So what I really wanted to do with this blog is, in part at least,\u00a0to work out my pet solutions and explanations on various political issues \u2014 but it\u2019s difficult to pair that with the customary advice of \u201cto get people to read your blog, comment on other blogs and link to a blog post of yours on the same topic.\u201d\u00a0 <\/p>\n
Anyway, I\u2019m neither a lawyer or a philosopher, but I wanted to write a bit on rights.\u00a0 This is mostly for myself and as a means of thinking through the topic<\/p>\n
In general, human rights have historically been defined as one\u2019s right to pursue certain activities without the State interfering:\u00a0 freedom to practice one\u2019s religion (so long as it doesn\u2019t directly harm another person), freedom to publish, freedom of assembly, and the like, as well as the\u00a0more fundamental\u00a0freedom from servitude.<\/p>\n
More and more often, politicians and activists of various sorts have been redefining rights and freedoms\u00a0as positive obligations of the State.\u00a0 <\/p>\n
In that context, I pulled up Roosevelt\u2019s Four Freedoms.\u00a0 Freedom of speech and freedom of worship and pretty mainstream.\u00a0 Freedom from fear (according to Wikipedia) was defined by Roosevelt as \u201ca world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor \u2014 anywhere in the world\u201d <\/em>which is an odd statement for January of 1941, with the Nazis dominating Europe and the Japanese, Southeast Asia.\u00a0 And freedom from want is broad and prescriptive and oddly phrased in the passive tense:\u00a0 everyone has the \u201cright to an adequate standard of living.\u201d<\/p>\n At least in the Soviet Union it was clear that, in prescribing its variant on a \u201cfreedom from want\u201d they certainly meant by it that the State undertakes to provide the requisite benefits to its people.\u00a0 And due to the wonders of the internet, I\u2019m perusing the 1977 constitution of the Soviet Union.\u00a0 What were the rights of the citizens of the Soviet Union?\u00a0 \u2014 read on!<\/p>\n Of course, they were also guaranteed the right to worship, the right to vote, freedom of assembly, etc., and we know how dilligently the Soviet Union honored those freedoms.\u00a0 But I still remember (do you?) defenders of the Soviets who said \u201csure, they may not have the types of freedoms we\u2019re used to in the West, but they have other very important freedoms, like the right to healthcare.\u201d<\/p>\n Anyway, this is a very long tangent \u2014 but I do believe that the concept of human rights is only useful in defining what the State (or others in power) may not<\/em> do, and things they may not prevent a person from doing, and that a human right can never be something that obliges another person or entity to act \u2014 by providing health treatments, providing housing, etc.\u00a0 <\/p>\n Of course, there is a \u201cright to work,\u201d in that the State may not actively impede a person from earning one\u2019s livelihood (I mean cases where the State prevents a disfavored group from pursuing a certain profession, not cases where the profession itself, for other reasons, is declared illegal, like prostitution).\u00a0 And there is a \u201cright to housing\u201d insofar as the State may not actively impede a person\u2019s attempt to acquire housing (e.g., by permitting segregation).<\/p>\n But it\u00a0really disturbs\u00a0me when a politician proclaims that \u201chealthcare is a human right.\u201d\u00a0 Maybe it reminds me too much of the Soviet apologists \u2014 but I find the acceptance of\u00a0\u201cpositive rights\u201d (as I believe the term to be) to be very unsettling.<\/p>\n Having said all the above, I will say this, too:\u00a0 the State has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that its citizens\u2019 basic needs are met, and has the responsibility to do so in the most prudent way.\u00a0 In a society in which systems of private charity are functioning well, the State does not need to intervene, but when this is not the case, the State should act (though prudently, not just giving away food willy-nilly).\u00a0\u00a0I\u2019m not going to get into all kinds of political theory about what the State is <\/em>(maybe I\u2019ve still got a textbook on the topic in one of the back bookshelves in the basement, but it probably went to the used book store years ago), but I do think you can identify this as a responsibility of the State, as part of what makes it a legitimate sovereign entity with\u00a0governing powers over\u00a0the people in its territory,\u00a0without at the same time deeming there to be any particular right held by the people.\u00a0 And maybe it\u2019s a distinction without a difference, but it feels like there is a difference \u2014 if for no other reason than because, once you establish this, you can work out some basic principles around what the government should and should not do.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" So what I really wanted to do with this blog is, in part at least,\u00a0to work out my pet solutions and explanations on various political issues \u2014 but it\u2019s difficult to pair that with the customary advice of \u201cto get people to read your blog, comment on other blogs and link to a blog post […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-932","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n\n