Yes, yes, yes. But what makes the U.N. or Amnesty International or Saddam Hussein believe something should be a human right?
Note to self: use “preview” in order to avoid the embarrassment of having a question addressed to MrO be answered by kabbes.
[DeNiro voice] You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me?[/DeNiro voice]
Actually, few people know or care less than I do about how the UN or AI makes their decisions, so I would invite anyone who has any answers to present them. My impression is that the UN and AI are “watchdog” groups who base their decisions, at least apparently, on the minimum amount of freedom and priviledge that they believe people need to have a shot at a happy life. But being the cynic that I am, I wouldn’t doubt that there is a fair amount of self-interest at work there too.
Okay, but in that case, possible is all we can hope for; there are no rights. When we say that someone’s rights are being denied, we really mean that this person should be able to do something, but isn’t.
I couldn’t say how rights should be determined. I suspect that governments use many criteria. One view could be that they grant their citizens freedoms according to how much freedom they (the government officials) think people need to be happy, how much people might benefit from a priviledge, and how much harm, if any, that priviledge will do to others or to the society as a whole.
A more cynical view might be that governments grant freedoms according to how much they think people can endure without revolting.
Certain governments (Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada come to mind) seem to lean toward the former method of determining what they will call “rights.” Pol Pot leaned toward the latter method. I now live in Korea, and it seems to be pretty much in the middle. The US, the country of my citizenship, is harder to pin down. Seems to me that some factions of the US government fit into the former group, and some into the latter.
Either way, there aren’t any “rights.” There is only what we can get away with, and what we can’t. For those with a conscience, there is also what people should be able to get away with. Or so it seems to me.
All those “priviledges” should be “privileges,” I suppose. I’m not a great speller.
Think about it like this: If you want and if you have the means (cash, persuasive power, etc.), you could gather together a bunch of people (you’re going to need a bunch), arm them (I don’t mean shotguns and slingshots; you’re going to need artillery pieces, long-range bombers, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and lots more), train them, swear them to loyalty (or pay them really well), and have yourself an army. Then you could take over any government in the world, or all of them (if you have enough of those weapons). Then you could set up any kind of government you like–you could declare every desire a “human right,” and your subjects could do whatever they want, or you could lay out strict rules and limitations, and everyone would have to obey. (You’ll have to have a well-armed and trained police force, of course, but as long as you give them uniforms people will think they have authority.)
Oh yeah, you’ll need a lot of prisons too, to deal with those who disagree with your idea of rights. All governments have them. Do they have the right to incarcerate people? Irrelevant. The winners of wars get to approve of what the history books teach, and you can gloss over the parts that make you look bad. Provided of course that you win.
I also recommend setting up a religion in cahoots with your government. Some people aren’t much afraid of the power of prisons and guns, but they might be swayed by fear of eternal punishment in some imaginary afterlife.
In other words, if you have the muscle (and there are lots of kinds of muscle), you can decide what rights people have. And the only way anyone can say otherwise is if they have more guns, or more persuasive power, than you do.
After all, this is the way that most governments have come into being. Moral authority? It’s easier to govern if you convince people that you have some, but it isn’t really necessary. You just have to have the power. Power doesn’t make you right, of course, but who cares? Sentimentalists may rail about rights, but you decide.
It isn’t a very romantic or pretty picture of “rights,” but it is pretty accurate. There aren’t really any rights. There is power, and sometimes there is kindness, but power gets to decide how much of that is allowed. Intelligent governments realize that people are more likely to pay their taxes and support the government if they’re allowed to live more or less as they wish. But rights? Yeah, you nailed it when you called them a “meaningless rhetorical flourish.” Meaningless, that is, without the power to back them up.
Sorry. Got a little carried away. Do I have the right to do that?