5 ms·

>That requires the 'forced' labor of police officers, prison guards, construction workers for the prisons, agricultural workers for the food, medical supplies m

>That requires the 'forced' labor of police officers, prison guards, construction workers for the prisons, agricultural workers for the food, medical supplies manufacturers, medical staff members for prisons, electricians, plumbers, garbage, sanitation workers. First, this is voluntary labor. The 'forced labor' is with the taxpayer that pays for this being done. Second, a state enforcing rights is rather different from human rights. If the state doesn't enforce a human right then that doesn't mean it's not a human right anymore. You didn't forfeit your right to life just because Pol Pot came into power, did you? The state enforcing a right is one way to resolve a conflict of somebody violating your rights, but it's not the only one. If somebody attacks you and intends to kill you, then you can defend yourself with deadly force. Society doesn't pursue you for violating the attacker's right to life. Society doesn't have to do any work in this case, but the violation was dealt with. Also, the human right to free speech doesn't mean that anybody has to listen to you or to promote what you're saying. Nobody has to give you a platform. Now, you could have a separate right to free speech that's a right given by the state (a law) that forces a social media site to give you (anyone) a platform, but that would be separate from human rights. If a human right requires somebody else's labor then you have an adequacy problem. At what point is the human right fulfilled? If the government treats only broken bones, then is the right being fulfilled? Do they have to give you that million dollar gene therapy? Is the government violating your human rights because it doesn't invest enough into healthcare research for future treatments?

Kbelicius 5y ago
> If somebody attacks you and intends to kill you, then you can defend yourself with deadly force. Society doesn't pursue you for violating the attacker's right to life. Society doesn't have to do any work in this case. What if you fail to defend yourself?
- bhawks 5y ago
  Society has no duty to protect you either. See Lozito v. New York City. On July 25, 2013, Judge Margaret Chan dismissed Lozito's suit, stating that while Lozito's account of the attack rang true and appeared "highly credible", Chan agreed that police had "no special duty" to protect Lozito. (Edit: spelling)
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    Somehow we're reducing rights down to "things I can get people to arbitrarily agree to or that I can claim by force", which doesn't much seem like rights to me.
    - bhawks 5y ago
      Human rights are things that another person/entity violates through their actions. Getting internet or health care is more of an expectation of citizenship.
      - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        Well then, if rights are only there to be pointed out when violated, and there is zero expectation that your rights should be defended except by your own exertion of force, what's the point of them? You can exert force however you want and if successful you can generate new rights at whim, and at failure lose rights.
  - kcatskcolbdi 5y ago
    Society/Government Enforcement as we have it structured now does not have a duty to prevent harm. It mostly acts as an enforcement/reaction arm to respond once harm has been done. In some ways the response acts as a deterrent to future by others being done, but the primary aim is to punish infringement of the structure put in place or to assist a citizen once harm has been done. I'm not sure how this relates to the conversation about rights. To talk about the inclusion of Healthcare as a right for instance, no one would propose that the government prevent people from getting injured. Or to, while being injured, intervene and stop it. My understanding is that healthcare provided as a right would be healthcare provided in response to an injury a Citizen has experienced.
afiori 5y ago
Part of the point is that the "right to life" is actually a "right not to be wrongfully killed"; so that being hit by a meteor is not a human right violation from a space rock.
kcatskcolbdi 5y ago
> First, this is voluntary labor. Indeed, so as long as we can agree that the government paying for labor does not constitute forced labor, we can dispel the false premise that the state employing medical care providers is somehow forced labor. I was working under that premise (phrasing framework?) to prove the point that even within that framework the logic does not hold, but I'm glad you acknowledge, and we can agree, it is not accurate. > The 'forced labor' is with the taxpayer that pays for this being done. (assuming you are a US citizen) No one forces you to pay taxes; I believe there are large quantities of homeless persons who do not own land and do not participate in labor compensated by currency and are also not subject to taxation. You and I would probably agree that a person should be able to buy land and provide for themselves without taxation (and that this is currently not possible to my knowledge under our current system) but that does not mean the existence of taxation equates to forced labor. It is just very close, and practically speaking how it ends up being for most people who wish to live lives interconnected to society. > Second, a state enforcing rights is rather different from human rights. If the state doesn't enforce a human right then that doesn't mean it's not a human right anymore. You didn't forfeit your right to life just because Pol Pot came into power, did you? Having a right which is incapable of being defended is in a practical sense identical to not having that right. What material changes in circumstance occur where one "Has a right but can't enforce it's expression" and where one "Doesn't have the right"? And if there is no material change in circumstance, is there some benefit beyond that which I am not considering? >Also, the human right to free speech doesn't mean that anybody has to listen to you or to promote what you're saying. Nobody has to give you a platform. Now, you could have a separate right to free speech that's a right given by the state (a law) that forces a social media site to give you (anyone) a platform, but that would be separate from human rights. If we have a divergence between human rights and rights "given to you by the state (a law)" then there is no point in discussing human rights. The only worthwhile rights are the ones the state is willing to give; legal rights which have an impact on your material circumstances while alive on this planet. Beyond the scope of the law you are free to determine which rights you think are/are not human rights and the rest of the population can either ignore them or accommodate based on how willing they believe you are to try and enforce them. There is not purpose to having a broader discussion of human rights under your framework, as enforcement is not part of the equation. Why must we agree on what a human right is if there is no enforcement of one side or the other? The purpose of discussion on human rights should be to determine the scope of enforcement once rights are agreed upon. > If a human right requires somebody else's labor then you have an adequacy problem. Correct, and we face this problem constantly in relation to all rights enforced by the government. > At what point is the human right fulfilled? If the government treats only broken bones, then is the right being fulfilled? Presumably yes if the citizens have agreed upon a Right to Mend Broken Bones. > Do they have to give you that million dollar gene therapy? Presumably yes if the citizens have agreed upon a Right to Million Dollar Gene Therapy. > Is the government violating your human rights because it doesn't invest enough into healthcare research for future treatments? Probably not, as we don't typically operate under the framework of the right to have something which does not exist. Future treatments do not exist in the present, and would be incapable of being provided as a right in the present. I think it's a great idea for governments to invest in the development of future treatments, and when they are discovered perhaps then it would make sense to provide as a right, but not until they exist.
Thiez 5y ago
> If somebody attacks you and intends to kill you, then you can defend yourself with deadly force. Society doesn't pursue you for violating the attacker's right to life. In the Netherlands you're legally only allowed to use enough the minimum amount of violence necessary in self defense. You're obligated to flee if possible. So if a frail lady in a wheelchair comes at you with a knife, you can't stand your ground and kick her bony ass.

Kbelicius 5y ago

> If somebody attacks you and intends to kill you, then you can defend yourself with deadly force. Society doesn't pursue you for violating the attacker's right to life. Society doesn't have to do any work in this case. What if you fail to defend yourself?

bhawks 5y ago
Society has no duty to protect you either. See Lozito v. New York City. On July 25, 2013, Judge Margaret Chan dismissed Lozito's suit, stating that while Lozito's account of the attack rang true and appeared "highly credible", Chan agreed that police had "no special duty" to protect Lozito. (Edit: spelling)
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  Somehow we're reducing rights down to "things I can get people to arbitrarily agree to or that I can claim by force", which doesn't much seem like rights to me.
  - bhawks 5y ago
    Human rights are things that another person/entity violates through their actions. Getting internet or health care is more of an expectation of citizenship.
    - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
      Well then, if rights are only there to be pointed out when violated, and there is zero expectation that your rights should be defended except by your own exertion of force, what's the point of them? You can exert force however you want and if successful you can generate new rights at whim, and at failure lose rights.
- kcatskcolbdi 5y ago
  Society/Government Enforcement as we have it structured now does not have a duty to prevent harm. It mostly acts as an enforcement/reaction arm to respond once harm has been done. In some ways the response acts as a deterrent to future by others being done, but the primary aim is to punish infringement of the structure put in place or to assist a citizen once harm has been done. I'm not sure how this relates to the conversation about rights. To talk about the inclusion of Healthcare as a right for instance, no one would propose that the government prevent people from getting injured. Or to, while being injured, intervene and stop it. My understanding is that healthcare provided as a right would be healthcare provided in response to an injury a Citizen has experienced.

afiori 5y ago

Part of the point is that the "right to life" is actually a "right not to be wrongfully killed"; so that being hit by a meteor is not a human right violation from a space rock.

kcatskcolbdi 5y ago

> First, this is voluntary labor. Indeed, so as long as we can agree that the government paying for labor does not constitute forced labor, we can dispel the false premise that the state employing medical care providers is somehow forced labor. I was working under that premise (phrasing framework?) to prove the point that even within that framework the logic does not hold, but I'm glad you acknowledge, and we can agree, it is not accurate. > The 'forced labor' is with the taxpayer that pays for this being done. (assuming you are a US citizen) No one forces you to pay taxes; I believe there are large quantities of homeless persons who do not own land and do not participate in labor compensated by currency and are also not subject to taxation. You and I would probably agree that a person should be able to buy land and provide for themselves without taxation (and that this is currently not possible to my knowledge under our current system) but that does not mean the existence of taxation equates to forced labor. It is just very close, and practically speaking how it ends up being for most people who wish to live lives interconnected to society. > Second, a state enforcing rights is rather different from human rights. If the state doesn't enforce a human right then that doesn't mean it's not a human right anymore. You didn't forfeit your right to life just because Pol Pot came into power, did you? Having a right which is incapable of being defended is in a practical sense identical to not having that right. What material changes in circumstance occur where one "Has a right but can't enforce it's expression" and where one "Doesn't have the right"? And if there is no material change in circumstance, is there some benefit beyond that which I am not considering? >Also, the human right to free speech doesn't mean that anybody has to listen to you or to promote what you're saying. Nobody has to give you a platform. Now, you could have a separate right to free speech that's a right given by the state (a law) that forces a social media site to give you (anyone) a platform, but that would be separate from human rights. If we have a divergence between human rights and rights "given to you by the state (a law)" then there is no point in discussing human rights. The only worthwhile rights are the ones the state is willing to give; legal rights which have an impact on your material circumstances while alive on this planet. Beyond the scope of the law you are free to determine which rights you think are/are not human rights and the rest of the population can either ignore them or accommodate based on how willing they believe you are to try and enforce them. There is not purpose to having a broader discussion of human rights under your framework, as enforcement is not part of the equation. Why must we agree on what a human right is if there is no enforcement of one side or the other? The purpose of discussion on human rights should be to determine the scope of enforcement once rights are agreed upon. > If a human right requires somebody else's labor then you have an adequacy problem. Correct, and we face this problem constantly in relation to all rights enforced by the government. > At what point is the human right fulfilled? If the government treats only broken bones, then is the right being fulfilled? Presumably yes if the citizens have agreed upon a Right to Mend Broken Bones. > Do they have to give you that million dollar gene therapy? Presumably yes if the citizens have agreed upon a Right to Million Dollar Gene Therapy. > Is the government violating your human rights because it doesn't invest enough into healthcare research for future treatments? Probably not, as we don't typically operate under the framework of the right to have something which does not exist. Future treatments do not exist in the present, and would be incapable of being provided as a right in the present. I think it's a great idea for governments to invest in the development of future treatments, and when they are discovered perhaps then it would make sense to provide as a right, but not until they exist.

Thiez 5y ago

> If somebody attacks you and intends to kill you, then you can defend yourself with deadly force. Society doesn't pursue you for violating the attacker's right to life. In the Netherlands you're legally only allowed to use enough the minimum amount of violence necessary in self defense. You're obligated to flee if possible. So if a frail lady in a wheelchair comes at you with a knife, you can't stand your ground and kick her bony ass.