11 ms·

If human rights are fundamental consequences of human nature, is there some way to list them? It seems to me the whole notion is a valuable but entirely human

If human rights are fundamental consequences of human nature, is there some way to list them? It seems to me the whole notion is a valuable but entirely human construction, ripe for debate about what counts and what does not.

WalterBright 5y ago
> is there some way to list them? Over time, by observation, we discover what they are. For example, do you have a right to not be a slave? If so, why do you think you have that right? Do you have a right to not have someone clonk you on the head with a pipe and steal your wallet? If so, why do you think you have that right?
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  Yes, at least in the US I have both of those rights, but neither is a "fundamental consequences of human nature". I have the right to not be enslaved because the government and broadly society deems that valid. But that's a consequence of government force preventing people from enslaving others. Without government intervention, slavery emerges. It even still happens today, in the US in particular cases (prison, as one legal example). I don't see how something can be considered a fundamental consequence of our nature if, when left without supervision, it disappears. I don't think that you can provide a clear list of such "natural" rights. If "liberty" is one, why isn't "health"? Improving my health improves my liberty, but (in the US) we don't culturally consider healthcare a "right", although it is considered such in some other countries.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > Without government intervention, slavery emerges A closer examination of history shows that slavery tends to fail when in competition with free labor. The emergence of free labor destroyed slavery the world over. The Civil War was the last gasp of slavery in the US attempting to protect itself from free labor. Slavery had already died out in the northern colonies due to it being uneconomic. Free labor caused the collapse of the USSR. Free labor destroyed Nazi Europe. > we don't culturally consider healthcare a "right" Sure we do. >50% of health care in the US is provided by the government, and the rest is heavily controlled by the government. Emergency rooms are required to treat people who cannot pay for free. The government has so thoroughly regulated, overseen, subsidized, distorted, etc., every aspect of health care, that in no way can it be described as free market. Let's try something that is free market - the software business. Software in the US is completely unregulated. What's the result? Incredible progress, world leadership, and plenty of very high quality FREE software. It's amazing, unpredicted, and unbelievable. But it's true.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      > A closer examination of history shows that slavery tends to fail when in competition with free labor. The emergence of free labor destroyed slavery the world over. The Civil War was the last gasp of slavery in the US attempting to protect itself from free labor. Slavery had already died out in the northern colonies due to it being uneconomic. I don't mean as an economic system. Chattel slavery is one particular example of macro-scale slavery, but macro-scale slavery isn't what I was referring to. Put another way, our markets are not perfectly efficient, and there exists enough slack to allow niches where inefficient cruelty can exist. Even though slavery was inefficient and had died out in the north, the South did all it could to keep it around. It still took a laws and war to get rid of it. If the government stopped enforcing all laws today, how long would it take for some people to be kidnapped and enslaved? A week? > The government has so thoroughly regulated, overseen, subsidized, distorted, etc., every aspect of health care, that in no way can it be described as free market. Something being not a free market doesn't make it a right, nor does the government providing it as a service to some people. You might be able to get away with the argument that emergency medical care is considered a right in the US, but emergency medical care is only a small part of healthcare.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        Take a look at what goes on in the healthcare system. It's all the result of unintended side effects of well-intentioned regulation. For another example, the AMA deliberately restricts the number of seats in medical universities. They are empowered to by law. This keeps the number of doctors down, and increases their pay.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        This has nothing to do with whether or not something is a "right". I'll remind you, the initial statement you made was "Rights are a fundamental consequence of human nature.", but you're now saying somewhat ahistorical things about slave labor and market economies. Even if what you were saying was accurate, is has nothing to do with how we define rights.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > I have the right to not be enslaved because the government and broadly society deems that valid. But that's a consequence of government force preventing people from enslaving others. Without government intervention, slavery emerges. That's one way of looking at it. Another is that you do have the right not to be enslaved, just by dint of being a human being, but that sometimes, someplace, because there are no laws or government to enforce your right, you might be enslaved anyway. In this second perspective, you have the right not to be enslaved even if you happen to actually be a slave; it's just that your right is being violated. That is, I think, what is meant by a "natural" -- or, if you are American, in a perhaps more familiar term, "inalienable" -- human right. You always have it; it cannot be taken away (or "alienated") from you. Yeah, I'm also a bit confused as to why the "Founding Fathers" left out healthcare. But maybe they didn't -- I mean, can you really be "happy" if you're ill...? So maybe they meant for it to be included under "the pursuit of happiness". (Hey, in their day medicine was less advanced -- you couldn't be as almost-certain of a beneficial result from medical care as we can today, so that, too, was more of just a "pursuit".)
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      I fully accept the idea that rights may be natural, and slavery violates an inherent natural right. But then how do we decide which rights those are? GGP suggested we do so by analyzing society, but that fails when rights are being violated, so...
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        A: By navel-gazing. I jest, but not completely: It'll probably have to be by philosophical introspection. You'll have to look at society -- societies, all over the world and throughout history -- and decide for yourself which of their traits are expressions and which violations of human rights. Figuring out from that which of those rights are "natural" and which not is... Not easy, so I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.
- kristov 5y ago
  I think it's important to note that these rights are there regardless of who you are or what you have done. And that differs from "natural" human tendencies to strip wrongdoers of their rights. We have collectively agreed that a wrongdoer can have some rights revoked (prison) and yet continue to preserve more fundamental rights. Yet many people today still feel that someone that commits a terrible crime should be stripped of all their rights, including in some cases their most fundamental right to be alive.

WalterBright 5y ago

> is there some way to list them? Over time, by observation, we discover what they are. For example, do you have a right to not be a slave? If so, why do you think you have that right? Do you have a right to not have someone clonk you on the head with a pipe and steal your wallet? If so, why do you think you have that right?

joshuamorton 5y ago
Yes, at least in the US I have both of those rights, but neither is a "fundamental consequences of human nature". I have the right to not be enslaved because the government and broadly society deems that valid. But that's a consequence of government force preventing people from enslaving others. Without government intervention, slavery emerges. It even still happens today, in the US in particular cases (prison, as one legal example). I don't see how something can be considered a fundamental consequence of our nature if, when left without supervision, it disappears. I don't think that you can provide a clear list of such "natural" rights. If "liberty" is one, why isn't "health"? Improving my health improves my liberty, but (in the US) we don't culturally consider healthcare a "right", although it is considered such in some other countries.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > Without government intervention, slavery emerges A closer examination of history shows that slavery tends to fail when in competition with free labor. The emergence of free labor destroyed slavery the world over. The Civil War was the last gasp of slavery in the US attempting to protect itself from free labor. Slavery had already died out in the northern colonies due to it being uneconomic. Free labor caused the collapse of the USSR. Free labor destroyed Nazi Europe. > we don't culturally consider healthcare a "right" Sure we do. >50% of health care in the US is provided by the government, and the rest is heavily controlled by the government. Emergency rooms are required to treat people who cannot pay for free. The government has so thoroughly regulated, overseen, subsidized, distorted, etc., every aspect of health care, that in no way can it be described as free market. Let's try something that is free market - the software business. Software in the US is completely unregulated. What's the result? Incredible progress, world leadership, and plenty of very high quality FREE software. It's amazing, unpredicted, and unbelievable. But it's true.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > A closer examination of history shows that slavery tends to fail when in competition with free labor. The emergence of free labor destroyed slavery the world over. The Civil War was the last gasp of slavery in the US attempting to protect itself from free labor. Slavery had already died out in the northern colonies due to it being uneconomic. I don't mean as an economic system. Chattel slavery is one particular example of macro-scale slavery, but macro-scale slavery isn't what I was referring to. Put another way, our markets are not perfectly efficient, and there exists enough slack to allow niches where inefficient cruelty can exist. Even though slavery was inefficient and had died out in the north, the South did all it could to keep it around. It still took a laws and war to get rid of it. If the government stopped enforcing all laws today, how long would it take for some people to be kidnapped and enslaved? A week? > The government has so thoroughly regulated, overseen, subsidized, distorted, etc., every aspect of health care, that in no way can it be described as free market. Something being not a free market doesn't make it a right, nor does the government providing it as a service to some people. You might be able to get away with the argument that emergency medical care is considered a right in the US, but emergency medical care is only a small part of healthcare.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Take a look at what goes on in the healthcare system. It's all the result of unintended side effects of well-intentioned regulation. For another example, the AMA deliberately restricts the number of seats in medical universities. They are empowered to by law. This keeps the number of doctors down, and increases their pay.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        This has nothing to do with whether or not something is a "right". I'll remind you, the initial statement you made was "Rights are a fundamental consequence of human nature.", but you're now saying somewhat ahistorical things about slave labor and market economies. Even if what you were saying was accurate, is has nothing to do with how we define rights.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > I have the right to not be enslaved because the government and broadly society deems that valid. But that's a consequence of government force preventing people from enslaving others. Without government intervention, slavery emerges. That's one way of looking at it. Another is that you do have the right not to be enslaved, just by dint of being a human being, but that sometimes, someplace, because there are no laws or government to enforce your right, you might be enslaved anyway. In this second perspective, you have the right not to be enslaved even if you happen to actually be a slave; it's just that your right is being violated. That is, I think, what is meant by a "natural" -- or, if you are American, in a perhaps more familiar term, "inalienable" -- human right. You always have it; it cannot be taken away (or "alienated") from you. Yeah, I'm also a bit confused as to why the "Founding Fathers" left out healthcare. But maybe they didn't -- I mean, can you really be "happy" if you're ill...? So maybe they meant for it to be included under "the pursuit of happiness". (Hey, in their day medicine was less advanced -- you couldn't be as almost-certain of a beneficial result from medical care as we can today, so that, too, was more of just a "pursuit".)
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    I fully accept the idea that rights may be natural, and slavery violates an inherent natural right. But then how do we decide which rights those are? GGP suggested we do so by analyzing society, but that fails when rights are being violated, so...
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      A: By navel-gazing. I jest, but not completely: It'll probably have to be by philosophical introspection. You'll have to look at society -- societies, all over the world and throughout history -- and decide for yourself which of their traits are expressions and which violations of human rights. Figuring out from that which of those rights are "natural" and which not is... Not easy, so I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.
kristov 5y ago
I think it's important to note that these rights are there regardless of who you are or what you have done. And that differs from "natural" human tendencies to strip wrongdoers of their rights. We have collectively agreed that a wrongdoer can have some rights revoked (prison) and yet continue to preserve more fundamental rights. Yet many people today still feel that someone that commits a terrible crime should be stripped of all their rights, including in some cases their most fundamental right to be alive.