The human rights

[Erdogan]

You own yourself and your things.

You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.

You have the right to be left alone with your things.

Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.

If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.

You can do everything else as you please.

You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.

The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.

[1714147856]

1714147856

[1714147856]

1714147856

[1714147856]

1714147856

[1714147856]

1714147856

[1714147856]

1714147856

[1714147856]

1714147856

[kolloh]

What does this have to do with economics?

[Erdogan]

What does this have to do with economics?

It is one of the foundations of the Austrian economics.

[coric]

So in order to implement Austrian economics, we have to curb human rights and go below the minimum declared by the UN? Your namesake might agree, less rights and more power to the rulers.

[Lethn]

Governments have systematically taken away a couple of these rights already, including the right to defend ourselves, also how does Austrian economics 'curb' human rights? You need to explain yourself instead of making assertions which is all everybody ever seems to do in politics when talking about ideologies they don't know anything about.

[coric]

The assertion that there are "lots of so called rights" in rhe UN declaration of human rights was made by the OP, implying the wish to see them restricted more. Why that should be necessary for economics, I don't know.

[BrianM]

Did OP make op these right by him self?

How can you define universal rights for all humans, when we do not have universal culture?
Human rights in its classical sense is a thing made up by the western world, and can therefore only apply to the western world.
Other parts should define their own "human rights" and apply them.
The world is not yet a type 1 planet, we are type 0.

[Erdogan]

So in order to implement Austrian economics, we have to curb human rights and go below the minimum declared by the UN? Your namesake might agree, less rights and more power to the rulers.

Not curb human rights - strengthen them.

[Erdogan]

The assertion that there are "lots of so called rights" in rhe UN declaration of human rights was made by the OP, implying the wish to see them restricted more. Why that should be necessary for economics, I don't know.

Not "necessary for economics", but necessary for a prosperous society (and the freedom comes for free).

[Erdogan]

Did OP make op these right by him self?

How can you define universal rights for all humans, when we do not have universal culture?
Human rights in its classical sense is a thing made up by the western world, and can therefore only apply to the western world.
Other parts should define their own "human rights" and apply them.
The world is not yet a type 1 planet, we are type 0.

These rights are found everywhere among humans, through history, that is why they are thought to be universal. There was a bit of logic applied also.

[coric]

Looks like I misunderstood your intentions then.

[Erdogan]

Looks like I misunderstood your intentions then.

The question is more like what is not human rights. Education can not be a human right, because you will have to force someone to be the teacher, which is a violation of that persons rights.

[coric]

You have to force someone to become a teacher?  First of all it is nowhere in the world where education works like that. Second even if it were, it doesn't follow to remove the right to education. It would be sensible to change the system so that teachers get an incentive to teach, in simple words get paid.

[Erdogan]

You have to force someone to become a teacher?  First of all it is nowhere in the world where education works like that. Second even if it were, it doesn't follow to remove the right to education. It would be sensible to change the system so that teachers get an incentive to teach, in simple words get paid.

In that case, it is a voluntary action. A pupil can always ask, that is not by force. But if he demand it as a right, force has to be used.

(Ok, I am slowly dragging you into a trap here. Had to say, else it would be a scam, which is stealing your reality, which is a rights violation...).

[coric]

Thanks for the "warning" I see your line that you want to remove any right, if there can be a hypothetical construction wherein you would need to use force to guarantee this right?

[Erdogan]

Thanks for the "warning" I see your line that you want to remove any right, if there can be a hypothetical construction wherein you would need to use force to guarantee this right?

Well not remove it - it doesn't exist naturally.

It's not so hypothetical either, situations arise all the time.

Edit: Note the logic: You can not have a right that violates the rights of others, because the rights are for all. That is why they are called human rights (in general), not the right for person X and person Y but not person Z...

[dinofelis]

You have to force someone to become a teacher?  First of all it is nowhere in the world where education works like that. Second even if it were, it doesn't follow to remove the right to education. It would be sensible to change the system so that teachers get an incentive to teach, in simple words get paid.

One should make the distinction between active rights and passive rights.  Passive rights are things of which it is forbidden for someone to interfere with your attempt to obtain it.  Active rights which entitle you to obtain stuff - as Erdogan indicates - are the right to enslave others.

The passive right to education means that no person may act such, no state may pass a law, that forbids you to attempt at getting education.  One could think of a kind of totalitarian state where it is forbidden to learn how to write, except for a privileged elite.  Anybody trying to learn to read and write, or anyone attempting to teach you reading and writing skills, would then be punished.  In that case, your passive right to education is violated.

The active right is to require people to take assets from others so as to pay you a teacher, or to enslave someone into teaching you.

The passive right to the use of drugs would allow people to buy and sell drugs as they like it.  The active right to the use of drugs would mean that the state has to force people to give up assets and services so as to provide you with drugs.

One could think that active rights have no place in a free society.  However, that is not true either, because "protection against violence" can be an active right.  The passive right is the right to self-defense.  Its active version is the right to have a police force protecting you.  It is hard to imagine a free society where there is no active right against violence.  So in any case the state has to take by force some assets from some, in order to finance the police force in order to give you your active right of protection against violence.

[Erdogan]

You have to force someone to become a teacher?  First of all it is nowhere in the world where education works like that. Second even if it were, it doesn't follow to remove the right to education. It would be sensible to change the system so that teachers get an incentive to teach, in simple words get paid.

One should make the distinction between active rights and passive rights.  Passive rights are things of which it is forbidden for someone to interfere with your attempt to obtain it.  Active rights which entitle you to obtain stuff - as Erdogan indicates - are the right to enslave others.

The passive right to education means that no person may act such, no state may pass a law, that forbids you to attempt at getting education.  One could think of a kind of totalitarian state where it is forbidden to learn how to write, except for a privileged elite.  Anybody trying to learn to read and write, or anyone attempting to teach you reading and writing skills, would then be punished.  In that case, your passive right to education is violated.

The active right is to require people to take assets from others so as to pay you a teacher, or to enslave someone into teaching you.

The passive right to the use of drugs would allow people to buy and sell drugs as they like it.  The active right to the use of drugs would mean that the state has to force people to give up assets and services so as to provide you with drugs.

One could think that active rights have no place in a free society.  However, that is not true either, because "protection against violence" can be an active right.  The passive right is the right to self-defense.  Its active version is the right to have a police force protecting you.  It is hard to imagine a free society where there is no active right against violence.  So in any case the state has to take by force some assets from some, in order to finance the police force in order to give you your active right of protection against violence.

Good wording, but there is a right to act against violence, by yourself or in an association. The problem with your active right to protection against violence, means that there are two types of individuals, those who has the right to take, and those who have not. In addition, a logical next step, as seen from those with that privilege, is to take away your own right to self defence. So in practice, what you can hardly imagine being without, does not seem to conform to having the same rights for all.


 

[dinofelis]

Good wording, but there is a right to act against violence, by yourself or in an association. The problem with your active right to protection against violence, means that there are two types of individuals, those who has the right to take, and those who have not. In addition, a logical next step, as seen from those with that privilege, is to take away your own right to self defence. So in practice, what you can hardly imagine being without, does not seem to conform to having the same rights for all.

I guess this is what opposes liberals, libertarians and anarchists :-)

I've been thinking a lot about these issues, and my idea is that a violence monopolist is unavoidable.  If there is no violence monopolist, that vacuum will attract one.  In the end, rules are always imposed by a violence monopolist, whether it is a formal state, a war lord, or the local maffia boss, or your wife with a rolling pin :-)  That is a sad fact about the world: power comes out of the barrel of a gun, and rules are imposed by power.

So if there is no organized violence monopolist, then the violent associations in self-defense will end up becoming one, and impose whatever rules it likes, with decision procedures (aristocratic, oligocratic, democratic, theocratic or whatever-cratic) and you can kiss your fundamental rights good-bye.  And if there is an organized violence monopolist (a "state"), then you can kiss your fundamental rights also good-bye, but there may be some way to impose part of them in some kind of constitutional way.

[Erdogan]

Good wording, but there is a right to act against violence, by yourself or in an association. The problem with your active right to protection against violence, means that there are two types of individuals, those who has the right to take, and those who have not. In addition, a logical next step, as seen from those with that privilege, is to take away your own right to self defence. So in practice, what you can hardly imagine being without, does not seem to conform to having the same rights for all.

I guess this is what opposes liberals, libertarians and anarchists :-)

I've been thinking a lot about these issues, and my idea is that a violence monopolist is unavoidable.  If there is no violence monopolist, that vacuum will attract one.  In the end, rules are always imposed by a violence monopolist, whether it is a formal state, a war lord, or the local maffia boss, or your wife with a rolling pin :-)  That is a sad fact about the world: power comes out of the barrel of a gun, and rules are imposed by power.

So if there is no organized violence monopolist, then the violent associations in self-defense will end up becoming one, and impose whatever rules it likes, with decision procedures (aristocratic, oligocratic, democratic, theocratic or whatever-cratic) and you can kiss your fundamental rights good-bye.  And if there is an organized violence monopolist (a "state"), then you can kiss your fundamental rights also good-bye, but there may be some way to impose part of them in some kind of constitutional way.

Fair enough.