Topic: The human rights (Read 3204 times)

(Red colorization mine.)

(Liberty: the absence of artificial constraint. Freedom (non-individual): the sum of the respective probabilities of the social microstates society could occupy.)


Social entropy is not inherently detrimental; however, there are detriments inherent to its “mitigation” (e.g., world war [via mass-tribalism], wage-slavery [via the maintenance of ownership], and global economic depression [via the maintenance of owners]).

Perhaps we've been stuck on a double negative because you're referring to a reduction of entropy while I've referred to an increase in entropy; however, I believe we both are referring to freedom as the maximum degree of disorder and randomness possible in a society. Unless I'm mistaken (wouldn't be the first and won't be the last) this is accurately described as the maximum entropy.

Liberty is in itself a constraint. Liberty is a social contract which limits freedom and requires external processes to maintain. The energy required to maintain liberty cannot be used to produce work.

By artificial I assume you mean "unnatural" or "introduced." How can we be certain that removing an artificial constraint like government doesn't in turn allow for another more detrimental constraint to emerge? Perhaps a hypothetical non-optimal government based on liberty would appear less absurd when viewed in contrast with other times throughout human history. Perhaps comparing against the past could show evidence that while not perfect, some government reduces the net social entropy by some factor compared to whatever fills the void when it's not present.

Government is not intended to prevent social entropy; social entropy is unavoidable. Government is intended to reduce the net entropy when compared relatively to a society without government. A government built upon human rights and liberty has shown to be the least detrimental form of government while properly administered.

Freedom was said to be related to entropy: entropy decreases when constraint is reduced. This means that “liberty,” as I used the word, is
“the lack of artificial constraint.” Removing artificial constraints would serve to reduce entropy within a system.

It would follow, then, that, by the very thermodynamics of these universes wherein it presently exists for us, government, as it is conventionally know (i.e., hierarchical and non-optional), would be an absurdity were it genuinely intended to perform its commonly prescribed function, for it would assure that very thing wherefor it is claimed to be intended to prevent: the increase of social entropy.

Even though we're hijacking this thread, this is an interesting exchange.

So you agree "when man denies himself government, and this does not exist to claim his power" describes a potential increase in the cumulative unique output of a society by eliminating the drag created by government, and thus increasing the degree of freedom; assuming the power vacuum remains unfilled.

The quoted portion of the above sentence doesn't describe liberty as accurately as it does freedom for they are different things entirely; liberty requires government while freedom does not. Freedom is like "survival of the fittest" while liberty attempts to provide an equal opportunity for survival at the cost of varying degrees of freedom.

Freedom is the cumulative amount of unique output a system may (in the statistical sense) produce. It is related to entropy (sum of probabilities of possible microstates).

That would accurately describe freedom as opposed to liberty.

Nay, when man denies himself government, and this does not exist to claim his power.

Yes, when the government cedes unnecessary power naturally and without objection there exists liberty...

Liberty exists when the ceding of powers is both unnecessary and unrealized.

Liberty is not accurately synonymous with freedom, for liberty is a compromise between freedom and responsibility in society. Human rights are a keystone of liberty since they form the foundation that liberty is intended to protect.

Legal rights exist for those who will never know freedom. Liberty exists for those who will.

Very well said.

I will never understand the aversion some people have to the existence of human rights...

Human rights is a rational decision made by the individual who chooses to exercise a right. Many governments acknowledge the existence of human rights and form their legal systems around them, others don't.

Just because you have a right doesn't mean another won't take it away or try to. Human rights is a model for people living in a society which is supposed to help rationalize the actions of an individual to other rational people after that individual has chosen to exercise their human right. Human rights is as simple as right and wrong. Murdering or stealing are both wrong, defending life or protecting your valuables is right...

The OP is correct, there are universal human rights and it doesn't matter if you agree or not. It makes no difference whether the law recognizes these rights or whether a persons rights are violated. Hypothetically, if an intruder is strangling your mother, or abducting your child, or committing any other forcible felony, you have a natural human right to harm or even kill them on the spot if it's the fastest way to end that situation. If you have the ability to stop these situations and you choose not to act resulting in the death of a loved one, a rational person would suffer and live in deep regret that they didn't choose to act. "Right" and "wrong" at work again...

If there are consequences to your decision to act and you save the life of a loved one but go to prison for it, then it doesn't mean you didn't have the right to do what you did; it only means that your rights are being forcibly violated. A rational person wouldn't regret saving the life of a loved one, even in the face of prison. They would likely be more upset that they are being penalized for doing the "right" thing...

The world doesn't owe you a living, if people don't exercise rights for fear of retribution then they will lose them or never even realize them. If people don't choose to assert the existence of human rights then they choose to live as property under the command of other "superior humans" who determine their fates.

Human rights exist just the same as the words I type here. Before I typed them they existed in my mind, and a rational person would agree that other people have thoughts too. I chose to exercise my thoughts just as one would choose to exercise a human right.

The definition of human rights differs everywhere.
USA criticizes China on its Human Rights record. China criticizes the US on its record. 

“[R]ights” consist of those powers that are withheld from hierarchies. Liberty consists of not having to withhold them.

Who is that "man" you are referring to?

Yeah, slavery is good. Don't steal yourself, man.

That is what the students did and here is how they ended.

Human rights is anice idea, which being chased, always causes big troubles for everyone. The world is a jungle and one has to fight for the power in order to survive. Human right activists are the ones who are eaten alive.

You own yourself -> wtf, is this some pathetic manifesto at revolution?
you own the space around you -> was already privatised...
you own your ability to move around -> really? cars on credit, highway tolls, parks sold to developers, private woods etc.
you own your clothes -> so far, until China produces the cheap shit and it is bought on credit most of the time... therefore you are not the owner
you own your reputation -> if reputation can be owned, then social network owners have it; but reputation does not fall into usus, fructus, abusus area
you own the consequences of your actions -> no, you just pay for them
you own the reality you live in -> people who believe they are Gods end in asylums
Nobody should steal those things from you. -> part of them is nothing that can be owned, part of them was already stolen/taken away/sold cheap and nobody gave a fuck if it was right or not

You own yourself, you own the space around you, you own your ability to move around, you own your clothes, you own your reputation, you own the consequences of your actions, you own the reality you live in. Nobody should steal those things from you.

oblivi, i think you have a point, but still ownership will exist

only the entities who will own the assets will be completely different than the actual users of the assests or of the capital

good example are the offshore shell companies - everything that exists is owned (even externalities are privatised), but owner is irrelevant

We are moving towards a society where no one owns nothing, so im not sure about your first statement. Open source, decentralized society, free as in freedoms society. It's the only way for a true futuristic society.

That's why you have to focus on your rights, man.

This isn't rocket surgery. A government which bans effective self-defense (the prime human right) can democide with impunity.

I mean, if the government can easy take your life, that Human rights are nonsense words.

Do you mean the mexicans should just let their rigths go, because of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrKF9hgHMI

Where are your human rights when the police and the army kill 43 future school teachers...

Some countries live in savagery.

That one, as with other feel good rights, are constructed in the belief that it can come from nowhere, just because it is written, and it feels good. It is the same with shoes, you don't have the right to shoes, but the market can supply them easily. There is no shoe problem. And if there were, for instance in a very poor place, it would not solve the problem to make it a right. It would only serve to elevate some people above the others to administer the right, and make someone else pay, and make people freedomless regarding the shoe choice, and to waste resources, that is, making everyone less rich.

Such is the law, and with good reasons. Prison for non-violent crimes don't leave a good taste to me as well. But you argued that the right to education should be abolished because in an extreme case force could be necessary. Why this, if you waive this argument for the right to property, where the case is a common uccurence?

You own yourself and the things you have rightfully acquired. You will need force to keep your things. No talking about amounts, they have to be different of course. If two persons have the same, and one of them makes or trades something, he might be better off. This is not a violation of rights. Stopping a thief is also not a violation. Putting them in prison - questionable.

No longer does anyone have the right to protect themselves and their wealth with just force against those given unlimited power.

With this argument, you would need to abolish the right to property, which you explicitly listed. Or in your words, it would not exist. To guarantee this you need force and the threat of force. A takes a purse from the pocket of B, carefully trying to be as soft as possible. Yet B, if he notices, is allowed to tackle A, use force to take it back.
 I have never heard of anyone forced to teach, but pickpockets are stopped by violence everyday, and prisons all over the world are full of thieves.

Property, unlike most other human rights, even does discriminate between X and Z, as their amounts of property are usually different. Yet to the UN and many constitutions it is seen as a human right, and listed among them, and only hard communist states don't recognize it to some extent.

Fair enough.

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.

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.


 

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.

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...

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?

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...).

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.

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.

Looks like I misunderstood your intentions then.

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.

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

Not curb human rights - strengthen them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is one of the foundations of the Austrian economics.

What does this have to do with economics?

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.