3 ms·

The foundation of all laws is the right of the stronger. Government monopoly on power is a prerequisite for being able to implement derivative "rights." Human r

by hyperion2010 12y ago

The foundation of all laws is the right of the stronger. Government monopoly on power is a prerequisite for being able to implement derivative "rights." Human rights are an articulation of what the west has found generally leads to productive and stable societies over the last 200ish years, but it took us well over 2000 years of rather violent despotic rule to get there. The implementation of human rights has required the continual political participation of citizens (not really an apt term for a baron, but it will have to do) since at least 1215 and the only way we were able to get there is because various groups of men had enough power to confront their ruler and demand concessions. The problem we face today is that the modern state is far and away the most powerful tool we have ever created and is highly resistant to change (this is a feature, not a bug). Instability often takes a long time to reveal itself (consider Syria) and is extremely bloody and violent yet for some reason we don't quibble about the "human rights" of combatants in a civil war. If you want fast change it is almost certainly going to be in the form of violent conflict and the expected value of winning needs to be vastly higher than the value of maintaining the status quo (unless you have a large unemployed male population between the ages of 18 and 34). So we (wisely) settle for slow change in our own countries while demanding the rest of the world quickly catch up so we can stop feeling guilty which is tantamount to demanding they forsake even a semblance of stability and a modicum of rights for bloodshed and the potential for the victorious regime to be worse than the current one (as Egypt had the misfortune to discover). If there is a solution it almost certainly is to work patiently with other countries and push for gradual liberalization and development of governmental institutions that are less corrupt. China is a perfect example. They are walking a fine line between economic and political liberalization and if they move too quickly in either direction they risk igniting a revolution at which point we can throw human rights out the window along with the bodies. Human rights are like a design doc that no one know how to implement (and no team has been hired to implement) and was created by reading half the api of four similar software projects that have been under continuous development for over a hundred years (just imagine that for a second). The doc might contain some essential truth's about what said piece of should do in some abstract sense but gives no guidance about how to do it and certainly doesn't mention the various children sacrificed during the implementation of the reference systems.

nl 12y ago
If there is a solution it almost certainly is to work patiently with other countries The problem here is that it assumes an "us" and "them" approach, which is clearly invalid. The article does a good job of pointing out the differences in interpretation of the right to free speech, even across "western" countries. Those difference apply to everything. I was hoping the article would present an alternative way of reasoning societal goals. For example, the Chinese government often emphasises the value of stability and cohesion. I don't think these values (on their own) are necessarily better or worse than those articulated in the declaration of human rights. Maybe it is possible to unify these under a single framework? For example, the "least harm" model is often used for evaluation of morality. Perhaps that makes sense here too?
- hyperion2010 12y ago
  I think that people have been looking for alternatives to Hobbes for a long time. Unfortunately unless we vastly improve our education systems or fundamentally change certain aspects of human nature most of his observations about leviathans vs the state of nature (revolution) tend to coincide with the principle of least harm when considered over slightly longer timescales. With respect to societal goals I think it is also important to realize that we often want conflicting things and that in the US we struggle with societal goal setting (just look at the absurdity of the debates over healthcare because we essentially refuse to articulate and decide on societal goals around health).
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    >With respect to societal goals I think it is also important to realize that we often want conflicting things and that in the US we struggle with societal goal setting (just look at the absurdity of the debates over healthcare because we essentially refuse to articulate and decide on societal goals around health). Of course the US refuses. To decide on goals about health would imply that there are higher values than the pursuit of capital accumulation.

nl 12y ago

If there is a solution it almost certainly is to work patiently with other countries The problem here is that it assumes an "us" and "them" approach, which is clearly invalid. The article does a good job of pointing out the differences in interpretation of the right to free speech, even across "western" countries. Those difference apply to everything. I was hoping the article would present an alternative way of reasoning societal goals. For example, the Chinese government often emphasises the value of stability and cohesion. I don't think these values (on their own) are necessarily better or worse than those articulated in the declaration of human rights. Maybe it is possible to unify these under a single framework? For example, the "least harm" model is often used for evaluation of morality. Perhaps that makes sense here too?

hyperion2010 12y ago
I think that people have been looking for alternatives to Hobbes for a long time. Unfortunately unless we vastly improve our education systems or fundamentally change certain aspects of human nature most of his observations about leviathans vs the state of nature (revolution) tend to coincide with the principle of least harm when considered over slightly longer timescales. With respect to societal goals I think it is also important to realize that we often want conflicting things and that in the US we struggle with societal goal setting (just look at the absurdity of the debates over healthcare because we essentially refuse to articulate and decide on societal goals around health).
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  >With respect to societal goals I think it is also important to realize that we often want conflicting things and that in the US we struggle with societal goal setting (just look at the absurdity of the debates over healthcare because we essentially refuse to articulate and decide on societal goals around health). Of course the US refuses. To decide on goals about health would imply that there are higher values than the pursuit of capital accumulation.