thecooolerking Concepts, Vocabulary

Stop Using the Term “Human Right”

I’m pretty sure that “human right” has become a propaganda term which muddies the concept of natural rights. The concept of natural rights is easily defined and logical: rights that preexist any legal or societal framework. These rights are not granted by any entity and cannot be lawfully taken away. They possess immense power as they are considered inalienable, and any infringement upon them can be seen as tyrannical, potentially justifying forceful action (after exhausting legal channels).

The phrase “human right” gained prominence following World War II when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations. However, this declaration includes certain items that do not necessarily align with the understanding of “human right” and natural right being synonymous. For example, Article 22 grants the right to social security, Article 25 discusses standards of living including medical care and unemployment, and Article 26 proclaims the right to free elementary education.

It is easier to label free elementary education as a “human right” rather than a natural right. In a remote location, without access to the rest of the world, one will not have access to “elementary education”, rendering it not a natural right. Instead, it should be considered a civil right, which refers to rights granted and protected by a government or legal system. It is understandable that modern reformers (P.P.S) have embraced the phrase “human right,” using it to encompass both civil and natural rights, while leveraging the concept of inalienability from natural rights to protect the rights they desire.

Why does this distinction matter? This is a question that people often ask with frustration. It matters because natural rights preexist, while civil rights must be provided (although there are exceptions to this, the distinction remains important (P.S.)). The right to seek healthcare, for example, is a natural right encompassed within the right to life and need not be narrowly proclaimed. However, the right to healthcare can be declared a civil right, but since that healthcare is the result of someone’s labor, you are not naturally entitled to it. To illustrate this point, imagine a scenario where all healthcare workers quit, leaving no one to provide healthcare. If healthcare is deemed a “human right” and inalienable, the government would have to exert power to force healthcare workers to provide care against their will, violating their natural rights. Does that answer the why? Probably not to the ear of a modern reformer, but to a reasonable person perhaps. Next time someone tries to get you to chant with them that “X” is a “human right”, think twice about what you are participating in.

Warning: The postscripts are longer than the essay, but I think they add quite a bit.

P.S. You may have noticed that the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1968 do not need to be “provided”, which I said is a defining characteristic of Civil Rights. This might seem like a bit of a spicy take, but perhaps those acts were incorrect in defining the prohibition of discrimination in public accommodations and housing as civil rights. I’m sure most people reading this are probably rolling their eyes, and I apologize, but you cannot legislate your way to a “more perfect union”. The Civil Rights Acts infringe upon individuals’ rights as has begun to be demonstrated.

In the 2012 Colorado incident, a cake shop owner refused to make a cake for a same sex couple’s wedding ceremony. The Supreme court was quite soft in their ruling (without a doubt they realized that a non-careful ruling would provide the legal grounds to upend the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 & 1968), but it is clear to me that forcing someone to bake a cake that they do not want to bake is an infringement of natural rights of freedom of association and freedom of expression.

Do I want to live in a society in which gay people are being refused service in businesses run by religious folk who believe homosexuality is a sin? Absolutely not. I very much do not want to live in that society, and I find the cake shop owner’s decision abhorrent. It was obviously very tempting to create laws that prohibited people from expressing their racism/prejudice through the businesses they owned and through gatekeeping on neighborhood housing. I understand the temptation; it is easier and faster to create a law that forces people to treat others with dignity and respect than it is to leave things be and pray that people realize the hate they feel is unfounded. On a Friday in 1964, businesses were forcing black people to use separate restrooms and drinking fountains, and on Saturday, that became illegal. How many decades would it have taken to achieve that result if we had foregone the creation of the Civil Rights act of 1964? Today, I would wager that a vast majority of Americans would firmly boycott any business that forced black people to use separate restrooms, and any business acting in such a manner would be bankrupt in less than a week. That is a society which does not actually need the Civil Rights Act in order to behave properly (subjective term). Did the Civil Rights Acts help us in the way a crutch allows you to get around before a broken leg heals? It’s something to consider.

Either way, it may be time to have some faith and put the crutch aside and continue down the path on our own two feet. To remind those who are disgusted by me, I am not suggesting we get rid of the Civil Rights Acts so that people can express their prejudice legally (though that will happen). Rather, I think our society has matured enough to get by without them, and the infringement on natural rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association is concerning. I am also not opposed to reinstating them if the whole prejudice thing gets out of hand again. Unfortunately, in the current culture war, stupid and bombast rises to the top, while nuance, principles, and logic sink to the bottom. Any proposal to get rid of or reform the Civil Rights Acts will be framed as a desire to return to a racist past.

P.P.S. I borrowed the term “modern reformer” from G.K. Chesterton, an English writer and philosopher. He uses the term in his description of the concept which is popularly known as “Chesterton’s Fence”. It is a concept that is perfectly relevant to this discussion, but I am including it as a postscript so as to not bog the essay down. “Chesterton’s Fence” as described by G.K. Chesterton:

“There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’”

In the context of our discussion, the fence is the delineation of natural rights and civil rights, which the modern reformer has unthinkingly torn down by lumping all their preferred rights in the category of “human rights”.

P.P.P.S. I did not cover in this discussion the universality of natural rights. If our society is based on the concept of natural rights, we should also recognize that such rights are ubiquitous across all humans, whether or not their government recognizes them, or they themselves recognize them. This implies that foreign states that do not recognize these natural rights are infringing upon them, which should be considered a grave offense. Many people believe that the United States and the western liberal coalition should intervene and depose these governments so that the people can be free, but to quote The Arbiter from the Halo Series: “were it so easy”. In the same way you cannot legislate your way to a “more perfect union” you cannot military invasion yourself to a “more perfect [world]”.

Earlier in the United States’ existence, the country debated over what role should be played in events abroad such as the French Revolutions, in which people were fighting and dying to install liberal values and supplant a monarchic regime. In 1821, John Quincy Adams, our 6th president, made a speech in which he asserted, “Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America’s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

Obviously, there should be some discretion. I am not about to say, especially in the same document I have said that the Civil Rights Acts should be abolished, that the United States was wrong to intervene in Nazi Germany’s extermination of the Jews and their other enemies. However, Americans should remember that all peoples are on their own journey and should only be interfered with in dire circumstances (or when the security of the United States is threatened).

Notice the popular rhetoric around Russia and Ukraine. Those with the microphone believe unquestioningly that the United States should be assisting Ukraine with almost no restraint. Coincidentally, the deep state players in Washington who have a hand in geopolitical strategy, believe that it is wise to antagonize Russia with the long-term goal of toppling the Russian state (I cannot find it but there was a Colbert Report interview with one such person and he admitted as much). I do not like that Putin is invading countries, but should the invasion of any country be a trigger for US involvement? I am afraid I don’t think so. We should not be trading the security of United States citizens for the independence of Ukrainian citizens.

P.P.P.P.S. I am sorry about all of the postscripts. It’s been a while since I wrote, and I had a lot to say.

Latest Posts

Follow My Blog

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.