On Human Rights

[foeofthelance]

A Quick Rant on Human Rights.

I have been taking a World Politics class, mostly for the sake of having somewhere to argue, a past time I am fond of. Sadly, my class tends to be somewhat full of liberals, and not generally very intelligent ones. To begin, let me introduce the players*:

Teacher- The wise old man who runs the class. He serves sort of as a moderator, and until now has been forced to play devils advocate for a few topics.

Mr. Kenya- So named for his country of origin, he’s become sort of a class expert on human abuses of humans. I don’t know how much of his knowledge is first hand, but he seems to have enough information for Teacher to use him as a sounding board.

Miss Brazil- Also known for her country of origin. In her case, she’s pretty much a born Tranzi. I quote straight from the lion’s mouth! “America is responsible for fixing the world,” and “White people are genetically evil,” are so far, my two favorites.

The Queen of Sheba (Hereby abbreviated to Q.o.S.)- She sits in the back of the class next to Mr. Kenya, where she rules her liberal minions with an Iron Fist. Whereas Brazil has a tendency to shoot of her mouth, Q.o.S can disguise mistruth rather prettily, though the past few days have seen no sign of this.

The Brothers Foe- Our heroes of the story. (Duh, I’m telling it!) I being the older, and more talkative, he being the younger, and more likely to make me bust a gut laughing at some parody of the liberal position. Still, he makes a fair wingman.

* All names have been changed to protect the innocent (Teacher and Mr. Kenya), the guilty, (Brothers Foe) and the bloody stupid (Everyone else.)

The Topic: Human Rights, and where they come from. The teacher poses it, first asking who believes them to be a natural state of humanity (the majority of the class) or as effects of the State/Nation/Society (The Brothers Foe and two others). Teacher begins to tackle the issue, posing essentially moral questions (Genocide, bigotry, etc.) to the class. After a few hedged bets that lost, it soon becomes apparent to the Brother’s O’Connor that their best idea is not to look for the moral answer, but the effective one. In each case the problem involved a state denying rights to a citizen, for what ever reason. (Jews in Germany, Catholics in Britain, Ireland) After a few moments worrying over personal morality, it occurs to the Brothers Foe that if the rights are not being allowed to be exercised, then they do not, properly, exist.

This begins the long road to Hell. So genocide is now ok? Yes. (Just as it was back during the Laws of War debate. Personal thanks to Tom Kratman on that one.) Bigotry is ok? Sure! How about religion? Well, we’re actually agnostic so… yeah, we can deal with or without! End Day One on…WOMEN’S RIGHTS. Uh-oh…

So to summarize: By the end of day one The Brother’s have just about decided that all rights belong to the state. That is not say that the state should be allowed to freely remove rights, but that if a state is allowed to, either by cultural or social forces, then the rights do not exist. Rights are thus the responsibility of the state/society. Each time this is pointed out, the Liberals go, “No, those are Universal rights belonging to everyone!” When pressed on why that is, all the answer ever is “Its because we’re humans.” When pressed on what about when those rights are denied the answer is “They still exist because we’re human.”

Day Two: Women’s Rights. A sticky topic to begin with, it really bites the Liberals to hear that women don’t actually have any innate rights, at least not until they are given them by society. (Admittedly, in a matriarchal society, the same would most likely be made true of men’s rights.)

Well, Teacher suggests, how about we break down what women’s rights are? Do women have innate political rights?

Q.o.S.- “Of course we have innate political rights! We’re human too!”

Brothers O’Connor- “So wait, were you all just off doing better things until 1919?”

Miss Brazil- “No, all men are evil!”

Younger O’Connor- “Shame that all male congress decided you ladies could vote then after all…”

Teacher- “Mr. Kenya, what about sexual rights?”

Mr. Kenya- “Well, in Africa we have cliterectomies, where young girls have their genitalia mutilated for various social reasons.”

Teacher- Reason such as…?

Mr. Kenya- Well, mostly to control when they have sex.

Teacher- So would you say they have any rights?

Mr. Kenya- No, not really…

Q.o.S- No, they still have the rights, because they’re human! Just because they don’t have the rights doesn’t mean they don’t have them!

Miss Brazil- It’s all because the men there are evil!

Older Brother Foe (Me)- No, its because that’s the way their society works. Look-

Miss Brazil- Shut up! You’re just saying that because you’ve never experienced any of these hardships! We should give you a sex change operation, cut off your clit, and then make you a slave so you know what it’s like! (Not kidding folks. That’s a direct quote. Admittedly, Teacher prompted it, but that’s what she said. Keep this in mind, it gets better later!)

The topic is raised of Middle Eastern societies, ranging from the Taliban and the Saudis, and once again it is determined that men are being evil and denying women their inborn natural rights. After going on for about five minutes, one of the guys on our side asks, “Well, what do the women there think? Do they have any problems living like this?” To which the response is but of course they do! After all, they’re living under such horrible conditions! (On this, I admit, I am not entirely sure. Partly because of the variety in which Sharia law is applied, and partly because for all I know, some of them are quite happy. Admittedly, stoning should not be the common consequence of an accusation of adultery, but then most Islamic women also aren’t committing adultery, or at least they’re not getting caught. Being happy in a society is more likely to be based on the current comforts of your personal life than on the “freedoms” you supposedly have. However, on this I do not have much in the way of evidence.)

As the class was wrapping up, Teacher posed on last question: “Who among you would vote for a bill that would deny African nations financial aid unless they stopped the practice of sexual mutilation?”

The class, with three exceptions, voted that they would not pass such a bill. That trying to change another society, in order to grant the rights these women were supposed to be allowed to enjoy but can’t, is wrong.

Those who voted to try to spread freedom around the world? The Brother’s Foe and one other guy. Ah well.

But these leads to question for the Forum. Are rights inherently a property of man? Or are they a result of our forming societies? Before you decide, consider the parting shot I left my class to consider:

"The one thing that seperates man from the rest of the animals, the thing that makes us human, is our ability to come togehter and form a society based around the concepts and behaviors that we find acceptable. If a society chooses to ignore these so called rights then those rights do not exist. It is only where people attempt to exercise and protect those rights that they hold dear, can human rights be said to exist."

[Keith Inc.]

Just because they don’t have the rights doesn’t mean they don’t have them!

That's hilarious.

It seems to me that a dipstick measurement of society is not the rights that that society reserves for itself (some societies demand religious fundamentalism, some religious freedom), but just how many people it extends those rights to.

As we do away with slavery, we should be doing away with any idea that there are people that basic rights can be restricted from. But there's always someone dragging their feet on that.

[Kinetix]

I'm with the first person to reply to the OP. Rights may be a construction of society or the state, but as a society we ought to be doing away with the idea that it's good and proper to withhold rights from certain "classifications" of humans. However, to agree with him, there is also the fact that someone is "always dragging their feet on that." You don't need to look any further than the history of the United States; while there were progressives willing to extend their definition of "citizen" and associated rights to African-Americans, there were still a lot of people who opposed the idea of African-Americans being given rights in equal measure to the dominant racial category of the nation. Even today, when most people would explicitly state that all Americans deserve equal rights, you still encounter people here and there who drag their feet on issues like police brutality, residential segregation and consequent segregated schooling, treatment of racial minorities by the criminal justice system. Perhaps the reason for that foot-dragging is that you simply have a lot of people who don't want to admit that the state or society has not fully extended that mysterious and ephemeral concept called "rights" to all citizens and that thus the nation's citizenry is not as equal as many would expect.

[Guest Monsterking]

This is america all here should be free as that is the very reason that are forfathers fought and died for. Cause thats the bottom line cause stone cold said so!!

[foeofthelance]

Here's a question then for you guys: what is a right and what isn't? Is my right to determine who can and cannot be on my public property greater or less than someone's else right to own or rent property?

[Guest Monsterking]

unfortunaltly i belive in the end everything is up to our goverment so none off our belifs are right though like i said in my earlier post i think that it should be our choice

[bitBlackmage]

I think that the fact that a certain combination of demographics here HAD to be FORCED to give born citizens the same human and civil rights as themselves speaks volumes about our society.

[Raphaella]

To respond to your first question foeofthelance, I say that the things we tout as rights are in fact given by society. But on a spiritual level, as human beings, I feel that we are indeed born with innate rights as well, such as the right to exist and pursue our own happiness, but also, within the constraints of the society we are born into.

The ability to define concepts and behaviors that we deem acceptable is also the same ability that tells us right from wrong though. It is also the ability that will let a man recognize when he is being denied and his wishes suppressed. I propose that a man gains the rights he fights for. (I use man, but it also applies to woman) I say if you are content in a society where your genitals are mutilated, or you cannot vote that so be it, but if you are not content and you feel the need to fight, than you should, until your right to do as you please is granted.

In response to your second question however, I am at loss. You own PUBLIC property? No, just kidding. I shall assume you meant to say your own property. Insofar as property rights go, if you have the deed, or lease agreement, than it is your own prerogative as to whom you let enjoy said property. Your claim to the property would indeed take prescience over any interloper who squats on said property.

A better question would be free speech, or OMG abortion. Let's go with speech though. Say you are exercising your right to free speech, by slandering a hotel, or business, and said business was loosing custom because of your speech. They claim that you are infringing on their right to a free and fair market, by misrepresenting them. Whose rights are greater then?

[foeofthelance]

Actually, I think that would be a good place to draw a line before a right is infringed or being exercised. If a person is directly harmed by the action, then their rights have been infringed upon. (For the sake of convenience, I'm assuming this is between two citizens, and not a situation like the recent Sean Bell case, where people granted the authority to use force had to make a judgement on whether or not to use it.) I base this on the line "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Life is a guarenteed and so is liberty, though the second is a loosely defined term. The third is the tricky one, as too many people try and take it to mean that bliss is supposed to be guarenteed as well.

So where to draw the line then?

-No one shall be allowed to attempt to do me harm, unless I am actively pursuing the harm of others.

-The government shall make no attempt to determine my attitude, thoughts, or opinions, save where they would cause harm to others.

-I shall in turn be protected and be provided a means of recourse against those who violate my rights.

[Raphaella]

Nice! We were just discussing this over dinner… never eat a place just named Dan's, by the way.

The right to happiness is extremely vague. If one were to take that literally than every depressed person in America would be demanding someone make them happy.

Insofar as infringing on the rights of others, well that is a consequence of the right to free speech. We cannot have it both ways. If you wish to say, what ever it is that is offending, or infringing on another's freedoms than that should, by definition be protected. But on the other hand, if what you say is hurtful, like hate speech, than your victim, or the infringed party would indeed have cause to seek recourse. It's a catch 22.

Causing physical harm to another though, there is no right that allows me to do so (not yet… wink) and were someone to cause harm to me yes I would seek out a means of protection and wish to be provided a means of recourse.

At dinner we were talking more about the origin of 'rights' and someone said that he thought that was religious in nature. But is religion not a product of society? What say you?

[PorkChopExpress86]

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” –Benjamin Franklin.

Human rights are constructed by humans. They aren't inborn or granted by any higher power. The state is an institution created by humans. Individuals actively bond together and create society and government exists as a moderating tool. If citizens allow themselves to be oppressed by the government that they essentially created (whether actively or passively) then the rights that aren't being granted to them don't exist.

Take George Orwell’s classic book 1984. The party sets about to destroy the words and, by extension, the very idea of liberty. Syme explains this to the main character Winston like this:

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime, it’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there wont be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect… How could you have a slogan like, ‘freedom is slavery’ when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. ” (p. 53-54)

If people can't conceive of the right to free speech, or the right of public assembly, then it doesn't exist in some parallel dimension waiting to be rediscovered. Did medieval serfs have any inkling of what it was like to exist in any other state beyond abject servitude? Of course not. Freedoms were created when the middle class become strong enough to exert it's own influence and articulate it’s own vision on the lives of the people who made it up. People in Africa and the Middle East may have heard of freedom but since many of them have never experienced even the slightest taste of it, it is just some ephemeral concept that doesn't mean anything in reality. We can't spread democracy to the Middle East because the vast majority of Arabs have no clue what that means.

Geert Hofstede (www.geert-hofstede.com) has done enormous amounts of research on the effects of culture. One dimension of culture that he has defined is called Power-Distance. Hofstede (2005) defines it as such in his book Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, “Power distance can therefore be defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.” (p. 46) That is to what degree to people in a society accept the authority of people over them. India has the highest level of power distance in the world due to the Caste System. Those at the top are believed to be infallible and those at the bottom believe they cannot change their station. The US has a very low level of power distance; our leaders are selected from among the people, by the people. Social advancement is believed to be possible and indeed is encouraged by the society at large.

Using Hofstede's measures, House et. al. (2004) found that those at the top of a high power distance society, where the division between leader and follower is great, do not solicit the opinions of those below them, but unusual as it may seem, people at the bottom of such societies do not expect or desire to be included in the decision making process. They have been socialized in such a way as to want no part of that role.

Aldous Huxley shows some of this in his novel Brave New World. Society is stratified into castes and the work divided accordingly. Alphas are the decision makers, Betas the middle managers and Gammas, Deltas and Epislons are the lowest rungs who perform menial labor. When the people are socialized for their roles they are literally brainwashed by tapes under their pillows repeating certain phrases. Betas are conditioned in such a way:

"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder then we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better then the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able..." (p. 27-28)

Granted this is sci-fi, but it shows that people can be raised in such a way that the idea of human rights are foreign to them. In the book, an individual from outside of the dominant society tries to show the lower castes that they don’t have to be kept in servitude and can strive for more. They turn on him violently. In their mind there is no changing what culture has dictated.

In summation, rights are created by people, but only when they have the ability to conceive of those rights. Governments do not grant them, they merely serve to restrict or protect them. But neither are they automatically guaranteed to everyone, simply because they are human. If one allows oneself to be subjugated, then one will be and no magical freedom fairy is going to come and make it all better.

References

Hofstede, G & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.). London: McGraw-Hill.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Huxley, A. (1932). Brave New World. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

Orwell, G. (1949) Nineteen Eighty-Four. New York: Harcourt Brace.

[Shinju]

Miss Brazil- “No, all men are evil!”

. . . . .

Q.o.S- No, they still have the rights, because they’re human! Just because they don’t have the rights doesn’t mean they don’t have them!

. . . . .

Miss Brazil- It’s all because the men there are evil!

. . . . .

Miss Brazil- Shut up! You’re just saying that because you’ve never experienced any of these hardships! We should give you a sex change operation, cut off your clit, and then make you a slave so you know what it’s like! (Not kidding folks. That’s a direct quote. Admittedly, Teacher prompted it, but that’s what she said. Keep this in mind, it gets better later!)

Is this the idiocy I'm going to have to deal with when I start jr college in the fall??? Because I'm almost thinking being a retail working bum stoner for the rest of my life may have more appeal. Is it just that I'm older now? Would I have been so lame in such an argument had I started school right away and not taken a six year hiatus?

"The one thing that seperates man from the rest of the animals, the thing that makes us human, is our ability to come togehter and form a society based around the concepts and behaviors that we find acceptable. If a society chooses to ignore these so called rights then those rights do not exist. It is only where people attempt to exercise and protect those rights that they hold dear, can human rights be said to exist."

I daresay this made some of them actually think.

I believe that your class might be experiencing an inability to deal with intangible subjects such as human rights. You get people started talking about the intangible, such as God and religion, most will start spouting out illogical nonsense based on emotions. This is due to the fact that people can feel emotions, but cannot feel concepts. I guess you can just say that these people are just going off what they know. But you would think that having someone explain things to them logically would change their minds, but that seems not to be the case here. The fact that these people seemed to take up a majority of your class frightens me.

I don't mean to get off track here, but I have to say, the satirical descriptions of your classmates amuses me. This would make a good anecdote if you ever wanted to write your memoirs or it could even be a scene in a clever novel. I've come to realize drawing on real experiences make the best scenes in novels because most of the time real life is too bazaar to make up.

[foeofthelance]

I don't mean to get off track here, but I have to say, the satirical descriptions of your classmates amuses me. This would make a good anecdote if you ever wanted to write your memoirs or it could even be a scene in a clever novel. I've come to realize drawing on real experiences make the best scenes in novels because most of the time real life is too bazaar to make up.

I wish I could say it was satirical, but with the exceptions of the name changes, those are all almost direct quotes. I wish I could say I changed the names to protect the guilty, but really I just didn't care about them enough to pay attention.

As for having to deal with idiocy when you start Junior College, I guess it depends on the college. The professor for my politics courses (I took world last semester, and am taking American this semester) has openly stated that there is a deliberate effort to "liberalize" students in schools. Some, depending on what they are, might provide a more conservative tack, but I've never encountered such an effort, save for the odd teacher here and there. I actually get extra points for playing up my conservative beliefs, because I don't contradict myself or draw as many lines in the sand as some of the "liberals" in the class do. (I do, however, have a reputation as somewhat of an asshole.) Its gotten to the point where some of them have started to side with me, prompting the proffessor to accuse of me of slipping them "Hallucinogenic conservative mushrooms". Tis great fun! The only thing more fun is coming up with ridiculously silly and un-PC essay responses for my English course...

[Shinju]

Yes, well unfortunately for liberals, the young and retarded like to side with us most of the time making everybody who is liberal seem retarded. Wait, strike that statement that's not very fair of me. I see many retarded conservatives out there too. I guess it would be more fair for me to say that there are a bunch of non-thinkers out there who make whatever they are fighting for look like a joke.

What are some of your views that make you conservative?

[PorkChopExpress86]

I'm finishing up a masters degree and currently taking a class on feminism. The professor is immensly qualified and holds numerous PhDs and Masters degrees but she is one of the most close minded people I have ever come across! She explicitly told the class that we are not qualified to critique the arguments of the authors we are reading because we aren't experts on the subject. She says that our opinions are not necessary because all she wants is to know that we understood the article.

If i was able to read the article and form a supported rebuttal, then I understood it. All she's interested in is pure indoctrination.

Anyway, the whole point of a liberal arts degree is to be exposed to new view points (that includes the professor) and to learn critical thinking skills, which are best developed through debate. She wont tolerate it in her class. The minute someone says anything contrary to her position, she shuts them down.

So yes, you probably will have to put up with some pretty ridiculous stuff in college, but it isn't all bad. Just learn to articulate your point of view and ground it with supporting arguments. I'm a libertarian so i'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could never take the "liberal" party's position becuase they always have alot of problems with things, but never any realistic solutions or allow for debate.

[Shinju]

^^Wow, as a feminist she should know better about allowing and encouraging her students to have open minds. She sounds lazy, like she just doesn't want to put up with the class constantly bickering about their opinions about female rights. Although if most of the people in the class are like foeofthelance's "Miss Brazil," then I can almost not blame her. Almost. I feel it's one of those "if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen" deals. If you don't want to deal with people exploring their open minds, then you just shouldn't teach.

[PorkChopExpress86]

^^Wow, as a feminist she should know better about allowing and encouraging her students to have open minds. She sounds lazy, like she just doesn't want to put up with the class constantly bickering about their opinions about female rights. Although if most of the people in the class are like foeofthelance's "Miss Brazil," then I can almost not blame her. Almost. I feel it's one of those "if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen" deals. If you don't want to deal with people exploring their open minds, then you just shouldn't teach.

she is a miss brazil. but if you don't tow her line of crap, you aren't allowed to talk. here's a question from her final exam:

Q2. Feminism today, with all it痴 local variation, is best understood to be a global phenomenon. Substantiate this statement drawing from research by Erturk, Swider, Bagic, Pietila (Part II)

Not "do you support or disagree with this assertion" or "draw on the research and form an opinion", no "substantiate the statement i spoon fed you." that's not even acceptable in an undergraduate class, to say nothing of a masters level.

[Shinju]

Professor Ironpussy there sounds like a real nazi.