC is an important forum for developing new human rights standards and shaping the international human rights discourse. Judged by respect for human rights, its membership covers a wide spectrum, from democracies to tyrannies.

States ranked “free” in Freedom House’s index tend to take a robust approach to human rights centered on what are called first-generation rights, such as free speech and freedom from torture. Although these countries are not necessarily opposed to what are called second-generation rights, which include quality of life issues such as housing and health, they are frequently skeptical about what are referred to as third-generation rights. This latter category encompasses ill-defined rights that protect collective rather than individual interests and includes the right to development, the right to international solidarity, and the right to peace."

The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation | Foreign Affairs

Only collectivist authoritarians would be concerned about the extension of civil rights to individuals. Makes them harder to control when they KNOW they have rights.

Depends. If all individuals actually believe that they have rights they spend all of their time fighting each other over them.

I have to say, your point of view is perplexing. I don't know if I disagree with it or not, because I can't even parse what you're getting at. You seem to be trying to dismiss the idea of political rights, but it's not clear on what grounds, or what your intent is. Why is it important, in your view, to give up on the idea of rights? What will it gain us?

 

[dilloduck]

Only collectivist authoritarians would be concerned about the extension of civil rights to individuals. Makes them harder to control when they KNOW they have rights.

Depends. If all individuals actually believe that they have rights they spend all of their time fighting each other over them.

I have to say, your point of view is perplexing. I don't know if I disagree with it or not, because I can't even parse what you're getting at. You seem to be trying to dismiss the idea of political rights, but it's not clear on what grounds, or what your intent is. Why is it important, in your view, to give up on the idea of rights? What will it gain us?

Political Rights ? I'm not even sure what a political right is but I can guarantee you that God or nature didn't come up with that idea. I thought this was about basic human rights.

 

[dblack]

Depends. If all individuals actually believe that they have rights they spend all of their time fighting each other over them.

I have to say, your point of view is perplexing. I don't know if I disagree with it or not, because I can't even parse what you're getting at. You seem to be trying to dismiss the idea of political rights, but it's not clear on what grounds, or what your intent is. Why is it important, in your view, to give up on the idea of rights? What will it gain us?

Political Rights ? I'm not even sure what a political right is but I can guarantee you that God or nature didn't come up with that idea. I thought this was about basic human rights.

Ok, so you're just hung up on the whole origin thing? How does that have any bearing on whether rights are important, or what rights government should protect?

edit: fwiw, a political right is a freedom we protect via government.

 

[dilloduck]

I have to say, your point of view is perplexing. I don't know if I disagree with it or not, because I can't even parse what you're getting at. You seem to be trying to dismiss the idea of political rights, but it's not clear on what grounds, or what your intent is. Why is it important, in your view, to give up on the idea of rights? What will it gain us?

Political Rights ? I'm not even sure what a political right is but I can guarantee you that God or nature didn't come up with that idea. I thought this was about basic human rights.

Ok, so you're just hung up on the whole origin thing? How does that have any bearing on whether rights are important, or what rights government should protect?

I'm hung up on reality. Any right that is claimed is an invention of man. No one can honestly claim that we are entitled to anything. If we keep that perspective as we go forward to formulate some guidelines for co existing then we don't go off all half cocked with drama.
Humans decide priorities and make rules to achieve them. Why do we need justification ( which is essentially what rights are ) for out actions. We do what we please until someone comes along and stops us. Today that's usually comes in the form of a government representative. Why would we ask the same people who restrict our "rights" to " protect them ?

 

[dblack]

Political Rights ? I'm not even sure what a political right is but I can guarantee you that God or nature didn't come up with that idea. I thought this was about basic human rights.

Ok, so you're just hung up on the whole origin thing? How does that have any bearing on whether rights are important, or what rights government should protect?

I'm hung up on reality. Any right that is claimed is an invention of man. No one can honestly claim that we are entitled to anything. If we keep that perspective as we go forward to formulate some guidelines for co existing then we don't go off all half cocked with drama.
Humans decide priorities and make rules to achieve them. Why do we need justification ( which is essentially what rights are ) for out actions. We do what we please until someone comes along and stops us. Today that's usually comes in the form of a government representative. Why would we ask the same people who restrict our "rights" to " protect them ?

Because the purpose of rights is two fold. It's a definition of a fundamental purpose of government, but it's also a limitation on the power of that government. The idea of rights is a stipulation on the concept of sovereignty. We grant government the power to protect us - and to use force to do so - but we limited the scope of that power. We set aside certain freedoms that are non-negotiable and not up to the temporal will of the state. Political rights are more fundamental than laws and harder to change by design.

So, how would things be better, in your view, if we dispensed with the idea of rights altogether?

 

[midcan5]

A bit of the real world in this discussion of rights.

"Queer critiques of marriage have, in the last two decades, become a part of a well-known political theory critique of rights. According to this critique, rights privatize; rights individualize; rights normalize. Therefore, they undo much of what these theorists regard as most promising about political action—its collective moments, its way of creating public spaces and events, its way of bringing disagreement to the level of perception—at the very moment that the demands for rights succeed. Perhaps no critic of rights has made this point, regarding gay marriage in particular, so succinctly as Michael Warner. His book The Trouble with Normal shines klieg lights on the conservative impulses and entailments of the fight for same-sex marriage. With critiques like his in mind, many political theorists have come to regard struggles for rights, rather than their achievement, as the setting for genuinely political—that is, collective, contested, and powerful—events."

The Contemporary Condition: Gay Love Conquers All

 

[dilloduck]

A bit of the real world in this discussion of rights.

"Queer critiques of marriage have, in the last two decades, become a part of a well-known political theory critique of rights. According to this critique, rights privatize; rights individualize; rights normalize. Therefore, they undo much of what these theorists regard as most promising about political action—its collective moments, its way of creating public spaces and events, its way of bringing disagreement to the level of perception—at the very moment that the demands for rights succeed. Perhaps no critic of rights has made this point, regarding gay marriage in particular, so succinctly as Michael Warner. His book The Trouble with Normal shines klieg lights on the conservative impulses and entailments of the fight for same-sex marriage. With critiques like his in mind, many political theorists have come to regard struggles for rights, rather than their achievement, as the setting for genuinely political—that is, collective, contested, and powerful—events."

The Contemporary Condition: Gay Love Conquers All

This is more about rights used as a political punch than it is about any basic rights.

 

[dblack]

"According to this critique, rights privatize; rights individualize; rights normalize. Therefore, they undo much of what these theorists regard as most promising about political action—its collective moments, its way of creating public spaces and events, its way of bringing disagreement to the level of perception—at the very moment that the demands for rights succeed." ...

This is very insightful, and fascinating as a confessional explaining modern liberal antipathy toward the core concept of rights. Rights take our freedom out of the realm of government and make it a personal, individual claim, thus robbing statists of much of their power (as realized through 'collective moments').

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A bit of the real world in this discussion of rights.

"Queer critiques of marriage have, in the last two decades, become a part of a well-known political theory critique of rights. According to this critique, rights privatize; rights individualize; rights normalize. Therefore, they undo much of what these theorists regard as most promising about political action—its collective moments, its way of creating public spaces and events, its way of bringing disagreement to the level of perception—at the very moment that the demands for rights succeed. Perhaps no critic of rights has made this point, regarding gay marriage in particular, so succinctly as Michael Warner. His book The Trouble with Normal shines klieg lights on the conservative impulses and entailments of the fight for same-sex marriage. With critiques like his in mind, many political theorists have come to regard struggles for rights, rather than their achievement, as the setting for genuinely political—that is, collective, contested, and powerful—events."

The Contemporary Condition: Gay Love Conquers All

When are people going to learn the difference human rights and civil rights?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Political Rights ? I'm not even sure what a political right is but I can guarantee you that God or nature didn't come up with that idea. I thought this was about basic human rights.

Ok, so you're just hung up on the whole origin thing? How does that have any bearing on whether rights are important, or what rights government should protect?

I'm hung up on reality. Any right that is claimed is an invention of man. No one can honestly claim that we are entitled to anything. If we keep that perspective as we go forward to formulate some guidelines for co existing then we don't go off all half cocked with drama.
Humans decide priorities and make rules to achieve them. Why do we need justification ( which is essentially what rights are ) for out actions. We do what we please until someone comes along and stops us. Today that's usually comes in the form of a government representative. Why would we ask the same people who restrict our "rights" to " protect them ?

The above two sentences are self-contradictory.
The moment you acknowledge that there is ANY need for "guidelines for co-exsisting," you necessarily have to entitle everyone (or at least some groups of people) to something.