4 ms·

We assign those rights as a society and, more relevantly here, as a political system. The people who draft our constitutions and (like for all political norms)

We assign those rights as a society and, more relevantly here, as a political system. The people who draft our constitutions and (like for all political norms) those who create our political discourse have more influence in defining them than the general population, but these norms have to be agreed to by a fairly large swathe of society to be effective.

briefcomment 5y ago
> fairly large swathe of society I don't think a majority necessarily carries power. The uber rich and intelligence agencies carry far more power than any mass of citizens.
- azernik 5y ago
  a) I said "fairly large swathe" b) Elites exert control by persuasion; they control the discourse, they organize larger movements, &c. There are still limits to what popular opinion will go along with. c) Intelligence agencies are, in most rich democratic countries, not a major lever of political power. Government economic institutions, police, courts, and the like are much more influential in both day-to-day lives and in shaping popular conceptions of the "rules of the game".
TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
You are speaking of rights. I’m speaking of “fundamental rights”. How are they different?
- azernik 5y ago
  "Fundamental" rights are the ones whose existence is not considered a matter for debate in society.
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    No such right exists. Can you name one?
    - azernik 5y ago
      In the US in particular: The right to life (in a negative, the government-shouldn't-take-it-away) is quite universally recognized - in cases where it's violated, defenders of that violation work very hard to craft a strong justification. The right to free speech (again, in a negative the-government-shouldn't-take-it-away) sense is also a fundamental part of political discourse. The right to private religious practice is broadly fundamental, though the right to religious practice of various sorts in the public domain (as well as the definition of that public domain) is hotly disputed. Notably, the right to certain social goods are "fundamental" in parts of Western Europe (e.g. healthcare in the UK), but very much are not in the US. My general impression is that positive (the-government-should-provide-it) rights are much more rarely "fundamental" in the sense of being deep in a polity's consensus.

briefcomment 5y ago

> fairly large swathe of society I don't think a majority necessarily carries power. The uber rich and intelligence agencies carry far more power than any mass of citizens.

azernik 5y ago
a) I said "fairly large swathe" b) Elites exert control by persuasion; they control the discourse, they organize larger movements, &c. There are still limits to what popular opinion will go along with. c) Intelligence agencies are, in most rich democratic countries, not a major lever of political power. Government economic institutions, police, courts, and the like are much more influential in both day-to-day lives and in shaping popular conceptions of the "rules of the game".

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

You are speaking of rights. I’m speaking of “fundamental rights”. How are they different?

azernik 5y ago
"Fundamental" rights are the ones whose existence is not considered a matter for debate in society.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  No such right exists. Can you name one?
  - azernik 5y ago
    In the US in particular: The right to life (in a negative, the government-shouldn't-take-it-away) is quite universally recognized - in cases where it's violated, defenders of that violation work very hard to craft a strong justification. The right to free speech (again, in a negative the-government-shouldn't-take-it-away) sense is also a fundamental part of political discourse. The right to private religious practice is broadly fundamental, though the right to religious practice of various sorts in the public domain (as well as the definition of that public domain) is hotly disputed. Notably, the right to certain social goods are "fundamental" in parts of Western Europe (e.g. healthcare in the UK), but very much are not in the US. My general impression is that positive (the-government-should-provide-it) rights are much more rarely "fundamental" in the sense of being deep in a polity's consensus.