Friday, May 04, 2007

"Human rights" - garbage

Just in case you ever wondered what a "human right" is, look no further. The Ministry of Social Development's Social Policy Journal spells it out;

What Is A “Human Right”?

In essence, a rights-based approach to policy is one that ensures that policy is formulated within the parameters set by New Zealand’s human rights obligations, as found in domestic and international law. Before examining that body of law, however, it is helpful to think more generally about what is meant by a “human right” and, in particular, how a focus on “rights” might differ conceptually from, for example, the focus on “needs” that is invited by the yardstick of “wellbeing”.

Needs-based and rights-based approaches inevitably have much in common. However, the language of “rights” emphasises particular dimensions of the interests, entitlements and duties that are at stake. Thus we say that “John needs food” if we believe that in the absence of food, John’s wellbeing will suffer in some way that we regard as fundamental. We are identifying the predicament (neediness) that John will face if deprived of food (Waldron 1996:105). A similar assessment of John’s neediness may well also underlie the statement “John has a right to food”. The idea of rights, however, complements the idea of neediness in a number of respects.

First, the language of “rights” is the language of demand or entitlement. To say that “John needs food” tells us nothing about the moral or legal obligations of others in relation to John’s need. In contrast, the statement “John has a right to food” means that someone else (in the case of international human rights law, the state) has a duty to ensure that John’s right is protected (White and Ladley 2005:6, Waldron 1996:94).

This also has implications for how we view the rights-bearer. To say that John “needs” food is to present John as a passive victim and potential recipient of charity. To say that John has a “right” to food is to conceptualise John as a holder of entitlements. The language of rights is thus the language of empowerment. John is cast as a self-sufficient and independent rights-bearer whose assertion of rights amounts to a vindication of his autonomy, personhood and dignity (Waldron 1996:96 and 104). Further, John the autonomous rights-bearer does not have to “earn” his right to food. As a “human right” it is owed to him by virtue of his humanity. The concept of “deserving” and “undeserving” poor is largely absent from human rights thinking.


If John was "self-sufficient and independent" he would be "earning" his own blasted food. He is not made "self-sufficient and independent" by law that says other people have an obligation to buy food for him. Or clothes or cars or Ipods.

Is it any wonder this country is replete with whingers and moaners who think they are owed a living when we fill their heads with this sort of garbage.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well said Lindsay.....this PC bogus rights bullshit must be challenged at every turn.If John has a "right to food" that begs the question ..provided by whom?

Under this concept of rights Johns "right" to food imposes an unchosen obligation on others to provide it... so what about their right NOT to deal with John or have anything to do with him? Of course the PC will say there is no such right and that "social justice" etc requires you to become your brothers keeper with no concern for what you want or desire.Its the cancerous evil of altruism at work..

deleted said...

A right is quite simply something which does not impose an obligation on others.

I have a right to life in that you can't kill me, it doesn't mean you must go without to keep me alive.

I have a right to property in that you can't steal from me, it doesn't mean you must give me what is yours..

I have a right to an education int hat you cannot prevent me from getting an education, not that you must educate me...

etc..

Anonymous said...

There are rights to life, to property, and to free speech.

There is no such thing as "a right to a job" - there is only the right of free trade, that is a man's right to take a job if another chooses to hire him. There is no "right to a home", only the right to build a home or buy it. There are no rights to a "fair wage" if no one chooses to pay it. There are no "rights of consumers" to food, shoes or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items.

There are no rights of special groups, there are no rights of farmers, of workers, of business groups, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.

There are only rights of Man - rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.

Anonymous said...

James: If John has a "right to food" that begs the question ..provided by whom?

Interesting eh? Of course, if you had more food than you, or your family could eat, and would spoil if you kept it, isn't there an obligation to give some to John?

Charity is still part of the equation.

But yes, all things being equal, if I'm eating eye fillet, and john leftover mince on packet noodles, I don't own him half my eye fillet, that's for sure.

Anonymous said...

"Interesting eh? Of course, if you had more food than you, or your family could eat, and would spoil if you kept it, isn't there an obligation to give some to John?"

No there isn't.It doesn't mean I wouldn't give John the food,I most probably would, but its the "unspoken but hanging heavy in the air" assumption that I have an obligation to help John I shouldn't consider and maybe refuse that is the issue here.Its being taken as incontestable that the need of one person imposes a duty on another to help him.It is in fact the enslavement of me to John out of other peoples sense of altruistic "duty" that concerns and angers me.How do these "others" get the right to decide for me and then ultimately force me to deal with John against MY will and MY own reasoning?

I want to choose to help those I judge to be worthy of my help...not be forced to submit my mind and possessions to the will of others who think themselves superior morally.

Socialism claims to want to bring about equality...but how am I "equal" with those who have the power to take from me whilst I can't do the same in return?

Its a fact that Socialism also has its own classes of people just as they accuse Capitalism of having them....the planners and the planned.

Anonymous said...

I missed addressing this point ...

"Charity is still part of the equation."

But Charity is helping others because you WANT to....not because you HAVE to.Altruism, the idea that man has an unchosen obligation to his fellow man's welfare simply because his fellow man exists is incompatible with true charity which comes from Benevolence...meaning your freely reasoned and chosen decision to help your fellow man.

Oswald Bastable said...

I would give John the food- after he has mowed my lawn and weeded the garden!


If John is anorexic- will the state punish him for denying himself the right to food?

;-)