Universal human rights: nonsense on stilts.

[David Young]

A wino or junkie has no responsibilities at all. Nothing will ever be demanded of Captain Victim.

However, suggest that a wino's or junkie's right to income support, night-shelter accommodation or endless handouts of food and clothing might not be worth providing any more and all hell will break loose.

 

[Kooky]

A wino or junkie has no responsibilities at all.

Where in the world do you live where this is in fact true?

 

[Kooky]

Obviously if you throw God out, you're going to have a hard time arguing for the idea of inherent rights or dignity. You certainly can't base those things in nature.

Nah, it can be derived logically from the intrinsic nature of all government.

In principle, people have the power to remove any government, but no government has the power to remove its people. Therefore, the people have the right to limit government, but no government has the right to limit its people.

 

[David Young]

You are welcome to potter along to the East End of London and take a look at wino/junkie charities like Spitalfields Crypt.

I worked there for a year. Their view of the world is that it consists of one group: victims (winos, junkies and a handful of others), who have zero accountability towards their actions and a second group: everyone else - people who have nothing but obligations towards victims. Basically it's modern Christianity in the model of the Reverend Richard Coles or the late John Smith of God Squad fame.

 

[Kooky]

You are welcome to potter along to the East End of London and take a look at wino/junkie charities like Spitalfields Crypt.

I worked there for a year. Their view of the world is that it consists of one group: victims (winos, junkies and a handful of others), who have zero accountability towards their actions and a second group: everyone else - people who have nothing but obligations towards victims. Basically it's modern Christianity in the model of the Reverend Richard Coles or the late John Smith of God Squad fame.

i.e. you're just opposed to charities, and all that other talk was meaningless fluff.

 

[David Young]

No. That is not the case.

 

[Kooky]

No. That is not the case.

It very much sounds like it, though.

Why do you think people who require aid have no responsibility?

 

[David Young]

Don't put words into people's mouths.

 

[Darkstorn]

Don't put words into people's mouths.

Express yourself more clearly. I got the same idea as the other poster.

 

[Koldo]

Nah, it can be derived logically from the intrinsic nature of all government.

In principle, people have the power to remove any government, but no government has the power to remove its people. Therefore, the people have the right to limit government, but no government has the right to limit its people.

Having the power to do something =/= having the right to do that thing.

 

[danieldemol]

The concept of universal human rights is nonsense.

A right can be given by a law-making body.
The absence of a law against something means that it is a right until a law against it is introduced.

That is all a right amounts to. Everything else described as 'my right' is a want.

As more specific rights are introduced in legislation, you will get a point where Right A and Right B clash, so one of them will have to give way to the other, making it not 'universal'.

I throw down the gauntlet to anyone willing to defend the idea of universal human rights as being anything other than wishful thinking.

My take is that human rights stem from the principal of justice.
If you want to live it seems just and fair that you allow others the right to live.

All the rest just stems from the nuance of justice in particular applications.

In my opinion.

 

[osgart]

There are major consequences to not implementing the correct rights that everyone should have. Universal human rights makes a quality of life possible. Once you do away with universal human rights then you make room for authoritarian, might is right rule. Is there some reason we should favor a utilitarian meritocracy? Who decides who lives and who dies? Morality isn't a blind game with no cause and effect. Out of a genuine morality comes universal human rights. It proves to be the freest and best solution to society.

So why not enforce them? It ensures that no one is above the law. So naturally we need to make the fairest laws possible. The more people that buy into universal human rights the better life is.

Everything else is just complaining that life ain't perfect. Human nature does find ways to manipulate the flaws of law and enforcement. Meritocracy is a human nature tendency. However there are a lot of people who buy into universal human rights, thus it isn't wishful thinking.

 

[Kooky]

Having the power to do something =/= having the right to do that thing.

My point is that government cannot "grant" any rights because they are secondary to the body of citizens whom they claim to "give" rights. It was the people who created government, and it is the people who can unmake it.

If the people decide they have a particular right to something, then they do, regardless of whether their government agrees to uphold those rights or denies them.

 

[Koldo]

My point is that government cannot "grant" any rights because they are secondary to the body of citizens whom they claim to "give" rights. It was the people who created government, and it is the people who can unmake it.

If the people decide they have a particular right to something, then they do, regardless of whether their government agrees to uphold those rights or denies them.

What do you mean by 'the people'?
The majority of citizens? Nearly all citizens? A sizeable number of people?

Curiously, here in Brazil it was not the people who created the government.

 

[Kooky]

What do you mean by 'the people'?
The majority of citizens? Nearly all citizens? A sizeable number of people?

Yes.

Curiously, here in Brazil it was not the people who created the government.

Was it not? What keeps your government running, then, if it isn't popular consent?

How is the government able to coerce all of you into going along with its rule?
It can't physically bully even a significant minority of you, let alone all of you.

 

[Koldo]

Yes.

Yes to which one?

Was it not? What keeps your government running, then, if it isn't popular consent?

How is the government able to coerce all of you into going along with its rule?
It can't physically bully even a significant minority of you, let alone all of you.

How does this relate as to who created the government?

 

[Kooky]

Yes to which one?

All of them qualify, I would say. Of course, as a socialist I am primarily supportive of the interests of the working class, so that's where I would lean towards. In practice, I'd say it's a continuum that can stretch between "a significant group of very loud people with a ton of semi-apathetic support" and "all of them".

How does this relate as to who created the government?

Governments are social constructs, and like all constructs, they primarily exist in the minds of those who act like they are real and/or of substance. "Creating" a government, therefore, requires a shared belief that a government has in fact been created, among both the government and those governed.

If nobody believes in a government and serves what they imagine to be its commands, then there is no government.

 

[Koldo]

All of them qualify, I would say. Of course, as a socialist I am primarily supportive of the interests of the working class, so that's where I would lean towards. In practice, I'd say it's a continuum that can stretch between "a significant group of very loud people with a ton of semi-apathetic support" and "all of them".

Thanks for the clarification.

Governments are social constructs, and like all constructs, they primarily exist in the minds of those who act like they are real and/or of substance. "Creating" a government, therefore, requires a shared belief that a government has in fact been created, among both the government and those governed.

If nobody believes in a government and serves what they imagine to be its commands, then there is no government.

Creating a government doesn't require a shared belief of any kind. The prerequisite, the fundamental piece, is a coercive entity (be it a person or a group of people) that is sovereign over a territory and the people that live in there. That's what creates governments.

 

[Kooky]

Creating a government doesn't require a shared belief of any kind. The prerequisite, the fundamental piece, is a coercive entity (be it a person or a group of people) that is sovereign over a territory and the people that live in there. That's what creates governments.

Coercion alone does not make for a government. If it did, then every little crime boss would be their own little President. Implied coercion can help make people believe that a government exists, I won't deny that - but you have to make them believe it!

Kings are only kings if people believe that they are; if nobody believes in their royal status, a monarch is simply a wealthy eccentric with delusions of grandeur. States whose laws are not followed, whose officials are not obeyed, and whose institutions are not respected are not states at all.

 

[Koldo]

Coercion alone does not make for a government. If it did, then every little crime boss would be their own little President.

As long as there is a bigger dog making and enforcing a claim for sovereignity, nope. It is the bigger dog that creates the government, not the wannabes.

Implied coercion can help make people believe that a government exists, I won't deny that - but you have to make them believe it!

Kings are only kings if people believe that they are; if nobody believes in their royal status, a monarch is simply a wealthy eccentric with delusions of grandeur. States whose laws are not followed, whose officials are not obeyed, and whose institutions are not respected are not states at all.

You don't truly have a choice when it comes down to obeying though. You either obey or you are sent to jail or to your coffin. It works like this in every single government I know of. The ultimate authority is raw force. Coercion alone isn't sufficient to create a government (not anymore than a child making empty threats) but when combined with the power to actually enforce rules at gun point it is.