Flmkpr said this in another thread and I thought it could make a good thread on its own. I’d say the statement was a good beginning, but that it doesn’t go far enough. It is one thing to have a right but to me having the ability to exercise that right is as equally if not of more importance. Let’s say someone had the right to 20 days vacation a year but was so badly paid that they had to forego those days and keep working. Whereas someone who’s better paid can. So although both have the right only one has the actual ability to realistically exercise it. So effectively one has a greater ‘right’ than the other. Or let’s take an example from US history – Black Americans were given the vote after the Civil War but many of them in large areas of the US were unable to exercise that right in some places right up until the 1960’s. In theory the black and white communities in those areas had the same voting rights but only one had the actual ability to realistically exercise it. It seems to me that having a society in which rights can be exercised is as important as having the right itself.
Well the problem is defining what a "right" is vs a privilege or something that must be earned, and if those rights are backed up in both theory and practice
Then there's the problem of legally defending those rights. I mean just because we have them doesn't mean we can exercise them, or that the powers that be will acknowledge and respect them. If they don't and you wanna defend your rights, you need to hire a lawyer, and that costs money. You get as much justice as you can afford. That hasn't changed throughout the history of the "free" world.
Truth. We should learn to make a definition between 'legal' and 'moral' rights, although I'm pretty uncomfortable with the term anyway. A legal right can only be granted by a governing authority, and within a hierarchal system, legal rights cannot be held equally by everyone in society, in theory or in practice. Also, on a personal note, as somebody who doesn't recognize the legitimacy of ANY governing authority, legal rights mean absolutely nothing to me.
I suspect that piece of quote was taken out of context, but none the less... We don't really need a few small examples, I know exactly what we're talking about as it happens every day. And I too don't give any credit to the idea of LEGAL rights. Only human ones. So, YES, all humans have the same "rights". But "rights is a human concept based upon the idea that simply because we are born we have some kind of rights. Think about it. If I were born today, and had NO laws to tell me what my rights are, other humans would manipulate and force me to behave in certain ways. From day one. Do animals have rights? Only ones humans have assigned to them. Animals don't know what rights are. We do have NEEDS, however, and the basics are food/clothing/shelter. And we already know that not everyone gets even these basic needs. People's abilities and resources are different. These things SHOULD be "rights" as in "legal" as well as common sense, but who is gonna enforce it? In effect, "rights" do not exist. Only in people's minds. So, the ability to get what you need without harming anyone or stealing from them is the only important thing. In other words, in the realms of "rights", the ONLY important thing is being able to exercise them...
So the more equal the system the more likely everyone is to have the same justice? So shouldn’t people try and establish a more equal and therefore a fairer system? * So although both have the right only one has the actual ability to realistically exercise it. So effectively one has a greater ‘right’ than the other. But an unequal right to exercise them in reality, law without justice is what? Some would say tyranny.
Do I have the same free speech as Larry King? No, but is that injustice? The way you reach tyranny is by trying to achieve equality of result.
I'm not getting your meaning, can you expound on this statement? It seems we're diving into semantics, defining of the concept of "rights" to begin with. The way I see it it's a matter of degree, perhaps tyranny is a strong word for it, but yeah, that's what we've got, tyranny. That won't change until the political system is revamped so as not to favor the rich, which is unlikely, considering that the rich are more powerful and privileged than the rest of us in the eyes of the law, and they will do all they can to remain that way. If you don't have the means to sue to exercise your rights, what's the point in having those rights to begin with? Other than the token gesture of our government making us think we have them, so as to make our society appear civilized. Note that the execs at AIG received their bonuses because the government feared they would be sued if they didn't dole them out, yet average employees like auto workers are getting shafted every day because they can't afford to hire the caliber of lawyers required to protect themselves. Will this ever change? Not as long as greed and power are fundamental characteristics of human nature it won't.
Equality of result isn't always a bad strategy. For example, 15 million people each year die of starvation. There is plenty of food to go around and feed everyone. I think the average that people can eat is like 2,000 calories a day with the amount of food we are producing. I'm pretty sure that everyone would agree that nobody should be forced to die of starvation. So equal result applies in this case. Also, a lot of economists like to try and apply this equal result to the job market. They think that everyone should hold down a job and by giving every person equally a chance to have a job, our lives are better. So in some ways, do you think equality when it comes to the market leads to tyranny or are you just talking about other more tedious human rights?
Pursuing equality of result would require endless government intervention into all aspects of life. Yet among the worst famines in history (not caused by war) have been those in collectivised, socialist, equality-of-result countries. China, Russia, Ukraine, North Korea, etc. And they were were not bad luck, they were caused by collectivist, socialist, equality-of-result policies. This is where theoretical socialist equality meets reality. Not many economists are advocating guaranteed employment these days. That is equality of opportunity, which I support. I'm talking about the market, because I think economic freedom is a vital freedom. Also I think we are talking about the intersection of the two, where the government thinks it needs to interfere in the economic sphere to influence the 'human rights' sphere.
Thanks for the explanation. Ironic isn't it? I tend to agree with you in that I'm against government intervention in the economy except when it pertains to practices that are immoral (fraud, etc.), there needs to be more oversight.
Actually, the worst famines in the world today are in Africa. Honestly, it's fair to say those countries caused famines by BAD communist dictatorships and hybrid democracy policies. Why does money have to coincide with vital freedoms for you?
Then I guess the question is whether the action that need to be taken is by the government or the judicial system. No I don't think so, I think the worst are in North Korea. There are a lot of places where people are going hungry, but I'm talking famines that result in death on a massive scale. Keep in mind that North Korea would have a famine every year if it weren't for food aid from its capitalist enemies. I'm not sure that there is any other kind of communist dictatorships. And I don't know what you mean by hybrid democracy. Because the right to start your own business, to support yourself, to do what you want with your own labor, the right to freely exchange goods with other people, these are fundamental parts of peoples lives. And even if I don't have the entrepreneurial spirit, the freedom of other people to do these things benefits me - if it weren't for their freedom to start brilliant new companies with new products and services, society would be poorer. I benefit from a thriving free market capitalist economy.
