OK. I'll start to try and make some sense of the concept of rights.
What are rights other than a social construct? And if a socail construct is the concept of rights valid in a non homogenous society?
I think rights as a social construct are not rights at all but a manifestation of that societies rules.
For example western society, or at least its commentators, hold "democracy", that is the right to vote, as an important right and one that can be used to justify at least in part inflicting violence on non democratic societies.
In contrast the Chinese, and not just the political class, are suspicious of democracy, as in a non homongenous society it is a force for instability and for historical reasons the Chinese value stability as the same class as right as we consider democracy.
Democracy, IMHO, is only an important right in a homogenous society where the vast majority accept the same social norms. Democracy is an evil in many other societies because, even with fair voting, it gives power to a cultural majority and leads to the tyranny of the majority. The genocide in Rwanda is just one example of the cultural and ethnic problems which democracy can only agravate. Iraq is another. We have removed the dictatorship of the minority Sunni muslim and replaced it with the tyranny of the majority Shia muslims. Democracy can do nothing to improve the situation in Iraq and may well be part of the ongoing problems.
Of course democracy is a valid right in societies which are homgenous such as Western Europe. However a good example of the weakness of democracy can be seen in the history of modern Turkey. The Ataturk set up a non theocratic democracy guaranteed by the army. On numerous occasions the army has felt the need to remove the elected government to safeguard the constitution. Now that an islamic party is in government there are on going concerns that religion is becoming a factor in government policy.
As far as I can see the right to vote is an example of a social right valid only in certain societies.
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Friday, 12 November 2010
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Rights
Earlier today I responded to a Facebook post about rights:
ELV "is wondering where our 'rights' begin and end . . ."
To me this is a fairly fundamental question. Too many people talk of rights as if they are free and without obligation.
So how do I see rights? At the moment I can see 3 kinds.
1. Rights seized from one's superiors, for example Magna Carta where King John was forced to concede various rights.
2. Rights granted by a state or group of states, for example the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. Libertarian rights. The right as an individual to go about one's business without let or interference by anyone provided one doesn't interfere with the same right for others.
Is there a difference between these types of rights? In practice probably not. However I see groups 1 and 2 as rights granted by some authority while group 3 seem more fundamental.
The problem with groups 1 and 2 is the fact that someone else has the power to grant or enforce them. Since I only reluctantly concede to being coerced by others as a modus operandi with the real world I accept these rights as a partial counter balance with the coercive nature of the state. However philosophically I dislike having to accept rights from the same coercive state.
Group 3 rights seem to distil down to special cases of the basic libertarian non-aggression principle. I am content with group 3 rights as they are consistent with my favourite piece of graffiti scrawled across my college walls many years ago, ni dieu ni maitre.
Gay rights, women’s rights, religious rights are all in fact just aspects of the basic libertarian right. Your sexuality, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc are irrelevant provided they do not interfere with other people’s equivalent rights. And in the end these rights only involve the state as the laws of the land have constrained and limited our right to live as we see fit. For a free society the state only has to say these things are nothing to do with government.
The problem with all this is of course that our right to defend our rights has been taken from us by the coercive state over the last 100 years or so partly, or mainly, as means of social control.
ELV "is wondering where our 'rights' begin and end . . ."
To me this is a fairly fundamental question. Too many people talk of rights as if they are free and without obligation.
So how do I see rights? At the moment I can see 3 kinds.
1. Rights seized from one's superiors, for example Magna Carta where King John was forced to concede various rights.
2. Rights granted by a state or group of states, for example the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. Libertarian rights. The right as an individual to go about one's business without let or interference by anyone provided one doesn't interfere with the same right for others.
Is there a difference between these types of rights? In practice probably not. However I see groups 1 and 2 as rights granted by some authority while group 3 seem more fundamental.
The problem with groups 1 and 2 is the fact that someone else has the power to grant or enforce them. Since I only reluctantly concede to being coerced by others as a modus operandi with the real world I accept these rights as a partial counter balance with the coercive nature of the state. However philosophically I dislike having to accept rights from the same coercive state.
Group 3 rights seem to distil down to special cases of the basic libertarian non-aggression principle. I am content with group 3 rights as they are consistent with my favourite piece of graffiti scrawled across my college walls many years ago, ni dieu ni maitre.
Gay rights, women’s rights, religious rights are all in fact just aspects of the basic libertarian right. Your sexuality, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc are irrelevant provided they do not interfere with other people’s equivalent rights. And in the end these rights only involve the state as the laws of the land have constrained and limited our right to live as we see fit. For a free society the state only has to say these things are nothing to do with government.
The problem with all this is of course that our right to defend our rights has been taken from us by the coercive state over the last 100 years or so partly, or mainly, as means of social control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)