3 ms·

I find it interesting that you picked one example that involves stepping outside the bounds of human civilization (e.g. walking around in the woods) to shore up

by Frondo 12y ago

I find it interesting that you picked one example that involves stepping outside the bounds of human civilization (e.g. walking around in the woods) to shore up your argument--as if we should all nod along and say yes, how silly! access to drinking water, a human right?? What puzzles me about this whole "a human right cannot be something that compels someone to do something" argument is how it breaks down not just on edge cases, but on common cases. What do you think about the right to a fair trial? Or the right to a speedy trial? Is the right to a fair trial not actually a human right, since the judicial system is (theoretically) compelled to be honest? That's my problem with these libertarian-derived ideas about rights, they really only work out cleanly when you're talking about owning, trading, etc. For the very wide swath of human behavior that doesn't involve material possessions, what then?

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Is the right to a fair trial not actually a human right, since the judicial system is (theoretically) compelled to be honest? Arguably, you can view this as a negative right in the sense that it is conditional (it only applies if you are subjected to a trial, so no one has to provide anything to provide it, they just have to refrain from unfair trials.) Similarly, the right to a speedy trial again only applies when you are prosecuted -- so it can be met by refraining from prosecution when it cannot (or will not) be provided, rather than actively providing anything. That's not to say that I agree with the "all human rights are negative rights" argument, just that it is quite simple to recognize fair/speedy trial rights as negative rights.
- Frondo 12y ago
  What about the right to participate in government? I brought that one up in another comment elsewhere in this thread. And, even with this one, it seems like such a strain to me to say "the right to a fair trial is a negative right because, even though you're compelling the government structures to act in a certain way, it only applies once you're in the justice system". It seems tautological to say "it's a right that applies when it applies, therefore it's a negative right". That same reasoning seems like it could apply to just about anything; access to drinking water is a human right, because once you are in a civilization that moderates your access to water, that civilization must refrain from tampering (as in with pollution, access controls, etc) with your access to it.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > What about the right to participate in government? The right to participate in government can be viewed as the right to be free from government action without you being given the opportunity to participate. It can be met by government not acting, as well as by you having the opportunity to participate (directly or indirectly) in any decision it makes. I think that those who hold to the pure negative view of human rights absolutely tend to view the right to participate this way (and frequently to prefer government non-action to action-with-participation.) > And, even with this one, it seems like such a strain to me to say "the right to a fair trial is a negative right because, even though you're compelling the government structures to act in a certain way, it only applies once you're in the justice system". What I think you miss is that being "in the justice system" isn't something that happens external to actions of the government. So it can be a purely a negative right, in that it requires government not to subject you to the justice system unless in so doing it also acts in a certain way. If it was conditioned on something outside of the governments control, then it would not be a pure negative right. Particularly, if you view the right to a fair trial as applying not only to conditions when you are subject to the justice system, but to include a right to bring grievances against the government and other members of society and to have them fairly heard by an appropriate tribunal, then it becomes a positive right, because the situations in which it applies are no longer ones that result from government action. But, again, I think that many people, particularly those that view negative rights as the exclusive human rights, view the right to a fair trial in terms that are consistent with the purely negative view (and the right to a speedy trial is, as generally understood in the US, a right of that type, since it applies only to criminal trials, which occur only as the result of positive government action, so it is a right that is a pure restraint on government action.)
    - Frondo 12y ago
      But you do see the kinds of contortions you have to go through now, to frame the good non-property-owning rights as "negative rights", right? The right participate in one's governance is now "the right to participate in government that you can participate in, because without that right the government would be meddling in your stuff". If people are happy jumping through those kinds of mental hoops to maintain the purity of a "negative rights are the only rights" worldview then ok, but let's be honest about how we're building these flimsy artifices on an idea that can't really support them.
mason240 12y ago
>What do you think about the right to a fair trial? Or the right to a speedy trial? Those are limitations put on the use of power by government when dealing with justice, which not even close to being the same as thing as saying you a "human right" for that government to provide you with a service like internet access.
- Frondo 12y ago
  The right to a fair or speedy trial is not a human right? I just want to be clear that that's what you're saying.
  - mason240 12y ago
    I didn't say that it is not. I'm saying that you can't compare limits on government power as proof that there is a human right to get services from a government.
    - Frondo 12y ago
      And what I'm saying is, it doesn't work to say that only "negative rights" (stuff that doesn't compel anyone to do anything) are human rights. People have a human right to participate in their government, too. That certainly compels something to exist: a structure in which they can voice their desires in their governance. It'd take a lot of contortions to work that right into being an ok-to-exist "negative right," and for my part just shows how "negative rights" breaks down really quickly once you get past the really easy stuff like speech.
      - mason240 12y ago
        The only reason contortions are involved is because you are inserting them to make the issue seem more complicated than it is. >People have a human right to participate in their government, too. Which is a limit on government's power. That is the essence of the entire Enlightenment philosophy that all this is based.

by Frondo 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Is the right to a fair trial not actually a human right, since the judicial system is (theoretically) compelled to be honest? Arguably, you can view this as a negative right in the sense that it is conditional (it only applies if you are subjected to a trial, so no one has to provide anything to provide it, they just have to refrain from unfair trials.) Similarly, the right to a speedy trial again only applies when you are prosecuted -- so it can be met by refraining from prosecution when it cannot (or will not) be provided, rather than actively providing anything. That's not to say that I agree with the "all human rights are negative rights" argument, just that it is quite simple to recognize fair/speedy trial rights as negative rights.

Frondo 12y ago
What about the right to participate in government? I brought that one up in another comment elsewhere in this thread. And, even with this one, it seems like such a strain to me to say "the right to a fair trial is a negative right because, even though you're compelling the government structures to act in a certain way, it only applies once you're in the justice system". It seems tautological to say "it's a right that applies when it applies, therefore it's a negative right". That same reasoning seems like it could apply to just about anything; access to drinking water is a human right, because once you are in a civilization that moderates your access to water, that civilization must refrain from tampering (as in with pollution, access controls, etc) with your access to it.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > What about the right to participate in government? The right to participate in government can be viewed as the right to be free from government action without you being given the opportunity to participate. It can be met by government not acting, as well as by you having the opportunity to participate (directly or indirectly) in any decision it makes. I think that those who hold to the pure negative view of human rights absolutely tend to view the right to participate this way (and frequently to prefer government non-action to action-with-participation.) > And, even with this one, it seems like such a strain to me to say "the right to a fair trial is a negative right because, even though you're compelling the government structures to act in a certain way, it only applies once you're in the justice system". What I think you miss is that being "in the justice system" isn't something that happens external to actions of the government. So it can be a purely a negative right, in that it requires government not to subject you to the justice system unless in so doing it also acts in a certain way. If it was conditioned on something outside of the governments control, then it would not be a pure negative right. Particularly, if you view the right to a fair trial as applying not only to conditions when you are subject to the justice system, but to include a right to bring grievances against the government and other members of society and to have them fairly heard by an appropriate tribunal, then it becomes a positive right, because the situations in which it applies are no longer ones that result from government action. But, again, I think that many people, particularly those that view negative rights as the exclusive human rights, view the right to a fair trial in terms that are consistent with the purely negative view (and the right to a speedy trial is, as generally understood in the US, a right of that type, since it applies only to criminal trials, which occur only as the result of positive government action, so it is a right that is a pure restraint on government action.)
  - Frondo 12y ago
    But you do see the kinds of contortions you have to go through now, to frame the good non-property-owning rights as "negative rights", right? The right participate in one's governance is now "the right to participate in government that you can participate in, because without that right the government would be meddling in your stuff". If people are happy jumping through those kinds of mental hoops to maintain the purity of a "negative rights are the only rights" worldview then ok, but let's be honest about how we're building these flimsy artifices on an idea that can't really support them.

mason240 12y ago

>What do you think about the right to a fair trial? Or the right to a speedy trial? Those are limitations put on the use of power by government when dealing with justice, which not even close to being the same as thing as saying you a "human right" for that government to provide you with a service like internet access.

Frondo 12y ago
The right to a fair or speedy trial is not a human right? I just want to be clear that that's what you're saying.
- mason240 12y ago
  I didn't say that it is not. I'm saying that you can't compare limits on government power as proof that there is a human right to get services from a government.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    And what I'm saying is, it doesn't work to say that only "negative rights" (stuff that doesn't compel anyone to do anything) are human rights. People have a human right to participate in their government, too. That certainly compels something to exist: a structure in which they can voice their desires in their governance. It'd take a lot of contortions to work that right into being an ok-to-exist "negative right," and for my part just shows how "negative rights" breaks down really quickly once you get past the really easy stuff like speech.
    - mason240 12y ago
      The only reason contortions are involved is because you are inserting them to make the issue seem more complicated than it is. >People have a human right to participate in their government, too. Which is a limit on government's power. That is the essence of the entire Enlightenment philosophy that all this is based.