7 ms·
I only support civil disobedience for "human rights issues". That is the only thing really merits the term. Things appearing as civil disobedience for money is
by joe_the_user 7y ago
I only support civil disobedience for "human rights issues". That is the only thing really merits the term.
Things appearing as civil disobedience for money issue are virtually always terrible - as soon as "radicalism" or "iconoclastism" becomes a business, it's worst business.
Prohibition was a terrible policy but the people that fueled the defiance of prohibition were mobsters, scum that had a terrible and arguably on-going terrible effect on the country.
Even 1960s drug proponents became awful at the point they became drug dealers.
- deathgrips 7y agoThe ability to earn a living is a human right that no government can deprive you of without a good, specific reason and due process.
- threeseed 7y agoIt is not a human right to earn a living. And it is absolutely the right of a government to prevent you from working. Many jobs requiring government approval for example a doctor, lawyer, builder.
- tathougies 7y agoGovernments do not have rights, period. They exist solely at the consent and continued pleasure of the governed (or should at least). That is to say, every human has rights, because they are an individual human. The rights of people are self-evident and stem solely from the fact that people are human. Governments have no rights. There is nothing that is owed to them due to their existence as governments. Were a particular set of people not to form a government, no other government could rightfully enter to assert their 'right' to govern.
- vadym909 7y agoI'd love to hear black or brown people adopt this as their motto.
- tathougies 7y agoSame
- mgolawala 7y agoGandhi was brown, and his policy of civil disobedience was essentially based on the premise that a government only derives its legitimacy from the will of the people to be governed by it. Leading to the act of mass civil disobedience.
- alvah 7y ago"It is not a human right to earn a living." The UNCHR has begged to differ since 1948. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
- colejohnson66 7y ago> to just and favourable conditions One could argue that putting yourself or others at risk of infection is not a “just and favorable condition”
- deathgrips 7y ago>It is not a human right to earn a living. What gives you the right to decide that?
- tirant 7y agoIt shouldn't, unless your only purpose is damaging that individual, which sounds to me like a not very humane purpose. Work is one of the main purposes and goals an individual may have, together with family. Denying that to anyone is simple and plain tyranny.
- jki275 7y agoGovernments have no rights. Human beings have rights.
- greglindahl 7y agoOddly enough, in this case the local and state government does have a reason and did follow due process. A company that disagrees can sue -- more due process.
- glofish 7y agoIt all hinges on the reason and due process of course. I read an amusing analogy, we have what we call the "Schrodinger's disease". The government tries to protect me from the disease and suspects me of spreading the disease - all at the same time. Even though I don't want that protection and I am not sick. Doesnt' matter, I have to oblige.
- qotgalaxy 7y agoYes, you do. It's honestly not that complicated.
- ascorbic 7y agoHave you been tested? Every day? You can't confidently say you're not infectious when a large proportion of cases are asymptomatic, or very mild. By all means be gung-ho about your own life, but your rights stop at the point they risk other people.
- deathgrips 7y agoYou will never be able to confidently say you are not infectious of some disease.
- ascorbic 7y agoExactly. Which is why, when there is an epidemic of a dangerous disease, measures need to be implemented that assume that everybody is infectious unless proven otherwise.
- deathgrips 7y ago
- samatman 7y agoArticle 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines the right to work. I'm not interested in casting Elon Musk as some sort of heroic figure, and if it turns out he has coerced his workers or endangered them in practice, not just theoretically, he should pay for that. But the freedom to work is absolutely a human rights issue.
- joe_the_user 7y agoSo, this quoting of Article 23 seems to considerably distort the intention of the article: (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. What is described is something like the right to be considered for work if one is qualified. Maybe to the provision of work. But saying that this article guarantees a factory owner the right to restart that factory when they feel they'll be providing work along with making a profit, does not ring true.
- DagAgren 7y agoIn practice, meaning, let's let him kill a few of them before we jump to conclusions?
- mgolawala 7y agoWell, the UN definition of "Human Rights" includes the "right to work"[1]. So one could argue that this is, in fact, a Human Rights issue. Just because this guy is a billionaire does not mean that these rights do not apply to him. [1]https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/
- ardy42 7y ago> Well, the UN definition of "Human Rights" includes the "right to work"[1]. So one could argue that this is, in fact, a Human Rights issue. Just because this guy is a billionaire does not mean that these rights do not apply to him This nicely illustrates the folly of trying to reason about a situation from a pithy statement of some cherry-picked "right." Are we violating the "right to work"[1] of young children when we forbid them from quitting school getting a a factory job? Maybe, but it's pretty obvious that overriding factors are more important in that case. It's the same when we consider an employer who wants to "to work" employing his employees in conditions that some may consider unsafe.
- robertlagrant 7y agoNo, because children don't have a right to work.
- ardy42 7y ago> No, because children don't have a right to work. I'm not sure what point that's meant to make, but it supports what I was saying. You'd never be able to derive that exception from: >>> Well, the UN definition of "Human Rights" includes the "right to work"[1]. There's loads of different competing rights, exceptions to those rights, and other social practices that need to be weighed to make a judgement a situation like this. Focusing too closely on reasoning about this one "right to work" ignores all that, and thus leads to less than enlightening conclusions.
- markdown 7y agoJust as Freedom of Speech doesn't give one free license to spout hate speech or shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, one persons right to work isn't more important than another's right to life (or safety from a deadly pandemic).
- tathougies 7y agoThe ability to make money and to produce things is a basic human right though.
- lern_too_spel 7y agoYou can continue to make money and produce things in the food service industry. You cannot continue to do so in a nonessential industry in a manner that puts others at risk in a way that is costly to the state. Don't produce meth, and don't run a car factory before a pandemic has been contained.
- jki275 7y agoThat’s very much a false equivalency.