I wouldn’t be so sure most people have a formed opinion on that. They might be accepting the declaration of human rights simply because it has “human rights” in the name and is often referred to by politicians – as a default.

You’re of course free to use a different definition, I just wanted it to be clear that I have some problems with human rights the way you define them and not with the more common definition that I actually support with a passion.

Yeah, you have a problem with human right not to be coerced. I know, I know, rhetorics, but I’m just flabbergasted that we’re even questioning something so basic. I wonder if anyone else but you wouldn’t see this as a sign of mere avoidance of admission that would rock your little world more than you’re comfortable.

Your passionate support for your definition makes you feel justified in forcing it on others. My “definition” on the other hand makes it impossible for me to force it on others while being consistent with it. Let the “third party” decide which makes more sense.

May I suggest that you blog a comparison between the
declaration and what you think about human rights?

Not a bad idea.

Thanks

May I suggest that you blog a comparison between the declaration and what you think about human rights?

What you call “free” elementary education actually is not free unless you’re gonna just nonchalantly ignore all of the money being stolen by the government from those same people who are supposedly getting it “free”, not to mention additional costs associated with basic schooling that government doesn’t cover (depending on country this may involve anything from books to basic equipment etc.).

You speak of certainty. It is certain that you’re not getting elementary education for free today. You’re getting it more expensively in fact (state monopoly means less competition meaning less quality for more money which is stolen meaning an additional cost of maintaining force and propaganda which itself gets into schools in form of history lessons that prop up nationalism, allegiance to law and authority which helps perpetuate the whole vicious circle and keep decreasing the chances of a free market ever resolving the problem).

Some of the “rights” it purpots to be “universal” make the declaration as a whole in fact self contradictory. If legitimized coercion in form of theft (“taxes”) is a part of the “law” and so required for some of these “rights” to be exercised, property rights are denied yet they are a part of the declaration.

The question is and has always been simple. People just rarely think about it. The question is: “Do you believe you have a right to initiate violence on other people or that other people have a right to initiate violence on you?” In a nutshell, do you believe in violence?

If the answer is no you can wipe your ass with the declaration of “human rights” because it does not represent them. Only you can represent your rights.

Of course, you Taco believe you and others have the right to decide instead of me what rights I have and find the use of violence to impose your belief on me acceptable.

There is simply no way you can win an argument with that here, claiming you’re consistently pro-human-rights.

Because there is some risk of a third party taking things said in this debate out of context (“Evil Taco is against human rights”…), and the context is not quite clear anyway since a lot of the discussion happened in private email, I’d like to point out that:

As far as the word “rights” is meaningful, and even beyond that, I strongly support human rights as in the universal declaration of human rights.
Also, I consider articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15.1, 16.3, 21, 22, 23.1, 23.2, 24, 25, 26.1, 26.2, 27, 29.1 and 29.2 to be incompatible with anarcho-capitalism aka voluntaryism (in quite a few it’s a matter of language (“law”), but there are more serious issues as well), but I’m not enough of a jerk to say Danijel doesn’t respect human rights. Or maybe I am, because in a sense I just did.

If you wonder what those “more serious issues” are… well apart from the mentions of democracy there’s for example the problem that one cannot be certain that free elementary/fundamental education will be provided to everyone if this is task is left to a charity.

Your considering violations of rights a fact of life does in my view lead you to the justifications of unreasonably violent behavior. Your mere acceptance of legitimized coercion is enough. You can’t respect humans and not respect their rights just as you can’t respect other things and respect their rights too.

The problem seems to be that you reject the distinction between situations where rights exist and situations where they don’t on the basis of this exotic belief that has little weight in terms of logical consistency and evidence. It’s almost like some sort of religious fundamentalism that makes you believe in violations of rights when they do exist.

Quite messed up IMHO.

They need to eat, though…

Those would be the last ones I’d expect to disrespect human rights and condone coercion.

Well, expect whatever you want to expect. I’ll point out that “human rights” is a rather speciesist term (heh, I remember Klingons complain about it), and that considering violations of rights a fact of life is not the same thing as approving of unreasonably violent behavior. I’ve told you before, I respect humans (and other things), not ideas about them.

Maybe that’s a bit different kind of self awareness than what we are talking about, but it certainly does suggest we should be careful.

I certainly wouldn’t mind. There probably are scientists who keep studying animals and could report on first signs of them having true self-awareness potential which could also start help educate them.. and what happens then we’ll see.

And then there’s this cultural aspect… Those who believe everything is self-aware (for example because they believe everything is part of their god as well as a thought on the mind of that god) obviously need a different way to decide whose rights to respect.

I would guess they’d simply respect the rights of everything as much as possible. Those would be the last ones I’d expect to disrespect human rights and condone coercion.

A bit less exotic: many if not most humans will respect rights even when they’re not being demanded, for example choosing to hurt themselves instead of an animal when they would have to make that choice.

Yes, lack of obligation is just a lack of obligation. If you wish you can still buy a monkey and treat him as a king of kings on your estate.

So I’m not so sure the ability to demand rights is a universal principle in ethics, but trying to avoid doing things that others ask you not to usually is a good idea…

I’m not sure it even is an ethical principle. It’s simply an external fact pertaining to whether ethical principle of some kind can or can’t be applied, I’d say. If you don’t know something then you can’t act as if you do. I believe rights are inalianable, but if I don’t care to demand them I can’t exactly expect others not to ever violate them, intentionally or not.

I have inherent rights, but if nobody knows and acknowledges that they will violate them. It’s like saying I have a formula for the cure for cancer in my head, but if I tell nobody they can’t give me credit for it.

Anyway some of the more intelligent species do show some signs of self awareness, such as recognizing the difference between a video showing themselves and a video showing a different individual. Maybe that’s a bit different kind of self awareness than what we are talking about, but it certainly does suggest we should be careful.

And then there’s this cultural aspect… Those who believe everything is self-aware (for example because they believe everything is part of their god as well as a thought on the mind of that god) obviously need a different way to decide whose rights to respect.
I’m not 100% sure if I would put myself in that group (accepting a totally different kind of god and in a totally different way than the ones I do recognize) but it does give an elegant solution to some fundamental questions about the universe… Just not one that can be proven to be true or false.

A bit less exotic: many if not most humans will respect rights even when they’re not being demanded, for example choosing to hurt themselves instead of an animal when they would have to make that choice.

So I’m not so sure the ability to demand rights is a universal principle in ethics, but trying to avoid doing things that others ask you not to usually is a good idea…