3 ms·

> Who could possibly be opposed to human rights - i.e. human beings having rights? And indeed, the US constitution does appear to be largely about rights. What

by tomp 4y ago

> Who could possibly be opposed to human rights - i.e. human beings having rights? And indeed, the US constitution does appear to be largely about rights. What do you mean? US citizens have pretty much the most rights of any people in the world. Can you list the countries that guarantee freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable searches and freedom to stay silent (not incriminate yourself)? (Of course, the implementation of these rights is ... imperfect.)

kasey_junk 4y ago
That’s begging the question. If you define rights specifically by enumerating how they are defined in the bill of rights of course the US comes out on top. That’s before your hedge about implementation. In practice the US performs rather badly when scores on civil liberties. Here is one methodology https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/Civil-liberties-index?mode=amp https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/Civil-liberties-index?mode=am... but you can find similar results across many others. Just take our prison population per capita if you want a glaring metric on how poorly we do at freedom.
- tomp 4y ago
  Yeah let's just say that any list that places Canada sixth on a list is very much suspect. Nothing says "human rights" like criminalising protests, confiscating money, and prohibiting unvaccinated people from leaving the country.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >In practice the US performs rather badly when scores on civil liberties. Which IMO is mostly a reflection of a country in which a large subset of the electorate do not really believe in human rights beyond the extent of a useful legal fiction to be followed in the default case and quietly ignored in the pursuit of specific outcomes. If the people had a hardline stance on human rights and civil liberties the government would reflect that.
denton-scratch 4y ago
US citizens do indeed have a constitution that confers lots of rights. My contention is simply that these rights are legal fictions and political footballs, and should not be in-scope for a constitution. They shouldn't be baked-in; they should be simple legislation. I mainly don't believe in these "rights". I think people should be treated fairly and equitably; and I think that should be a matter of law. But constitution is about meta-law - how laws are made, not what their effect is.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  They're political footballs because people don't want people they don't like or are who are doing things they don't like to have rights and monkeying with definitions is easier than the full frontal assault of amending the constitution. How many times have you seen people on HN advocating, to much popular support, for infringing upon the 4th amendment for people who are involved in specific types of business or the infringing upon 5th amendment protections for people engaged in certain activities?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    I see all the rights under constant attack all the time. By Americans. It's heartbreaking.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    The fourth is effectively a law that constrains the authorities from carrying out searches under many circumstances. The fifth constrains courts from forcing people to testify against themselves. These rules are often framed as "rights", but they are really restrictions on the power of government officials. I'm not sure why you have put this in terms of "specific types of business" and "certain activities". What types of business, and what activities, receive special protection under those amendments? What are you getting at?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Fortunately, you still have those rights - whether you recognize them or not, and whether or not the government recognizes them. They're inherent to being a human being - those "inalienable" rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The US Constitution did not create those rights, it recognized them.
mijkal 4y ago
The USA — with the 'most rights of any people in the world' — incarcerates the most people, by far, in some of the most inhumane conditions (slavery is explicitly legal in such contexts) among the developed nations. We're 'free' in an Orwellian sense. Freedom to be educated, have health care regardless of one's employment|wealth, welfare with dignity for those in need — none of these concepts come into consideration into what 'freedom' actually means in practice. My political leanings started libertarian. Over the years, I have traveled and read, and came to see the US for the farce it is, and encounter the deluded population convinced America is 'the greatest nation ever'. It has potential for sure, but when will we unlock it and truly taste real freedom?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Getting free stuff is a privilege, not a right. None of the Bill of Rights is guaranteeing free stuff.

by tomp 4y ago

kasey_junk 4y ago

That’s begging the question. If you define rights specifically by enumerating how they are defined in the bill of rights of course the US comes out on top. That’s before your hedge about implementation. In practice the US performs rather badly when scores on civil liberties. Here is one methodology https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/Civil-liberties-index?mode=amp https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/Civil-liberties-index?mode=am... but you can find similar results across many others. Just take our prison population per capita if you want a glaring metric on how poorly we do at freedom.

tomp 4y ago
Yeah let's just say that any list that places Canada sixth on a list is very much suspect. Nothing says "human rights" like criminalising protests, confiscating money, and prohibiting unvaccinated people from leaving the country.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>In practice the US performs rather badly when scores on civil liberties. Which IMO is mostly a reflection of a country in which a large subset of the electorate do not really believe in human rights beyond the extent of a useful legal fiction to be followed in the default case and quietly ignored in the pursuit of specific outcomes. If the people had a hardline stance on human rights and civil liberties the government would reflect that.

denton-scratch 4y ago

US citizens do indeed have a constitution that confers lots of rights. My contention is simply that these rights are legal fictions and political footballs, and should not be in-scope for a constitution. They shouldn't be baked-in; they should be simple legislation. I mainly don't believe in these "rights". I think people should be treated fairly and equitably; and I think that should be a matter of law. But constitution is about meta-law - how laws are made, not what their effect is.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
They're political footballs because people don't want people they don't like or are who are doing things they don't like to have rights and monkeying with definitions is easier than the full frontal assault of amending the constitution. How many times have you seen people on HN advocating, to much popular support, for infringing upon the 4th amendment for people who are involved in specific types of business or the infringing upon 5th amendment protections for people engaged in certain activities?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  I see all the rights under constant attack all the time. By Americans. It's heartbreaking.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  The fourth is effectively a law that constrains the authorities from carrying out searches under many circumstances. The fifth constrains courts from forcing people to testify against themselves. These rules are often framed as "rights", but they are really restrictions on the power of government officials. I'm not sure why you have put this in terms of "specific types of business" and "certain activities". What types of business, and what activities, receive special protection under those amendments? What are you getting at?
WalterBright 4y ago
Fortunately, you still have those rights - whether you recognize them or not, and whether or not the government recognizes them. They're inherent to being a human being - those "inalienable" rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The US Constitution did not create those rights, it recognized them.

mijkal 4y ago

The USA — with the 'most rights of any people in the world' — incarcerates the most people, by far, in some of the most inhumane conditions (slavery is explicitly legal in such contexts) among the developed nations. We're 'free' in an Orwellian sense. Freedom to be educated, have health care regardless of one's employment|wealth, welfare with dignity for those in need — none of these concepts come into consideration into what 'freedom' actually means in practice. My political leanings started libertarian. Over the years, I have traveled and read, and came to see the US for the farce it is, and encounter the deluded population convinced America is 'the greatest nation ever'. It has potential for sure, but when will we unlock it and truly taste real freedom?

WalterBright 4y ago
Getting free stuff is a privilege, not a right. None of the Bill of Rights is guaranteeing free stuff.