3 ms·

Laws should not be mechanical. I agree. That’s what they are for. Human rights by definition should. Of course they haven’t been for a long time. I’m not Amer

• brnt 5y ago
  > Human rights by definition should. What basis exists for us being able to claim that we have arrived at the final set of rights sufficient to describe what a human needs to be free?
  • dudul 5y ago
    Rights don't describe what you need to be free, they just say that you do have the right to be free. Then laws are put in place to try to protect your right.
    • brnt 5y ago
      I thought we were discussing human rights, and therefore I use text of the Declaration. This text is certainly more specific than stating that humans are free. It also describes positive rights, for one.
  • zpeti 5y ago
    If one human or group of humans can’t force another to do something, that is freedom. It’s pretty simple really.
    • brnt 5y ago
      > It’s pretty simple really. I can only conclude that you continue to not inform yourself of any discussion on the subject. I've never heard anyone serious describe rights as 'pretty simple'. Advocates of reducing rights to a limited and for them convenient set, yes, but that is precisely the challenge.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
      That sounds like lawlessness. I can't get punished when I violate rights because that would be an infringement on my rights, so there's no encouragement by me or anyone else to respect rights.