4 ms·

> based on the simple premise that the human condition continues to evolve The human condition under government continues to involve, but we as humans are larg

> based on the simple premise that the human condition continues to evolve The human condition under government continues to involve, but we as humans are largely the same. These positive rights, such as entitlement to x provided by y and z, are more like citizens' rights than human rights. A human right is something that every human is entitled to, regardless of their citizenship, or even not having a citizenship. Human rights don't include tax-funded services that comes with living in a first-world country. They are rights that all humans can and deserve to have, and should be un-infringed upon with regards to.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
> They are rights that all humans can and deserve to have, and should be un-infringed upon with regards to. I guess in that case we have to assume we have very few actual rights. Being jailed for a crime is the removal of many of what people would consider fundamental rights (eg. the right to travel freely).
- sershe 5y ago
  If the rights are construed as an (implied) social contract of negative rights, this is easy to resolve. If you uphold the social contract towards others, you are implicitly agreeing to be bound by it, and others who likewise agree owe you your part. If you violate others' negative rights you, again implicitly, reject that social contract. Therefore, others don't owe you anything, your rights can also be violated. I personally subscribe to what I view as a more logically consistent version where the only thing that matter is how confident we are that someone rejects the social contract. If e.g. they repeatedly keep committing clear-cut crimes against clear-cut victims, they obviously think it doesn't apply to them, and in my view they literally should have no more human rights than a rock. That should apply whether they are a CEO defrauding customers, or a homeless person stealing a bike. However, most people think it's a proportional/gradual kind of thing, hence e.g. jail.
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    Even your definition has some problems though - how much is "repeatedly" and what's the level of "clear-cut"? And does everyone's rights immediately go to zero with "no more human rights than a rock"? We can sell both a homeless person who steals a bike or a CEO who defrauds millions for millions both into slavery? Do they regain those rights at some point, or should a juvenile delinquent be sent to the mining camps never to return? There's a lot of nuance required for this stuff, and I don't know if we can draw a line in the sand where people become pond scum.
    - sershe 5y ago
      The distinction I was trying to make is that most people take a gradual approach to this contract, even if they don't articulate it, i.e. they say "you robbed a gas station, [so you are 15% "pond scum" and 85% not, so we are going to take 15% of your rights away, ] so we are going to jail you for a year", or "you killed this family and ate the bodies, [so you are 90% "pond scum", so we are going to take 90% of your rights away, ] so we are going to execute you". I think the problem is actually uncertainty. If someone robbed a gas station, it's not that they broke the social contract N% of the way and are N% "pond scum"; it's that we are about N% sure that they are 100% "pond scum". So, before we are sure enough, they have full rights and we should try to re-integrate them and not punish them beyond fixing the damage, and after we are sure enough (which may be on the 5th bike, 3rd gas station, or the 1st rape), they have no rights and yeah, it's e.g. mines/lethal injection. Either way it responds to the original objection... punishment/retaliation works fine with negative-only rights.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

> They are rights that all humans can and deserve to have, and should be un-infringed upon with regards to. I guess in that case we have to assume we have very few actual rights. Being jailed for a crime is the removal of many of what people would consider fundamental rights (eg. the right to travel freely).

sershe 5y ago
If the rights are construed as an (implied) social contract of negative rights, this is easy to resolve. If you uphold the social contract towards others, you are implicitly agreeing to be bound by it, and others who likewise agree owe you your part. If you violate others' negative rights you, again implicitly, reject that social contract. Therefore, others don't owe you anything, your rights can also be violated. I personally subscribe to what I view as a more logically consistent version where the only thing that matter is how confident we are that someone rejects the social contract. If e.g. they repeatedly keep committing clear-cut crimes against clear-cut victims, they obviously think it doesn't apply to them, and in my view they literally should have no more human rights than a rock. That should apply whether they are a CEO defrauding customers, or a homeless person stealing a bike. However, most people think it's a proportional/gradual kind of thing, hence e.g. jail.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  Even your definition has some problems though - how much is "repeatedly" and what's the level of "clear-cut"? And does everyone's rights immediately go to zero with "no more human rights than a rock"? We can sell both a homeless person who steals a bike or a CEO who defrauds millions for millions both into slavery? Do they regain those rights at some point, or should a juvenile delinquent be sent to the mining camps never to return? There's a lot of nuance required for this stuff, and I don't know if we can draw a line in the sand where people become pond scum.
  - sershe 5y ago
    The distinction I was trying to make is that most people take a gradual approach to this contract, even if they don't articulate it, i.e. they say "you robbed a gas station, [so you are 15% "pond scum" and 85% not, so we are going to take 15% of your rights away, ] so we are going to jail you for a year", or "you killed this family and ate the bodies, [so you are 90% "pond scum", so we are going to take 90% of your rights away, ] so we are going to execute you". I think the problem is actually uncertainty. If someone robbed a gas station, it's not that they broke the social contract N% of the way and are N% "pond scum"; it's that we are about N% sure that they are 100% "pond scum". So, before we are sure enough, they have full rights and we should try to re-integrate them and not punish them beyond fixing the damage, and after we are sure enough (which may be on the 5th bike, 3rd gas station, or the 1st rape), they have no rights and yeah, it's e.g. mines/lethal injection. Either way it responds to the original objection... punishment/retaliation works fine with negative-only rights.