4 ms·

Who is to provide, say, "a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family", which is also a basic human right, as listed

Who is to provide, say, "a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family", which is also a basic human right, as listed by the original (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights[0]? The fact that there's nobody to provide it, doesn't mean that it's not a basic human right. [0] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

colpabar 5y ago
I think people take issue with rights that must be provided by some external party because if said external party is not providing said rights, what do they really mean? Part of the argument is that human rights should only include "rules" that say what cannot be done to you, like us-style free speech, where the government cannot put you in prison just for saying something they don't like.
- gnomewascool 5y ago
  What about rights like the right to freedom from slavery or torture which, on the one hand, are about things not being done to you, but on the other may depend on third parties (for instance a government) from preventing people from doing these things to you? The declaration on human rights is not really government-centric, so the US-style free speech comparison makes little sense. > what do they really mean? They're a yardstick to measure how well we as humanity, and, more specifically particular regions or systems, measure up to what we, as humanity, consider to be the things that every human should (expect to) have. (Sorry for the bombasity.) For instance, if we lived in a libertarian/anarchist utopia, with no government, it would still make sense to ask whether people's human rights were being met.
shock-value 5y ago
Yes that's also a "right" that is devoid of legal, moral, or practical meaning. As is any "right" to any exhaustible resource. The UDHR is an aspirational document that has no legal force in and of itself.

colpabar 5y ago

I think people take issue with rights that must be provided by some external party because if said external party is not providing said rights, what do they really mean? Part of the argument is that human rights should only include "rules" that say what cannot be done to you, like us-style free speech, where the government cannot put you in prison just for saying something they don't like.

gnomewascool 5y ago
What about rights like the right to freedom from slavery or torture which, on the one hand, are about things not being done to you, but on the other may depend on third parties (for instance a government) from preventing people from doing these things to you? The declaration on human rights is not really government-centric, so the US-style free speech comparison makes little sense. > what do they really mean? They're a yardstick to measure how well we as humanity, and, more specifically particular regions or systems, measure up to what we, as humanity, consider to be the things that every human should (expect to) have. (Sorry for the bombasity.) For instance, if we lived in a libertarian/anarchist utopia, with no government, it would still make sense to ask whether people's human rights were being met.

shock-value 5y ago

Yes that's also a "right" that is devoid of legal, moral, or practical meaning. As is any "right" to any exhaustible resource. The UDHR is an aspirational document that has no legal force in and of itself.