This is a most excellent video from StopAndLook which explores the origin and nature of our rights.
The author expresses the concepts eloquently and clearly: human rights, at any given time, are what people agree they are. Reaching a concensus is difficult.
The origin of rights determines their nature. This video explores the difference between the position that ‘rights’ originate with each individual versus the position that rights originate with the social group.
Though it is phrased differently, it is very simlar to the different attitudes captured in ‘Common Law’ versus ‘Civil Law’ legal codes: very roughly, the ‘Common Law’ would be more closely aligned with the position that ‘rights’ originate with the individual whild ‘Civil Law’ is more congruent with the point of view that ‘rights’ originate from ‘the state’.
What is really important here is the difference in attitude between the citizen and the State. A little bit of this difference in attitude is described in my post about the difference between a ‘tax cut’ and a ‘tax rebate’: in a tax cut, the attitude is that the money is yours, and the government is able to accomplis the necessary ‘common goals’ using less of your money while in a tax rebate, the attitude is that the money is the government’s and that they have decided to give you a raise in your allowance.
This attitude, in my never-humble-opinion, is key in how the society evolves because it forms the expectations of the citizens towards the government, and vice versa.
And this attitude is one of the ‘threads’ in this great big ‘knot’…
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
November 14, 2008 at 18:18
[…] The origin and nature of human rights […]
November 15, 2008 at 05:42
Excellent. I’m going to steal this and post it on my blog, too. I’ll give you the customary hat tip and maybe one or two of my half dozen readers may head over here.
November 15, 2008 at 06:16
BTW, I want to put your blog on my blogroll, but since I have it organized into various categories that loosely conform to political regions, I want to confirm that you are Canadian, or at least living in Canada (one of my categories) so I can put you in the right place. I have Canadian blogs, American blogs, Middle Eastern blogs and one of these fine days, I’m going to assemble a list of European blogs. Just haven’t had the time to devote to that, yet. So, if you are willing, could you tell me which of my categories you feel you belong to?
Xanthippa says:
Thank you!
I am 100% Canadian – by choice, having come here in my teens from Europe. I live and think ‘Canadian’, even if not ‘mainstream’ – much appreciate the link!
November 15, 2008 at 18:37
What part of Europe? I read some words of yours that suggest it might have been a communist country. Am I right?
BTW, did you hear, the Conservative Party Convention has voted overwhelmingly to repeal Section 13 of the Human Rights Act or Code or whatever it’s proper name is. YAHOOO!! Now, lets hope they take that intent the rest of the way actually do it when parliament resumes. I am so happy about that!! I’m positively giddy. I might even become a member of the party again.
Xanthippa says:
Yes, you are correct. I spent my childhood on the other side of the ‘iron curtain’… Perhaps this gives me somewhat different perceptions on some things, perhaps it explains a few of my hangups…
Excellent news about Section 13!!! An excellent 1st step!!! Let’s hope they can carry it out in the ‘House’!!!
November 16, 2008 at 04:28
Xanthippa:
Since I’m on a dial-up connection, I won’t even try to watch the video. But your summary makes me suspicious: human rights, at any given time, are what people agree they are.
This could not be more wrong!
The essence of a right is the fact that there are certain things a man must be free to do, simply by virtue of what kind of creature he is. And what kind of creature is he? He is a rational animal. From this fact all his needs and abilities, and therefore all his rights, are derived: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, property, self-defence… all of them. Take away any one of them and either the rationality or the animality, or both, are thwarted, and existence becomes misery… at best.
When you are alone, you have all the rights you were born with, and no one and nothing stands in your way of exercising them.
The proximity of other people can only diminish your freedom to exercise your rights, never increase it. Invariably, the question comes down to, how much infringement of your rights are you willing to tolerate in return for some company? (Not much! Unless the company is particularly good. But maybe that’s just me.)
Anyone who tries to gull you into believing that your rights depend on their agreement, or that they can give you rights that you wouldn’t have without them is not your friend! In particular, so-called rights which are given by the state are not rights at all, just as so-called benefits paid for by tax money are not benefits at all.
The pattern is the same in both cases:
First we break your legs. Then we use your own money to buy you a crutch.
And we expect you to be very grateful for all we have done for you!
Your rights are what you are born with. In the last analysis, they are all you are born with. Guard them with your life, because without them life becomes impossible… or, worse, unbearable.
Xanthippa says:
Yes, of course, you are correct.
The video’s purpose was to demonstrate that whatever ‘innate’ rights we may have, in practice, we only REALLY HAVE the rights which we are free to exercise. That is an important distinction!!!
The video then goes on to assert that freedoms – the ability to exercise our innate rights – is won on the battlefield. If we are unable or unwilling to protect the freedom to exercise our rights, we will loose them….
So, the video is really in full agreement with what you have so eloquently expressed – then takes the next step from ‘theory’ to ‘application’.
And your last assertion – about the difference in attitude between WHERE these ‘rights’ emmanate from – you innate self or the state – that is the central THING I am trying to GET at! And, it is what I tried to describe in the ‘Common Law vs. Civil Law’ post I made a while ago (and linked to in this one).
Because IF we agree that our ‘rights’ emmanate from the government(state) (Civil Law in my post, ‘collectivism’ in the video), then the state has the power to take them away at will. I think this is wrong.
IF, on the other hand, these rights are inherrent to me and the laws are there to simply mediate dispute between individuals who have had a ‘collision between their individual rights’, and decide whose rights at this point take priority, then ‘The Law’ is only a mediation mechanism, not someone who can ‘take away’ my rights. This was called ‘individualism’ in the video, and I assert that this is the principle on which ‘Common Law’ is built.
The really important bit is, in my never-hymble-opinion, the ATTITUDE this creates between the State and the Citizen. In one, the power lies with the state and the citizen is the supplicant, hoping from ‘crumbs’. In the other, the citizen is the one with all the rights and the state must respect this.
It’s about THIS mindset difference that I am going to be talking about in later posts…
November 16, 2008 at 21:37
Xanthippa:
You’ve hit the nail exactly on the head: the burning issue of the day is collectivism versus individualism.
Left versus right has ceased to matter, because both ends of the political spectrum are now firmly collectivist. The collectivism of the left is totalitarianism; the collectivism of the right is fascism. And that’s the only choice you get. In other words…
Would you rather be oppressed by the Homeland Security Nazis or the Global Warming Nazis?
The option to reject oppression outright has been removed from the ballot, and no one is even talking about it. Why? Because people no longer have the moral or intellectual context required even to notice that something is missing. The Cultural Marxists who control the schools, the media and the government have seen to that. For most people, self-respect, self-reliance and self-determination no longer even come to mind as viable options.
So sing along with me:
Totalitarians to the left of me.
Fascists to the right.
Here I am.
Stuck in the middle with no one to vote for.
November 17, 2008 at 19:44
[…] The origin and nature of human rights […]