What Are Human Rights?

[Vlerchan]

What are human rights?
Should all human beings have a base set of rights?
Should these base set of rights propagated through force (i.e. overthrowing opposing regimes)?

Or thoughts besides.

[Left Now]

I believe no one exactly know what they are,but I just know that although its basics are same everywhere,its building is different depending where you are.

[Atom]

Should all human beings have a base set of rights?
I believe that we all have all the rights we can have right now. The only other rights that we can/can't have are imposed on us by the society we live in.
Should these base set of rights propagated through force (i.e. overthrowing opposing regimes)?
I believe that no, never. This in a long run, as history shows us, will bring more trouble. But again, history also shows us that it's written by the victors.

I think that nothing of this sort should affect common people. I find myself to be something of an individualist-anarchist... Of some sort. Let me explain.
We are all humans, but some may not like something in their government/society/etc. While it is appealing to just go with the flow, I think you can change it. It may seem hard (and it really is,) but it should not stop you. For example: Let's say I would like everyone to drive tesla cars and stop damaging our planet's environment by not doing so. So how can I go about it? The problem is out there but no one cares. I can launch some sort of an awareness campaign, but it would be pushed back by a counter-campaign from the oil companies. And I would not be able to do anything about it because I simply don't have as much money and power as they do. So I shall work hard and become an equal (money and power) to those people and destroy them from the inside.

If you want it - you can go and get it, but you have to play by the rules of their game.

So what was I saying? Oh yes. If you want change (base set of rules,) - you need to do it quietly, so it would not affect simple people.

tl;dr illuminati and elitism is how I believe it works.

I'm interested in hearing what you think.

[Stronk Serb]

Basic things we should get but end up not getting them in most cases.

[Vlerchan]

The only other rights that we can/can't have are imposed on us by the society we live in.
I agree that our rights are societal constructs, and don't exist independent of our material context.

I'm wondering if there's rights that people should have because these rights are required in order to live a meaningful human existence.

So I shall work hard and become an equal (money and power) to those people and destroy them from the inside.
I just don't see building up riches as necessarily required.

Though, I agree with the vaguely Gramscian narrative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony) being pushed here.

I'm interested in hearing what you think.
What are human rights?

I tend to take the Dworkian view that rights are trumps. That is, rights exclude a range of actions (eg: all possible forms of speech) from need consider the common good, in the name of some greater purpose.

Should all human beings have a set of basic rights?

Yes. Of late I began to develop a structuralist argument for their existence. It goes like this:

Life is inherently meaningless; individuals are of no intrinsic value.
Through interaction, individuals create meaning; the value of the individual is founded within this process: as such, the value of the individual exists only with reference to others.
Individuals, being products of their historical & material realities, are an outgrowth of their communities: owing to this, communities form the base of all value; and whilst individuals themselves create meaning, their connection to their communities is of formidable importance.
From these three premises I derive a number of rights and duties:
Individuals have rights to create; that is, freedom of thought, speech, person, and association. These rights are all required in order to facilitate meaningful interaction.
Individuals have duties to conserve; that is, obligations towards universal sustenance (provision of health-care, shelter, food, water [founded in minimum basic income]), strengthening learning (provision of educational resources), the preservation of other’s lives, and the maintenance of social cohesion (base assimilation), all to be directed by a technocratic government. These duties are all required in order to ensure the integrity of the community is upheld.
That's it at its shortest.

I can expand if required, though I will admit to still being in the process of cleaning it up at some of the finer points.

Should these base set of rights propagated through force (i.e. overthrowing opposing regimes)?

I'm fine with international coalitions intervening against genocide.

Otherwise, humanitarian interventions draw too many parallels with Westerns attempts in the past to spread their values through force (eg: the crusades, colonialism)on the basis of ethnocentric ideals about what's 'right' and what's 'wrong'. I would much prefer setting up educational institutions within developing states, and having Western values integrated into their cultures in a voluntary fashion.

[Microcosm]

I can agree a lot with Vlerchan, except I don't think "life is inherently meaningless." Here is my personal response:

Human rights are the rights which a human being deserves to have by birth.
All humans should have a base set of rights. The main reason for this is that it generally ensures the happiness of all people or at least their ability to be happy. It gives them the opportunity to be happy and provide for themselves.
It really depends on who you are trying to convince when talking about whether these rights should be propagated through force. The United States has, pretty much, done a good job of ensuring rights in my opinion. If it is in the agreement of the majority that the individual should not have rights, then let it be so. However, it would seem to me that it is the natural human inclination to vote in favor of ensuring a base set of natural rights which are endowed to any human being upon his or her birth.

[Vlerchan]

I can agree a lot with Vlerchan, except I don't think "life is inherently meaningless."
I'm going to presume, from your avatar, that you are Christian and beyond convincing (saving) here.

That's fine?

The main reason for this is that it generally ensures the happiness of all people or at least their ability to be happy.
So, if I might, the your view on the success of a society depends on the position of its least off?

You'd really like John Rawls (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#JusFaiJusWitLibSoc).

It really depends on who you are trying to convince when talking about whether these rights should be propagated through force. The United States has, pretty much, done a good job of ensuring rights in my opinion
Could you expand on both the statements made here? Thank you.

However, it would seem to me that it is the natural human inclination to vote in favor of ensuring a base set of natural rights which are endowed to any human being upon his or her birth.
Considering that the idea of a 'right' didn't even exist in language until the 14th or 15th century (ish) I'm highly doubtful.

Rights as we know them are just secularised Christian social thought, and the idea that these might be a good thing is a product of the Enlightenment. Lots of non-Western societies have no organic conceptions of rights - i.e., a rights tradition that wasn't introduced to them by Europeans. That's the reason I'm most wary about imposing rights by force on other countries (cultures).

[Atom]

I just don't see building up riches as necessarily required.
I believe that it is a necessary/inevitable part of gaining power.

Should all human beings have a set of basic rights?

Yes. Of late I began to develop a structuralist argument for their existence. It goes like this:

Life is inherently meaningless; individuals are of no intrinsic value.
Through interaction, individuals create meaning; the value of the individual is founded within this process: as such, the value of the individual exists only with reference to others.
Individuals, being products of their historical & material realities, are an outgrowth of their communities: owing to this, communities form the base of all value; and whilst individuals themselves create meaning, their connection to their communities is of formidable importance.
From these three premises I derive a number of rights and duties:
Individuals have rights to create; that is, freedom of thought, speech, person, and association. These rights are all required in order to facilitate meaningful interaction.
Individuals have duties to conserve; that is, obligations towards universal sustenance (provision of health-care, shelter, food, water [founded in minimum basic income]), strengthening learning (provision of educational resources), the preservation of other’s lives, and the maintenance of social cohesion (base assimilation), all to be directed by a technocratic government. These duties are all required in order to ensure the integrity of the community is upheld.
I like it. I'll put it in my notes and maybe I will see something else here later that I don't see right now. Like reading the same book over and over again.

However I have a question for you... Let's say we put you in a position of power, how would you implement it? I mean all of the above. How would you deal with corruption in a society like this?
I'm not so dense not to understand that you first have to change the minds of people, but the question stays the same - how?

[NickTheStar]

A right to be happy, a right to a dignified life and death, a right to be respected, a right to be free, a right to love, a right to hate, and a right to control your own life.

[Danny_boi 16]

What are human rights?
Should all human beings have a base set of rights?
Should these base set of rights propagated through force (i.e. overthrowing opposing regimes)?

Or thoughts besides.

When ever is in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, is a Human right. But, I think you want a different answer. I would say that Human Rights are more like Guarantees. People have the right to live and we have the right to posses anything and everything necessary for life. But not the right to work. However, humans have the right to education. Because I find it to be a serious waste of nature's time and sentience to have humans to be born, and use their brains for no higher education. There is a difference between Human Rights as opposed to privileges.

[Microcosm]

I'm going to presume, from your avatar, that you are Christian and beyond convincing (saving) here.

My saying that life may not be inherently meaningless is not directly influenced by my personal belief. I am simply saying that this premise of yours in particular, is a false premise mainly because it is something we don't know. We don't know whether life is meaningless or not. It isn't a fact.

So, if I might, the your view on the success of a society depends on the position of its least off?

Not necessarily. A society or government is successful when it ensures some degree of freedom to its people. Personally, I think democracy has a ways to go in this area and has some developmental room here, but nonetheless it does work quite well for practical purposes.

Could you expand on both the statements made here? Thank you.

Sure. If a nation's government is acting in a tyrannical and improper fashion in which the rights of its people are being strongly oppressed(and it is the opinion of the majority of its people that this is so), then perhaps an organized force is necessary. Of course, the best first option would be peaceful diplomacy, but some governments aren't very responsive to such a thing. My second statement about how I believe the U.S. has done a good job of securing our rights is explained as follows: Some people don't agree with the United States government and many different aspects of it, but our security of rights is what the nation is founded on. It is one of the most important aspects of our existence, and we live by it. You can be legally protected when your rights are oppressed and no one individual or group is ever given enough power to seriously oppress your basic rights(free speech, assembly, right to bear arms, etc.).

Considering that the idea of a 'right' didn't even exist in language until the 14th or 15th century (ish) I'm highly doubtful.

Rights as we know them are just secularised Christian social thought, and the idea that these might be a good thing is a product of the Enlightenment. Lots of non-Western societies have no organic conceptions of rights - i.e., a rights tradition that wasn't introduced to them by Europeans. That's the reason I'm most wary about imposing rights by force on other countries (cultures).

My point is that there is simply no need to impose the idea of natural rights on anyone. It is, at least seemingly to me, a wonderful and logically sound solution to many forms of oppression. I, personally, don't think anything should be forced on people. I just think people would see that human rights are in their best interest. It doesn't really harm anyone and it helps a society in general to feel safe and secure.

[Vlerchan]

I am simply saying that this premise of yours in particular, is a false premise mainly because it is something we don't know.
That doesn't make it a false premise. That just makes it a premise that might be false.

It isn't a fact.
It also isn't a fact that human being being happy is a moral good. Or that other people aren't figments of our imagination and are thus worth moral consideration. Or that we even exist. Or a whole host of other common presumptions.

You have to take a leap of faith at some stage: Life has to inherent meaning happens to be the one that doesn't require referring to forces exterior to our material context (i.e. the best possible answer we can derive from current levels of empirical evidence).

A society or government is successful when it ensures some degree of freedom to its people.
This is quite vague. I'm not sure exactly what it means.

Sure. If a nation's government is acting in a tyrannical and improper fashion in which the rights of its people are being strongly oppressed(and it is the opinion of the majority of its people that this is so), then perhaps an organized force is necessary.
In cases like this the people themselves tend to rebel.

Though if the cases of Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc. have thought us anything it's not always for the best.

You can be legally protected when your rights are oppressed and no one individual or group is ever given enough power to seriously oppress your basic rights(free speech, assembly, right to bear arms, etc.).
The US has what academics tend to label a distinctive rights culture. It's quite good at protecting a certain few rights and then tends to reject the others existing outside the scope of its foundations but that most Europeans and members of the Commonwealth accept (the right to life is a big one here).

This follows from its more or less explicit judicial isolationism where its courts don't consider (as influential - I don't mean precedent here) the jurisprudence and case law of that outside the US.

---

But not the right to work.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a23

This will most likely be one of the most enduring legacies of the USSR.

[Bleid]

-What are human rights?

If I was to give a reasonable definition, I'd probably say,

Human rights are a set of standards devised by an authority in a group of people that dictate what the authority of the group considers to be proper treatment among some or all individuals in that group.

Should all human beings have a base set of rights?

In the interest of fairness against mistreatment, I'd say they probably should. Given that we are not all united under one banner, I'd say that this would not be practically feasible.

Should these base set of rights propagated through force (i.e. overthrowing opposing regimes)?

It would be very circumstantial.

For example,

If the rights of those whom are overthrowing are infringed on, then the overthrower would likely want to force these rights on those they are overthrowing.

It would be silly to say that different people under a now united regime would have a mix of two different rights that may contradict one another, or even worse to keep their previous rights, ignoring those of the overthrowing regime. This would lead to a lot of problems when it comes to legislation and court of law.

[Vlerchan]

I missed this. Sorry.

I believe that it is a necessary/inevitable part of gaining power.
I think I might have been misunderstanding you before.

I agree that economic power necessarily proceeds political power. In order to hold political power, you must hold economic power.

Let's say we put you in a position of power, how would you implement it? [...]

I'm not so dense not to understand that you first have to change the minds of people, but the question stays the same - how?
Well, I'm presuming if I have power then I will have done all the hardwork. Either in a democratic government I'll have convinced enough people that I'm correct - or in an autocratic government I'll have had shot the people who disagreed. From there it's not so difficult to introduce the policies I want.

Unless, and I imagine you do, you mean how I would get into power to implement these in the first place ('change the minds of people'), in which case I don't think it would be that difficult where I live, considering I'm not proposing radical changes within the context of European politics. It might be another story if I wanted to change property relations to something more socialist-orientated, because that would disrupt the activities of elites. In that case, it would start with attempting to disseminate my of thought through engagement with the regional academia - gain some amount of recognition, then some converts, start an academic journal for further dissemination - and from there it's a matter of catching the attention of the right people.

I wouldn't attempt direct political action, but rather shift the foundations that direct political action is built on.

[Danny_boi 16]

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a23

This will most likely be one of the most enduring legacies of the USSR.

That's very interesting, I would have never thought of it as a human right. But I wounder what they define as work? For example, I don't believe everyone has the right to be a doctor. However, a person has the right to work at being a doctor.

[Human]

What are human rights?
Should all human beings have a base set of rights?
Should these base set of rights propagated through force (i.e. overthrowing opposing regimes)?

Or thoughts besides.

Different places consider human rights differently and unless the humans are being abused which can be obviously seen in places like North Korea I don't think anyone should intervene, but I don't think it should be done through violence either.
I think all humans require rights but I don't exactly know what they should be despite right to food, water, decent standard of living

[Atom]

You've answered the question that I would most likely have asked after this one :D
Either in a democratic government I'll have convinced enough people that I'm correct - or in an autocratic government I'll have had shot the people who disagreed. From there it's not so difficult to introduce the policies I want.
I would advise to just push those people off the stage rather than kill them. It's more convenient, your name stays clean and this method is also relevant to a democratic government. You can secretly kill only so much until people start realising that those deaths were too convenient only for you. I hope that makes sense...

It might be another story if I wanted to change property relations to something more socialist-orientated, because that would disrupt the activities of elites.
But I think it is obvious that this would follow. Or am I wrong? And what serious influence does academia has on elites?

I wouldn't attempt direct political action, but rather shift the foundations that direct political action is built on.
Ok. Slow, but more reliable.

...in a democratic government I'll have convinced enough people...
This is what I were asking. How?

- "obligations towards universal sustenance."
I personally know that it is important for a society so it wouldn't collapse at its peak. However, we have all the tools to stop it right now but we don't use them and our ecosystem continues to suffer. We have a problem that we all are aware of but we don't have a solution or a will to fix it.
Convince me, an average Joe, that I should stop driving my Hummer.

- "the preservation of other’s lives."
Why would I (Joe) ever do that? First I would need some proof that these people would be ready to do the same for me.

I think that these two points would be the most problematic ones.

P.S.
Have you heard of The Venus Project by Jacque Fresco? I think you may like it.

[Vlerchan]

I would advise to just push those people off the stage rather than kill them.
Your prudence is almost certainly best here.

I sort of had it in my head that I was leading a revolution and imposing these changes through a transition government.

But I think it is obvious that this would follow. Or am I wrong? And what serious influence does academia has on elites?
It would follow. That's what I was attempting to say.

I'm not intending to influence the elites through academia. It's about convincing the masses - same as the elites - and these will then force the change. Some might convert towards the end in order to benefit from the impending change but the end objective is to burn the current stock of elites and replace them with your own.

Ok. Slow, but more reliable.
Yeah. Slowness is a big problem. Though there's an eventual snowball effect: You convince a professor and he gets a chance to spread the worldview through to his students and so on.

Regardless I don't see another credible alternative for myself otherwise.

This is what I were asking. How?
re: Academia.

Convince me, an average Joe, that I should stop driving my Hummer.
I don't mean this.

I mean establish a welfare state, though what I support in particular wouldn't be quite recognisable compared up against modern European welfare states.

Why would I (Joe) ever do that? First I would need some proof that these people would be ready to do the same for me.
I just mean don't kill others.

Though people tend to be quite prepared to go to war for their countries so it's not like broadening the meaning of preserve would pose that large a problem. I also want people to form an emotional attachment to their communities - to facilitate cooperative economics and living - so that helps too.

---

I'm also looking into the Venus project now.

Sounds like just Utopian (non-Marxist) socialism to me.

[phuckphace]

some thoughts ~

I was reminded the other day of the Terri Schiavo case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case), which was a pretty huge deal in the US esp around the time it ended in 2005. I remember reading about it in one of my parents' pseudocon weeklies, basically Fox News the mag. so an irreversibly brain-damaged woman was kept alive as a catatonic vegetable for fifteen years before finally being removed from life support and allowed to die. even as a kid I thought it was kind of creepy how her family and supporters were fighting tooth and nail to keep her "alive" when she was basically dead already. her supporters, especially the pseudocon mag were bleating pitifully about the importance of protecting "life", only problem is they've fetishized life (ζωή zōḗ the state of being alive, as opposed to inanimate) to the exclusion of everything that life actually entails in totality (βίος bios). what was Schiavo's family really protecting? it wasn't her life, because her life abruptly ended in 1990 after her heart attack. all those long convoluted legal battles were nothing but a brawl over a dead woman's pulse.

tl;dr Americans are stupid


Life is inherently meaningless; individuals are of no intrinsic value.
Through interaction, individuals create meaning; the value of the individual is founded within this process: as such, the value of the individual exists only with reference to others.
Individuals, being products of their historical & material realities, are an outgrowth of their communities: owing to this, communities form the base of all value; and whilst individuals themselves create meaning, their connection to their communities is of formidable importance.

I agree with all of these points. they also tie in perfectly to my spiel above.

I would much prefer setting up educational institutions within developing states, and having Western values integrated into their cultures in a voluntary fashion.

I agree with the voluntary part.

I think if someone is keen to go shopping for foreign values to adopt it should require him or her to cross an international border or two (or hopping on the Internet). I'm planning to set up a containment barrier around the US to keep our highly contagious trash culture from spreading any further

[Atom]

...burn the current stock of elites and replace them with your own.
Machiavelli much? :D I love it. I actually were pushing the same idea not so long ago (replace elites with your own.)
But I still think that it's best done through pure politics rather than revolutionary means.

You convince a professor and he gets a chance to spread the worldview through to his students and so on.
I mean establish a welfare state, though what I support in particular wouldn't be quite recognisable compared up against modern European welfare states.
That's what I was talking about all along (convince me etc.)
What will you tell this professor? What is your idea? And why should I/professor/average Joe listen in the first place (why is it better?) Or did I miss it?

Regardless I don't see another credible alternative for myself otherwise.
Why not politics though?

I also want people to form an emotional attachment to their communities - to facilitate cooperative economics and living - so that helps too.
So said elites would throw them in wars?
Or let's say that you've already replaced elites with your own, will you still be throwing them in wars just to die for another idea?

[Vlerchan]

But I still think that it's best done through pure politics rather than revolutionary means.
I would prefer to make use of the democratic process.

But at the same time I see burning the current stock of elites as required. That doesn't need to be through violence. Delegitimising them or obstructing their capabilities otherwise when it comes to influencing the masses otherwise works.

What will you tell this professor? What is your idea? And why should I/professor/average Joe listen in the first place (why is it better?)
It depends who I'm talking to.

Using appeals to morals might work with the philosopher.
Using appeals to labour mobility might work with the economist.
Using appeals to their class position bring contingent on law and order might work with the middle class and elites.
Using appeals to the inherent instabilities of capitalism and their position within it might work with the working class.

But given how popular welfarism is in Europe I don't expect there to be a struggle for this to be introduced.

Or let's say that you've already replaced elites with your own, will you still be throwing them in wars just to die for another idea?
Nope. It's for reasons to do with developing the social capital required for cooperative living. It would be an inward-focused sort of civil nationalism (localism) built with the intention of it having an jnternationalist (interlocalist) outlook.

Given demographic projections for Europe I don't believe warmongering is something sustainable.

---

all those long convoluted legal battles were nothing but a brawl over a dead woman's pulse.
I'm willing to declare the Irish pro-life crowd worse.

Last Christmas a woman was involved in a car crash and received serious headwounds as a result. She was required to be put on life support. Her husband and the rest wanted to terminate the life support since there wasn't a chance of her recovering. Now here's the catch: She was pregnant. Before life support could be terminated some lobbyists sued and hired a lawyer for the foetus. There was not a reasonable chance of the foetus surviving but these wanted it to die a natural death (it has a constitutional right to life).

In fairness the courts it dealt with the case quite quick because the woman's husband and family were quite distraught. But the entire situation is still just surreal.

---

I would have never thought of it as a human right. But I wounder what they define as work?
From reading the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx) it seems that governments should be considered bound to making an effort to helping people get a job (provide training etc.). But there's lots of ideological-driven manners of reading that: Socialist might argue that the government needs to provide jobs - whilst Capitalists might argue that government need to abolish all regulations regarding to employment.