5 ms·

> Human rights cannot be rights for someone else to build or do something for you, because it inherently causes a restriction or obligation to someone else. On

> Human rights cannot be rights for someone else to build or do something for you, because it inherently causes a restriction or obligation to someone else. One person's right is always another person's obligation. There is no other way to have a meaningful right of any kind. > Also it's possible that reality simply says the right cannot be provided, and reality tends to beat policy. For example if there are twice as many people who need housing as available houses, no amount of claiming that housing is a right is going to overcome the underlying reality. This is equally true about all other rights. For example, there may be inadequate resources to enforce a right against being murdered. In a sense, as long as there still are murders, then this is actually is the case. However, in the housing case, it's counterfactual. There are no non-social resource constraints. Homeless people aren't even allowed to set up their own tents. It's a cruel kind of gaslighting to suggest there are inherent resource limits when we can all watch videos of cops slashing those tents and evicting entire encampments. It's just not reality. Bringing that kind of counterfactual unreality into a political discussion of a stark situation is not being good to the people affected.

anm89 5y ago
>One person's right is always another person's obligation You are failing to understand the distinction. All rights and laws depend on governments and courts. That obligation is around interpretation and enforcement, not the provision of the right itself. My right to free speech does require governments and courts only at the enforcement level. No other person ever has to do anything for me to have that right. In fact I don't have to do anything to have that right. I have it whether I exercise it or not. The same is not true about housing or food. A court could decide that someone has a right to those things but it's still not going to happen until the resource exists to provide. Someone has to make those things. That's not just enforcement or interpretation. It's buying fertilizer, it's nailing boards together. >One person's right is always another person's obligation So no, this fails to hold up to simple scrutiny
- DarylZero 5y ago
  > All rights and laws depend on governments and courts. That obligation is around interpretation and enforcement, not the provision of the right itself. This distinction doesn't matter. You can't have meaningful, substantive rights, without an adequate governmental budget that is allocating resources toward your specific needs. If you live in Chinatown (the place in the movie), then you don't have the SUBSTANTIVE right not to be murdered, because the police will enforce nothing. Your rights are taken away in reality. But in your paper fantasy, you still have the rights because of some paper somewhere, even though you are dead. In the real world, a right without an enforcement budget is no right at all.
  - hellojesus 5y ago
    In the US, rights are defined as things in which the government and private parties cannot take away. As you've stated, a society will break down if there is no enforcement of rights as it is equivalent to them not existing. This is because the government is the sole definer of rights, and they only exist because the government has the will and ability to enforce them. Neither housing nor water are human rights in the US because they, as the commenter stated, require you infringe on someone else's private property (resources, time) to provide them. This may be different under other governments depending on how rights are defined in their society, but in the US it is absolutely not the case.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      Again, how rights are defined on paper is different from how the real world is. In the USA, law isn't only defined by statute, it's also defined by the courts through case law. The courts in the USA have some doctrines like "substantive due process" that say at least sometimes the law will look also at real rights that people can actually exercise, and not just paper rights. > Neither housing nor water are human rights in the US because they, as the commenter stated, require you infringe on someone else's private property (resources, time) to provide them. And yet as a matter of inevitable biology, every other right derives from access to water. A person without water lacks all other rights and all capacity for exercise of any right (e.g. speech).

anm89 5y ago

>One person's right is always another person's obligation You are failing to understand the distinction. All rights and laws depend on governments and courts. That obligation is around interpretation and enforcement, not the provision of the right itself. My right to free speech does require governments and courts only at the enforcement level. No other person ever has to do anything for me to have that right. In fact I don't have to do anything to have that right. I have it whether I exercise it or not. The same is not true about housing or food. A court could decide that someone has a right to those things but it's still not going to happen until the resource exists to provide. Someone has to make those things. That's not just enforcement or interpretation. It's buying fertilizer, it's nailing boards together. >One person's right is always another person's obligation So no, this fails to hold up to simple scrutiny

DarylZero 5y ago
> All rights and laws depend on governments and courts. That obligation is around interpretation and enforcement, not the provision of the right itself. This distinction doesn't matter. You can't have meaningful, substantive rights, without an adequate governmental budget that is allocating resources toward your specific needs. If you live in Chinatown (the place in the movie), then you don't have the SUBSTANTIVE right not to be murdered, because the police will enforce nothing. Your rights are taken away in reality. But in your paper fantasy, you still have the rights because of some paper somewhere, even though you are dead. In the real world, a right without an enforcement budget is no right at all.
- hellojesus 5y ago
  In the US, rights are defined as things in which the government and private parties cannot take away. As you've stated, a society will break down if there is no enforcement of rights as it is equivalent to them not existing. This is because the government is the sole definer of rights, and they only exist because the government has the will and ability to enforce them. Neither housing nor water are human rights in the US because they, as the commenter stated, require you infringe on someone else's private property (resources, time) to provide them. This may be different under other governments depending on how rights are defined in their society, but in the US it is absolutely not the case.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    Again, how rights are defined on paper is different from how the real world is. In the USA, law isn't only defined by statute, it's also defined by the courts through case law. The courts in the USA have some doctrines like "substantive due process" that say at least sometimes the law will look also at real rights that people can actually exercise, and not just paper rights. > Neither housing nor water are human rights in the US because they, as the commenter stated, require you infringe on someone else's private property (resources, time) to provide them. And yet as a matter of inevitable biology, every other right derives from access to water. A person without water lacks all other rights and all capacity for exercise of any right (e.g. speech).