3 ms·

Do you recognize any inalienable rights? If so, what are some?

golemotron 5y ago
There are many rights that I like and want, but the word inalienable is tricky. Governments take away rights all the time. Inalienable is a wish rather than a practical reality. It's good to have many sovereigns so that people can see the effects of different value sets, learn from them, and express preference by moving or attempting to change their corner of the world. It's a pro-choice position, really.
- annoyingnoob 5y ago
  https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Basic human rights are not a wish.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    It's a "declaration", meaning no legal force. It's not a treaty. And worse, there are weasel words and carve outs that basically nullify it if the state deems it appropriate. This is how nations like Cuba can be proud signatories.
    - annoyingnoob 5y ago
      The point is about inalienable rights. Would you agree that there are inalienable rights?
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        That's a question about philosophy, not real things existing. I mean, it's not going to be settled as a matter of fact, it's a matter of opinion. But if you are asking for my beliefs, then no, rights are downstream of duties. For example, your right to free speech presupposes a duty on others to not punish you for your speech. Your right to housing presupposes a duty on others to provide you with housing. Your right to freedom of religion presupposes a duty on others to not discriminate against you for your religion and to make good faith accommodation for your religion, etc. Different cultures will have different answers to this question which will be localized and not universal, as well as different capacities to impose these duties. Moreover, alienating you from these rights is quite easy, as it only requires abandoning the corresponding duties. So rights are clearly not inalienable. At least this is my view - but you asked, so I tried to answer in good faith. I'm not going to argue with you if you have a different view, because again, this is localized to which culture/tradition you belong to.
        annoyingnoob 5y ago
        I'm not sure I understand all of your response. I'm not saying that UN link is some kind of perfect thing, just a place to start. For example, what that UN link shows as Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Is that really something conflicts with a lot of cultures and religions? If we do not have some basis by which we act toward each other as humans then anything goes, and you can justify that anything with culture or religion or aliens or whatever it doesn't really matter. On some level we as humans all have the same basic needs like food, water, and shelter, independent of culture and religion.
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        > Is that really something conflicts with a lot of cultures and religions? Yes, it does. That's a product of post-war liberalism that isn't even really believed that much in the West anymore - and was always aspirational in nature. It didn't even last 5 years, TBH, before the US, Europe and the USSR began funding various racial wars in Africa and Southeast Asia. Today there are lot of people in the West who believe in things like inherited guilt, collective guilt and punishment, and a hierarchy of who has more dignity versus someone else. Then go to the Islamic world, orthodox jewish world, China, Africa, and even other parts of Asia, and you will not find a lot of people agreeing that everyone in the whole world, esp. enemy tribes, or nearby members of rival societies, are born free and equal in dignity and rights, or that they are part of any kind of global brotherhood. In terms of the last paragraph, suffice to say that I disagree with the conclusions and assumptions, as I don't think it's a realistic or viable description of human relationships, and has historically caused more harm than good because it ends up being used as yet another reason to attack and divide people. The 20th Century was famous for, in addition to the usual racial and economic wars, introducing things like class and ideology as other dimensions to wage war on. So it's like the XKCD cartoon where you see 11 standards and decide to introduce a universal new standard, and you just end up with 12 standards.

There are many rights that I like and want, but the word inalienable is tricky. Governments take away rights all the time. Inalienable is a wish rather than a practical reality. It's good to have many sovereigns so that people can see the effects of different value sets, learn from them, and express preference by moving or attempting to change their corner of the world. It's a pro-choice position, really.

annoyingnoob 5y ago
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Basic human rights are not a wish.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  It's a "declaration", meaning no legal force. It's not a treaty. And worse, there are weasel words and carve outs that basically nullify it if the state deems it appropriate. This is how nations like Cuba can be proud signatories.
  - annoyingnoob 5y ago
    The point is about inalienable rights. Would you agree that there are inalienable rights?
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      That's a question about philosophy, not real things existing. I mean, it's not going to be settled as a matter of fact, it's a matter of opinion. But if you are asking for my beliefs, then no, rights are downstream of duties. For example, your right to free speech presupposes a duty on others to not punish you for your speech. Your right to housing presupposes a duty on others to provide you with housing. Your right to freedom of religion presupposes a duty on others to not discriminate against you for your religion and to make good faith accommodation for your religion, etc. Different cultures will have different answers to this question which will be localized and not universal, as well as different capacities to impose these duties. Moreover, alienating you from these rights is quite easy, as it only requires abandoning the corresponding duties. So rights are clearly not inalienable. At least this is my view - but you asked, so I tried to answer in good faith. I'm not going to argue with you if you have a different view, because again, this is localized to which culture/tradition you belong to.
      - annoyingnoob 5y ago
        I'm not sure I understand all of your response. I'm not saying that UN link is some kind of perfect thing, just a place to start. For example, what that UN link shows as Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Is that really something conflicts with a lot of cultures and religions? If we do not have some basis by which we act toward each other as humans then anything goes, and you can justify that anything with culture or religion or aliens or whatever it doesn't really matter. On some level we as humans all have the same basic needs like food, water, and shelter, independent of culture and religion.
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        > Is that really something conflicts with a lot of cultures and religions? Yes, it does. That's a product of post-war liberalism that isn't even really believed that much in the West anymore - and was always aspirational in nature. It didn't even last 5 years, TBH, before the US, Europe and the USSR began funding various racial wars in Africa and Southeast Asia. Today there are lot of people in the West who believe in things like inherited guilt, collective guilt and punishment, and a hierarchy of who has more dignity versus someone else. Then go to the Islamic world, orthodox jewish world, China, Africa, and even other parts of Asia, and you will not find a lot of people agreeing that everyone in the whole world, esp. enemy tribes, or nearby members of rival societies, are born free and equal in dignity and rights, or that they are part of any kind of global brotherhood. In terms of the last paragraph, suffice to say that I disagree with the conclusions and assumptions, as I don't think it's a realistic or viable description of human relationships, and has historically caused more harm than good because it ends up being used as yet another reason to attack and divide people. The 20th Century was famous for, in addition to the usual racial and economic wars, introducing things like class and ideology as other dimensions to wage war on. So it's like the XKCD cartoon where you see 11 standards and decide to introduce a universal new standard, and you just end up with 12 standards.