4 ms·

>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 wi

>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.
      - Frondo 12y ago
        But the structures necessary to participate: someone's compelled to do something! Start from nothing, and try to build up a system that at all resembles a democracy, and you're compelling people left and right. Throw in property rights, such as land ownership, and you're compelling people just about 24/7. Just because you like being able to use the violence of the state to throw people off your lawn doesn't mean that it isn't compelling people to be in a certain place.

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.
    - Frondo 12y ago
      But the structures necessary to participate: someone's compelled to do something! Start from nothing, and try to build up a system that at all resembles a democracy, and you're compelling people left and right. Throw in property rights, such as land ownership, and you're compelling people just about 24/7. Just because you like being able to use the violence of the state to throw people off your lawn doesn't mean that it isn't compelling people to be in a certain place.