3 ms·

Universal agreement is not required, that's why wars happen to resolve most fundamental disagreements like this. A human right is a right humans enjoy for no o

by _8j50 3y ago

Universal agreement is not required, that's why wars happen to resolve most fundamental disagreements like this. A human right is a right humans enjoy for no other reason than being a human. Despite my first paragraph, certain things like surviving or not getting harmed/punished simply because you exist are near-universally accepted as human rights, but again, like obligations, rights only have meaning if they can be enforced. The human part of human rights is critical because it transcends laws created by people. In essence, they are rights given to a person by their creator. This is why human rights, as ordained by the Creator is used as foundational reasoning behind the US war of independence and civil wars. Both slavery and King George's tyranny were lawful but the law was rejected because a right given to humans beyond the authority of any government to regulate was violated. This is one if the reasons why I passionately hate communism, because they don't enforce mere secular agnosticism but explicit atheism because anything short of that allowd the people to reason and challenge authority imposed on them that is absolute and unquestionable. You can't challenge the CCP and tell them you will hold a religious service without permit at your home because it is your right as a human to believe what you want and share that belief because under that regime there is no authority over humans above the government and as such human rights are defined by the government and is beyond challenge. Ultimately, what the military (or victor military of a conflict) allows to be your human right is what is practiced.

SllX 3y ago
> A human right is a right humans enjoy for no other reason than being a human. Despite my first paragraph, certain things like surviving or not getting harmed/punished simply because you exist are near-universally accepted as human rights, but again, like obligations, rights only have meaning if they can be enforced. The human part of human rights is critical because it transcends laws created by people. In essence, they are rights given to a person by their creator. This is why human rights, as ordained by the Creator is used as foundational reasoning behind the US war of independence and civil wars. What you’re describing are what we frame as natural rights in the US, which can be understood to be “human rights” but this phrasing as I understand it went back to roughly the UN Declaration of Human Rights which is an odd document, and I’m not aware of this phrasing being used much in English at least before then (but feel free to correct me if you know otherwise!). American law is best understood within a framework of natural and common law, but one of the issues this has caused is that natural or “God-given” law is at odds with the separation of church and State, so what it really boils down to is we rely more heavily on the common law tradition which is in turn also informed by natural law as it was conceived of through the customs of England at a point in time. Citing natural law is done, but I’m not convinced that relying on it solely would withstand a serious challenge under American jurisprudence anymore because at the end of the day, it is amorphous and it does violate separation of church and State. Even common law, while informative of how the Federal courts operate, is actually not that useful at the Federal level seeing as how Federal law relies more heavily on the Constitution (again, informed by the common law, and common law tradition is used to understand the language with better clarity but it is never cited as a source for law) and the statutes that Congress passes or the treaties we sign. > Both slavery and King George's tyranny were lawful but the law was rejected because a right given to humans beyond the authority of any government to regulate was violated. Well, it was rhetorically rejected, but perhaps it would be best understood as independence was proclaimed by the Union of States and then recognized by the United Kingdom, with a war in-between to settle the claim. Then for a period of time, the United States government was governed by the Articles of Confederation before we passed the Constitution. As for slavery, we rejected that (and indentured servitude) through a constitutional amendment. Our elimination of it relied on statute, not any common or natural law concepts (although the rhetoric against slavery did cite natural law, rhetoric is rhetoric and law is law). > This is one if the reasons why I passionately hate communism, because they don't enforce mere secular agnosticism but explicit atheism because anything short of that allowd the people to reason and challenge authority imposed on them that is absolute and unquestionable. You can't challenge the CCP and tell them you will hold a religious service without permit at your home because it is your right as a human to believe what you want and share that belief because under that regime there is no authority over humans above the government and as such human rights are defined by the government and is beyond challenge. You see, this cuts to the heart of the matter: the continued existence of the PRC under the CCP’s domination, and other states like North Korea, the KSA and some other Muslim Kingdoms and other illiberal States really kind of cuts against the whole “X is a human right” schtick. Some would even argue that the United States is illiberal which, let me be clear, I strongly disagree with, but because our values don’t line up with theirs and they find some of our values or traditions abhorrent, they’ll argue the point anyway. So at the end of the day, we’ve got a bunch of claims by different peoples and organizations about what is actually a human right and basically no agreement. Given that we share this world, I can’t really agree that such a thing actually exists in any meaningful sense, but I can say I vastly prefer my tradition over others. > Ultimately, what the military (or victor military of a conflict) allows to be your human right is what is practiced. While I appreciate your pragmatism, I don’t think this is fair. Maybe all law is enforced by the gun barrel of the State pointed at us, but within many countries there does exist the means to defend yourself and your claims without resorting to military campaigning, even against the State, and there are one or more elected bodies representing people’s interests, juries, and as much I personally disrespect them, even referendums in a lot of places. Our conception of rights changes all the time, and while I don’t think positive rights are always well thought out, it is a fact that a lot of places have actually incorporated them well after a nation was founded through a process of lawmaking.
- _8j50 3y ago
  > common law, but one of the issues this has caused is that natural or “God-given” law is at odds with the separation of church and State Not true at all. The "modern" understanding of separation is what is at odds with the original intent at the time. Enforcement or support of a specific religion is what separation of Church and state is about not enforcement of agnosticism. Congress had sunday mass every week for many decades at the begining of the country. They still have chaplains, as does the military, they just don't enforce a specific religion. > I can’t really agree that such a thing actually exists in any meaningful sense, but I can say I vastly prefer my tradition over others. If you note my conclusion, human right is something enforced by the military not courts. To begin with, the law can recognize a human right but it can't define it, it (same as natural right to me) is beyond the jursidiction of the law. Unlike legal rights, declaring something a human right by law is merely recognizing a higher law, which means historical violations can retroactively be punished. Human rights can also be used as cause to fight a war (typically civil wars unless the aggressir claims their nationals are affected, like with putin and crimea). Human rights not only exist but have existed as long as humans have, when human law fails to recognize them and allows their violation the both the law and the violators are criminal enterprizes. > rhetoric is rhetoric and law is law It isn't rhetoric, it is reasoning and intent behind law as defined by the lawmakers. The law defines rules not reasoning and justification behind rules. Material like this can be used in court to argue a case. For your last paragraph, ultimately all criminal law exists because of the threat of imprisonment, but what I meant was not just that but also the fact that natural law is above legal law and that dispute is settled by violence usually. The most common human violator afterall is the state.
ringo-ring 3y ago
The exist non-secular types of communism FYI. For example, Thomas More's Utopia is considered to be a classical communist text, but in this text he was advocating religious freedom. Communism is a more general idea about common ownership and it is not limited to a single implementation in CCCP.

by _8j50 3y ago

SllX 3y ago

> A human right is a right humans enjoy for no other reason than being a human. Despite my first paragraph, certain things like surviving or not getting harmed/punished simply because you exist are near-universally accepted as human rights, but again, like obligations, rights only have meaning if they can be enforced. The human part of human rights is critical because it transcends laws created by people. In essence, they are rights given to a person by their creator. This is why human rights, as ordained by the Creator is used as foundational reasoning behind the US war of independence and civil wars. What you’re describing are what we frame as natural rights in the US, which can be understood to be “human rights” but this phrasing as I understand it went back to roughly the UN Declaration of Human Rights which is an odd document, and I’m not aware of this phrasing being used much in English at least before then (but feel free to correct me if you know otherwise!). American law is best understood within a framework of natural and common law, but one of the issues this has caused is that natural or “God-given” law is at odds with the separation of church and State, so what it really boils down to is we rely more heavily on the common law tradition which is in turn also informed by natural law as it was conceived of through the customs of England at a point in time. Citing natural law is done, but I’m not convinced that relying on it solely would withstand a serious challenge under American jurisprudence anymore because at the end of the day, it is amorphous and it does violate separation of church and State. Even common law, while informative of how the Federal courts operate, is actually not that useful at the Federal level seeing as how Federal law relies more heavily on the Constitution (again, informed by the common law, and common law tradition is used to understand the language with better clarity but it is never cited as a source for law) and the statutes that Congress passes or the treaties we sign. > Both slavery and King George's tyranny were lawful but the law was rejected because a right given to humans beyond the authority of any government to regulate was violated. Well, it was rhetorically rejected, but perhaps it would be best understood as independence was proclaimed by the Union of States and then recognized by the United Kingdom, with a war in-between to settle the claim. Then for a period of time, the United States government was governed by the Articles of Confederation before we passed the Constitution. As for slavery, we rejected that (and indentured servitude) through a constitutional amendment. Our elimination of it relied on statute, not any common or natural law concepts (although the rhetoric against slavery did cite natural law, rhetoric is rhetoric and law is law). > This is one if the reasons why I passionately hate communism, because they don't enforce mere secular agnosticism but explicit atheism because anything short of that allowd the people to reason and challenge authority imposed on them that is absolute and unquestionable. You can't challenge the CCP and tell them you will hold a religious service without permit at your home because it is your right as a human to believe what you want and share that belief because under that regime there is no authority over humans above the government and as such human rights are defined by the government and is beyond challenge. You see, this cuts to the heart of the matter: the continued existence of the PRC under the CCP’s domination, and other states like North Korea, the KSA and some other Muslim Kingdoms and other illiberal States really kind of cuts against the whole “X is a human right” schtick. Some would even argue that the United States is illiberal which, let me be clear, I strongly disagree with, but because our values don’t line up with theirs and they find some of our values or traditions abhorrent, they’ll argue the point anyway. So at the end of the day, we’ve got a bunch of claims by different peoples and organizations about what is actually a human right and basically no agreement. Given that we share this world, I can’t really agree that such a thing actually exists in any meaningful sense, but I can say I vastly prefer my tradition over others. > Ultimately, what the military (or victor military of a conflict) allows to be your human right is what is practiced. While I appreciate your pragmatism, I don’t think this is fair. Maybe all law is enforced by the gun barrel of the State pointed at us, but within many countries there does exist the means to defend yourself and your claims without resorting to military campaigning, even against the State, and there are one or more elected bodies representing people’s interests, juries, and as much I personally disrespect them, even referendums in a lot of places. Our conception of rights changes all the time, and while I don’t think positive rights are always well thought out, it is a fact that a lot of places have actually incorporated them well after a nation was founded through a process of lawmaking.

_8j50 3y ago
> common law, but one of the issues this has caused is that natural or “God-given” law is at odds with the separation of church and State Not true at all. The "modern" understanding of separation is what is at odds with the original intent at the time. Enforcement or support of a specific religion is what separation of Church and state is about not enforcement of agnosticism. Congress had sunday mass every week for many decades at the begining of the country. They still have chaplains, as does the military, they just don't enforce a specific religion. > I can’t really agree that such a thing actually exists in any meaningful sense, but I can say I vastly prefer my tradition over others. If you note my conclusion, human right is something enforced by the military not courts. To begin with, the law can recognize a human right but it can't define it, it (same as natural right to me) is beyond the jursidiction of the law. Unlike legal rights, declaring something a human right by law is merely recognizing a higher law, which means historical violations can retroactively be punished. Human rights can also be used as cause to fight a war (typically civil wars unless the aggressir claims their nationals are affected, like with putin and crimea). Human rights not only exist but have existed as long as humans have, when human law fails to recognize them and allows their violation the both the law and the violators are criminal enterprizes. > rhetoric is rhetoric and law is law It isn't rhetoric, it is reasoning and intent behind law as defined by the lawmakers. The law defines rules not reasoning and justification behind rules. Material like this can be used in court to argue a case. For your last paragraph, ultimately all criminal law exists because of the threat of imprisonment, but what I meant was not just that but also the fact that natural law is above legal law and that dispute is settled by violence usually. The most common human violator afterall is the state.

ringo-ring 3y ago

The exist non-secular types of communism FYI. For example, Thomas More's Utopia is considered to be a classical communist text, but in this text he was advocating religious freedom. Communism is a more general idea about common ownership and it is not limited to a single implementation in CCCP.