3 ms·

Actually, I think Posner's position is backwards and untenable in a modern globalized context. If we assume that human rights must be respected regardless of na

by Joeri 13y ago

Actually, I think Posner's position is backwards and untenable in a modern globalized context. If we assume that human rights must be respected regardless of nationality, then national borders must be subservient to human rights. Reading the universal declaration of human rights, these articles jump out at me for specifically this context: Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Therefore, you cannot exclude people from due process because they are foreigners. Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. Therefore, you cannot have one kind of due process for your own people, and another kind for foreigners. Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Therefore, the U.S. system of law is obligated to protect foreigners from undue interference by the NSA, to an equal degree as U.S. citizens are protected. Now, you can say that the human rights declaration is just a bunch of words without legal weight, and that in a realpolitik context it's simply impossible to give everyone their human rights in the current world even if you wanted to. And you would be right. When you read the UDHR it is depressing how far we have to go. But ... on this point, at this time, we can make genuine progress. So, why not? If what the NSA is doing is wrong when applied to U.S. citizens, it is wrong when applied to foreigners. In the long run, people like Posner will be viewed as those who held back the tide of progress. The social struggle for equal human rights for all is not done, and it won't be for centuries, but you definitely want to be at the right side of history at each inflection point, and this is one of them.

rayiner 13y ago
Here's the problem with recognizing "human rights" in a "modern globalized context." They're either meaningless verbiage, as the UDHR are, or enforceable norms, which presuppose some "modern globalized" body with the power to enforce norms. I disagree that in the long run, people will find it so imperative to respect a universal set of "human rights" that they will be willing to give up autonomy to submit to international norms to enforce those rights. Yes, the arc of history trends towards greater recognition of rights. But it also shows that groups of like minded people always struggle for autonomy. Nationalist movements are just as common in history as civil rights movements. Consider the UDHR itself. Most things in there are things Americans can agree with. But take Article 24 (right to holidays with pay), Article 25 (right to healthcare and housing), Article 26 (right to education), Article 27(2) (right to copyright protection). A lot of people, all over the world, would find calling one or more of these things "human rights" utterly ridiculous. You think they'd be in favor of giving up the autonomy of their countries to decide for themselves what social norms to adhere to, so as to elevate to an exalted status a set of norms determined mostly by other people?
- josephlord 13y ago
  I disagree that the UDHR is "meaningless verbiage". It is a commonly agreed standard to which all can be held and criticised when they fall short and gain respect when it is largely achieved. Of course it was a compromise and people might prefer some items not included but that compromise was agreed to and is what it is. On something like privacy it says that it is a human right and that people should generally have it respected, it is useful because it make clear and explicit the wrong that the NSA have been doing at home and abroad.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > It is a commonly agreed standard to which all can be held and criticised when they fall short and gain respect when it is largely achieved. But nobody can be "held" to the UDHR. They can be criticized for not following it, but countries can be criticized for their practices without the UDHR too! The word "right" has to have more meaning than "we'll criticize you if you don't do this."
    - josephlord 13y ago
      Rights don't depend on enforcement that is the whole point of Rights theory and the background to the US Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self evident…"). Once the existence of rights is accept there is the issue of deciding what they are e.g. US Bill of Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, UDHR etc. The next question is enforcement (US constitution, European Court of Human Rights) but isn't essential, the agreement of standards does matter even if there is no enforcement.
      - PeterisP 13y ago
        If you are unable to excercise a 'right' because armed men will take you away if you do so, then that 'right' de facto simply doesn't exist in your area. UDHR is a declaration of some consensus between quite a few people and organizations on what rights humans should have - but most of the current population doesn't have them in practice. For all practical purposes, any enforced triviality matters much more than an unenforceable theoretical right. Sure, there is a theory of rights claiming that there exist unalienable rights that people simply have. And there's a theory of rights claiming that there exist exactly those rights that are granted by those able to grant them in practice, by the sovereign powers. One of these theories happens to match the observations of reality, the actual behaviour of massed homo sapiens groups - and the other is well, just a wishful theory that doesn't provide truthful predictions or conclusions about actual future events.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by Joeri 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

Here's the problem with recognizing "human rights" in a "modern globalized context." They're either meaningless verbiage, as the UDHR are, or enforceable norms, which presuppose some "modern globalized" body with the power to enforce norms. I disagree that in the long run, people will find it so imperative to respect a universal set of "human rights" that they will be willing to give up autonomy to submit to international norms to enforce those rights. Yes, the arc of history trends towards greater recognition of rights. But it also shows that groups of like minded people always struggle for autonomy. Nationalist movements are just as common in history as civil rights movements. Consider the UDHR itself. Most things in there are things Americans can agree with. But take Article 24 (right to holidays with pay), Article 25 (right to healthcare and housing), Article 26 (right to education), Article 27(2) (right to copyright protection). A lot of people, all over the world, would find calling one or more of these things "human rights" utterly ridiculous. You think they'd be in favor of giving up the autonomy of their countries to decide for themselves what social norms to adhere to, so as to elevate to an exalted status a set of norms determined mostly by other people?

josephlord 13y ago
I disagree that the UDHR is "meaningless verbiage". It is a commonly agreed standard to which all can be held and criticised when they fall short and gain respect when it is largely achieved. Of course it was a compromise and people might prefer some items not included but that compromise was agreed to and is what it is. On something like privacy it says that it is a human right and that people should generally have it respected, it is useful because it make clear and explicit the wrong that the NSA have been doing at home and abroad.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > It is a commonly agreed standard to which all can be held and criticised when they fall short and gain respect when it is largely achieved. But nobody can be "held" to the UDHR. They can be criticized for not following it, but countries can be criticized for their practices without the UDHR too! The word "right" has to have more meaning than "we'll criticize you if you don't do this."
  - josephlord 13y ago
    Rights don't depend on enforcement that is the whole point of Rights theory and the background to the US Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self evident…"). Once the existence of rights is accept there is the issue of deciding what they are e.g. US Bill of Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, UDHR etc. The next question is enforcement (US constitution, European Court of Human Rights) but isn't essential, the agreement of standards does matter even if there is no enforcement.
    - PeterisP 13y ago
      If you are unable to excercise a 'right' because armed men will take you away if you do so, then that 'right' de facto simply doesn't exist in your area. UDHR is a declaration of some consensus between quite a few people and organizations on what rights humans should have - but most of the current population doesn't have them in practice. For all practical purposes, any enforced triviality matters much more than an unenforceable theoretical right. Sure, there is a theory of rights claiming that there exist unalienable rights that people simply have. And there's a theory of rights claiming that there exist exactly those rights that are granted by those able to grant them in practice, by the sovereign powers. One of these theories happens to match the observations of reality, the actual behaviour of massed homo sapiens groups - and the other is well, just a wishful theory that doesn't provide truthful predictions or conclusions about actual future events.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]