3 ms·

Rights do not exist. "Human Right" is a modern synonym for power. In absence of power, a right is meaningless. In the presence of power, a right is superfluous.

Jayschwa 13y ago
Power is often needed to protect rights, but they are not the same concepts.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Legal rights and human (natural) rights are different things. Legal rights are provided by the use of force. Human rights are ideals, there is no guarantee about them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
tsotha 13y ago
So-called positive rights are on even shakier ground. To say that someone has a right to something means somebody else has the duty to pay for it. Well... who?
dnautics 13y ago
it's a little bit more subtle than that. Generally speaking a 'human right' is the acknowledgement that someone or some agent can do something to you, but is relinquishing the power/promising not to use their power. For example, 'the right to free speech': The government could use its vast power, military, authority to muzzle you, but it promises not to. 'the right to a trial by jury': The government could use its array of police forces to lock you up with no recourse, but it promises not to, without some level of due process. They are not synonymous - a government certainly has the POWER to levy war, but that is generally not considered a 'right'. Because some of these negative rights seem to be positive (like the right to a trial jury, although in earlier times, jury duty was not mandatory - or the right to vote, which is better thought of as the government promising not have governors that are unelected) - in recent times, they have been conflated with other things that have been labelled 'rights' like 'the right to water' or 'the right to the internet', or 'the right to a living wage', which are certainly categorically different from the negative rights, unless the promise is much more limited than what most of these additional rights advocates are lobbying for.

Jayschwa 13y ago

Power is often needed to protect rights, but they are not the same concepts.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Legal rights and human (natural) rights are different things. Legal rights are provided by the use of force. Human rights are ideals, there is no guarantee about them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

tsotha 13y ago

So-called positive rights are on even shakier ground. To say that someone has a right to something means somebody else has the duty to pay for it. Well... who?

dnautics 13y ago

it's a little bit more subtle than that. Generally speaking a 'human right' is the acknowledgement that someone or some agent can do something to you, but is relinquishing the power/promising not to use their power. For example, 'the right to free speech': The government could use its vast power, military, authority to muzzle you, but it promises not to. 'the right to a trial by jury': The government could use its array of police forces to lock you up with no recourse, but it promises not to, without some level of due process. They are not synonymous - a government certainly has the POWER to levy war, but that is generally not considered a 'right'. Because some of these negative rights seem to be positive (like the right to a trial jury, although in earlier times, jury duty was not mandatory - or the right to vote, which is better thought of as the government promising not have governors that are unelected) - in recent times, they have been conflated with other things that have been labelled 'rights' like 'the right to water' or 'the right to the internet', or 'the right to a living wage', which are certainly categorically different from the negative rights, unless the promise is much more limited than what most of these additional rights advocates are lobbying for.