What are basic human rights?

[Wonky Pundit]

The most fundamental of all of them: the right to be left alone. Entitlements, by definition, require the service of others. Government can't guarantee an entitlement without forcing someone to provide it.

Government can always pay someone to provide the entitlement, which doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "forcing" them.

Do they use magic money for that, or do they get it the normal way, taking it by force from people?

You're talking past the point. Governments can't exist without "forcing" people to do things, including pay taxes. Entitlements have nothing to do with that fact.

 

[dblack]

Government can always pay someone to provide the entitlement, which doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "forcing" them.

Do they use magic money for that, or do they get it the normal way, taking it by force from people?

You're talking past the point. Governments can't exist without "forcing" people to do things, including pay taxes. Entitlements have nothing to do with that fact.

The "point" is discerning under what circumstances we sanction government to coerce people. Most everyone agrees that government should protect our rights.

Advocates of the welfare state have long sought to expand the definition off rights to include entitlements. Rather than argue honestly for a Constitutional expansion of the role of government, they pursue change by playing games with language.

 

[dilloduck]

Do they use magic money for that, or do they get it the normal way, taking it by force from people?

You're talking past the point. Governments can't exist without "forcing" people to do things, including pay taxes. Entitlements have nothing to do with that fact.

The "point" is discerning under what circumstances we sanction government to coerce people. Most everyone agrees that government should protect our rights.

Advocates of the welfare state have long sought to expand the definition off rights to include entitlements. Rather than argue honestly for a Constitutional expansion of the role of government, they pursue change by playing games with language.

and the language starts with the word "rights". It as if the world owes them something for just existing. I for one don't trust the government to protect anything for me. If they wanna help so be it but I'll cover my own 6 thank you very much

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Do they use magic money for that, or do they get it the normal way, taking it by force from people?

You're talking past the point. Governments can't exist without "forcing" people to do things, including pay taxes. Entitlements have nothing to do with that fact.

The "point" is discerning under what circumstances we sanction government to coerce people. Most everyone agrees that government should protect our rights.

Advocates of the welfare state have long sought to expand the definition off rights to include entitlements. Rather than argue honestly for a Constitutional expansion of the role of government, they pursue change by playing games with language.

Coercion isn't the "point" at all, at least not where entitlements are concerned.

Of course, in any discussion of rights per se, some degree of coercion is required because having the absolute right to do something tends to infringe on the rights of others. (However, your argument about Constitutional expansion is also moot, because nothing in the Constitution proscribes entitlements that the government pays for. Nor is this thread meant to discuss any particular nation or its laws.)

 

[dilloduck]

You're talking past the point. Governments can't exist without "forcing" people to do things, including pay taxes. Entitlements have nothing to do with that fact.

The "point" is discerning under what circumstances we sanction government to coerce people. Most everyone agrees that government should protect our rights.

Advocates of the welfare state have long sought to expand the definition off rights to include entitlements. Rather than argue honestly for a Constitutional expansion of the role of government, they pursue change by playing games with language.

Coercion isn't the "point" at all, at least not where entitlements are concerned.

Of course, in any discussion of rights per se, some degree of coercion is required because having the absolute right to do something tends to infringe on the rights of others. (However, your argument about Constitutional expansion is also moot, because nothing in the Constitution proscribes entitlements that the government pays for. Nor is this thread meant to discuss any particular nation or its laws.)

Is there something forbidding us from infringing on the so called "rights" of others ?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

The "point" is discerning under what circumstances we sanction government to coerce people. Most everyone agrees that government should protect our rights.

Advocates of the welfare state have long sought to expand the definition off rights to include entitlements. Rather than argue honestly for a Constitutional expansion of the role of government, they pursue change by playing games with language.

Coercion isn't the "point" at all, at least not where entitlements are concerned.

Of course, in any discussion of rights per se, some degree of coercion is required because having the absolute right to do something tends to infringe on the rights of others. (However, your argument about Constitutional expansion is also moot, because nothing in the Constitution proscribes entitlements that the government pays for. Nor is this thread meant to discuss any particular nation or its laws.)

Is there something forbidding us from infringing on the so called "rights" of others ?

Most societies make you suffer negative consequences for such infringement.

 

[dblack]

The "point" is discerning under what circumstances we sanction government to coerce people. Most everyone agrees that government should protect our rights.

Advocates of the welfare state have long sought to expand the definition off rights to include entitlements. Rather than argue honestly for a Constitutional expansion of the role of government, they pursue change by playing games with language.

Coercion isn't the "point" at all, at least not where entitlements are concerned.

Of course, in any discussion of rights per se, some degree of coercion is required because having the absolute right to do something tends to infringe on the rights of others. (However, your argument about Constitutional expansion is also moot, because nothing in the Constitution proscribes entitlements that the government pays for. Nor is this thread meant to discuss any particular nation or its laws.)

Is there something forbidding us from infringing on the so called "rights" of others ?

Well, that's the point of creating government. To prevent that. As you've pointed out, it will never be 100%, but it beats going around fully armed always looking over your back.

 

[dilloduck]

Coercion isn't the "point" at all, at least not where entitlements are concerned.

Of course, in any discussion of rights per se, some degree of coercion is required because having the absolute right to do something tends to infringe on the rights of others. (However, your argument about Constitutional expansion is also moot, because nothing in the Constitution proscribes entitlements that the government pays for. Nor is this thread meant to discuss any particular nation or its laws.)

Is there something forbidding us from infringing on the so called "rights" of others ?

Well, that's the point of creating government. To prevent that. As you've pointed out, it will never be 100%, but it beats going around fully armed always looking over your back.

so these "right" become necessary in order to stop the dominants from winning ?

 

[dblack]

Is there something forbidding us from infringing on the so called "rights" of others ?

Well, that's the point of creating government. To prevent that. As you've pointed out, it will never be 100%, but it beats going around fully armed always looking over your back.

so these "right" become necessary in order to stop the dominants from winning ?

I don't understand your question.

 

[dilloduck]

Well, that's the point of creating government. To prevent that. As you've pointed out, it will never be 100%, but it beats going around fully armed always looking over your back.

so these "right" become necessary in order to stop the dominants from winning ?

I don't understand your question.

Apparently humans invented rights because certain people couldn't compete or take care of themselves

 

[dblack]

so these "right" become necessary in order to stop the dominants from winning ?

I don't understand your question.

Apparently humans invented rights because certain people couldn't compete or take care of themselves

Exactly. They allow people to focus on other endeavors, and let government deal with brute force and violence. Rights are, essentially, smart people getting one over on the bullies.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

so these "right" become necessary in order to stop the dominants from winning ?

I don't understand your question.

Apparently humans invented rights because certain people couldn't compete or take care of themselves

Even packs of animals have some rudimentary concept of the rights that various pack members have. In addition, humans tend to fare better in packs/tribes/cities than they do on their own.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't understand your question.

Apparently humans invented rights because certain people couldn't compete or take care of themselves

Even packs of animals have some rudimentary concept of the rights that various pack members have. In addition, humans tend to fare better in packs/tribes/cities than they do on their own.

ya pecking orders. Works well.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Apparently humans invented rights because certain people couldn't compete or take care of themselves

Even packs of animals have some rudimentary concept of the rights that various pack members have. In addition, humans tend to fare better in packs/tribes/cities than they do on their own.

ya pecking orders. Works well.

Some animals even have the concept of entitlements for other group members.

When a wolf becomes too old to hunt with the pack, the other pack members bring it food. Reptiles don't do that. (Yes, I'm implying exactly what you think I'm implying.)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even packs of animals have some rudimentary concept of the rights that various pack members have. In addition, humans tend to fare better in packs/tribes/cities than they do on their own.

ya pecking orders. Works well.

Some animals even have the concept of entitlements for other group members.

When a wolf becomes too old to hunt with the pack, the other pack members bring it food. Reptiles don't do that. (Yes, I'm implying exactly what you think I'm implying.)

Some animals have more brains than you do.

Sharing food is not an entitlement. Entitlements are defined as government programs, often created by legislation. Feel free to show me the wolf legislature. The best that can be said for wolf government is that might makes right.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

ya pecking orders. Works well.

Some animals even have the concept of entitlements for other group members.

When a wolf becomes too old to hunt with the pack, the other pack members bring it food. Reptiles don't do that. (Yes, I'm implying exactly what you think I'm implying.)

Some animals have more brains than you do.

You're just not one of them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some animals even have the concept of entitlements for other group members.

When a wolf becomes too old to hunt with the pack, the other pack members bring it food. Reptiles don't do that. (Yes, I'm implying exactly what you think I'm implying.)

Some animals have more brains than you do.

You're just not one of them.

You would need more brains than you have to know that.

 

[midcan5]

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

 

[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

Like I said....We don't have any. A manufactured concept to give us the illusion of security. Less is definitely more

 

[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

Like I said....We don't have any. A manufactured concept to give us the illusion of security. Less is definitely more

Freedom is Slavery