Rights and Wrongs

The Hon Dr Peter Phelps MLC discusses the rise of "bullshit rights" and how these lead to the detriment of real rights:

Saturday night in Canberra is a great night for baseball. But imagine my surprise when, upon turning up to the game, an earnest young thing in a blue t-shirt emblazoned with ‘Youth for Human Rights’ thrusts a pamphlet labelled ‘What Are Human Rights?” into my hands?

 

“Oh dear”, was my first thought. But into the back pocket it went and no further thought was given until the ground announcer who – giving the sound of having had a foreign piece of paper thrust into his hand, a gun held at his head and receiving an injunction to ‘Say This Or The Kid Gets It’ – and declaimed that “All the rights that we have come from the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and “Youth for Human Rights is working to have a Federal Human Rights Act for Australia”.

 

It was fortunate that I had long since finished my hot dog and Coke, because I am sure that I would have choked on either upon hearing those words.

 

As I wrote recently in another forum  too often ‘policy outcomes’ are passed off as ‘rights’ to give them an aura of legitimacy which they would not otherwise have.

 

So out came the book – my team was well behind by this stage – to see exactly what rights were being promoted by the Yoof of Australia.  And, boy, does their agenda reek of Trojan Horse.

 

There are three categories of rights: real rights, corollary rights and bullshit rights. 

 

Real rights are the three great natural law right: Life, Liberty and Ownership.

 

Corollary rights are those rights which flow from, or are needed to give effect to, real rights.

 

And bullshit rights are as the name would imply. They are policy prescriptions masquerading as rights. How can you spot these? Simple. Ask yourself: “If there was no government, no society, would I be able to claim and enforce these rights?”

 

For example: the right to own the firewood that you chop down from the forest is a real right. The ‘right to clean water’ from the stream which runs through is, although desirable, unenforceable. How are you going to tell the Earth to stop leaching lead and antimony into the water?

 

So let us return to the booklet and assess the contents:

 

1. “We are all born free and equal” – real right for the first bit, and morally if not practically correct assertion for the second.
2. “Don’t discriminate” – poorly worded but, yes, rights are universal.
3. “The right to life” – real right.
4. “No slavery” – corollary right to Liberty.
5. “No torture” – corollary right to Liberty.
6. “You have rights no matter where you go” – a statement on the universality of rights.
7. “We’re all equal before the law” - a statement that no man has more rights than another by either birth or position.

 

Not doing too badly, so far.

 

1. “Your human rights are protected by law” – a bit floppy. They certainly SHOULD be protected, but too often laws merely strip us of our rights.
2. “No unfair detainment” – corollary right to Liberty.
3. “The right to trial” – a corollary right to Liberty, which seeks to prevent arbitrary use of power against individuals by the Executive.
4. “We’re always innocent until proven guilty” – ditto.
5. “The right to privacy” – poorly expressed, but probably a corollary to Liberty and Ownership.
6. “Freedom to move” – corollary right to Liberty.
7. “The right to seek a safe place to live” – bullshit right. You have the right to move, but there is no right that the people already residing in a place have an obligation to share with or protect you.
8. “Right to a nationality” – bullshit right. Nationalism is a 19^th Century fabrication. In an anarchical society, how would one claim this right?
9. “Marriage and family” – kind of real and kind of bullshit. If they mean voluntary partnerships between individuals, that is fine as it would be a corollary to Liberty. But if they mean legitimising arranged marriages and concubinage, nope.
10. “The right to your own things” – real right.
11. “Freedom of thought” – corollary right to Liberty and probably Ownership, on the basis that you ‘own’ your ideas and opinion.
12. “Freedom of expression” – corollary right to Liberty.
13. “The right to public assembly” – corollary right to Liberty.
14. “The right to democracy” – bullshit right. Democracy is but one form of social governance. A despotism entered into freely is no less valid – think about any religious community, for example. Also, how would you enforce this right in a natural condition, ie. One where there is no government?

 

Yeah, a bit squishy so far, but not too bad. But wait.

 

1. “Social security” – Or to use the full notes: “the right to affordable housing, medicine, education, and childcare, enough money to live on and medical help if we are ill or old”. Bullshit. ‘Nuff said.
2. “Workers’ rights” – As explained: “the right to a job and to a fair wage and to join a trade union”.  Bullshit right, unenforceable in man’s natural state. The trade union thing is a corollary of Liberty, but the first two are just garbage.
3. “The right to play” – bullshit right. If you are a subsistence farmer in an agrarian society, enforcing this right would mean your own starvation.
4. “Food and shelter for all” – bullshit right.
5. “The right to education” – bullshit right. And if you don’t believe me, try enforcing this right if you are shipwrecked on a deserted island.
6. “Copyright” – I don’t want to get into a libertarian fight, but I would call this a corollary right of Ownership.
7. “A free and fair world” – bullshit right. Unenforceable.
8. “Responsibility” – bullshit right. It is up to people to enforce their own rights, unless other agree to assist them in the enforcement of such rights. That is the nature of a free and voluntary society.
9. “No one can take away your human rights” – a true statement. They can only purport to do so, and only through the use of the coercive power of the state can they succeed.

So the final score: 18/30.  A bare Pass mark – not even a Credit.

Nor is their argument helped when, in discussing “the most important advances” in human rights, they completely fail to mention the 1689 Bill of Rights. This document, which has led to 323 uninterrupted years of liberal democracy in British-speaking Dominions, served as the basis of large portions of the US Bill of Rights – which they do mention.

But whatevs. Does anyone seriously think that these people are interested in legislating for the real rights and their corollaries?  Are they going to be calling for a legislated right to self-defence, allowing for the personal enforcement of the three great natural law rights by individuals themselves? I’m guessing: no.

Or do they just want the enactment of the bullshit rights, clothing them in the rhetoric of eternal, natural rights that will be ruthlessly enforced – to the detriment of real rights, like Ownership and Liberty – by the coercive power of the state?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

The Hon Dr Peter Phelps MLC is Government Whip in the NSW Legislative Council. He has a PhD in Australian History. 

 

Comments

[Account Deleted]

1.

Their BS rights are a prelude to their ecofascist new world order.

[Peter Simmons]

2.

Love the bit about "Innocent until proved Guilty".

Try that one on at the Racial Discrimination, Sexual Discrimination, Religious Villification (excluding Christianity) Board or any of these other Star Chambers.

[Edward]

3.

what about a right to high speed internet access?

[Anthony]

4.

Real rights are innate, bullshit rights are bestowed.

I would put ownership as a corollary of liberty. But anyway...

[James B]

5.

Copyright is a bullshit right.

[Gregoryno6]

6.

What about the right to eternal rainbows and fairy dust in fifteen flavours?

[dB]

7.

Copyright is a bullshit right.

It's an interesting one to run past the OP's Gilligan's Island test.

First shipwreck survivor builds himself a nice hut out of palm fronds and branches. Second shipwreck survivor sees that and thinks what a good idea, and heads off into the forest to gather all he needs. During construction he gets a visit from the first guy demanding a license fee for copying his design.

[pk]

8.

>the right to a job and to a fair wage

the alternative? slavery.

It's a real right and what brought the west out of the mire of the 19th centuries' satanic mills and also which still sees children hunched over sewing machines in bangladesh deathtraps instead of going to school.

You think a poor woman, without higher training and education supporting 3 kids has bargaining power with an employer? yeeeasssssshhhhhhhhhhh. okay. let me know when you leave leave lala freemarket land at the top of the faraway tree.

[pk]

9.

Oh, and a gold star for anyone who responds to this with actual argument instead of just calling me names.(I know that's a stretch for some of you).

[Jim Witt]

10.

There are 3 things to note here.
1) Rights, 2) Privileges, & 3) Responsibilities.

Unfortunately many people and mostly those with socialist tendencies do not believe in #3, and want to role #2 into #1.

[Anton]

11.

If a "right" imposes a cost on someone else it is a "bullshit right"

If you have a right to a house, someone has an obligation to provide it for you. Which is bullshit.

It is better to frame things in terms of freedoms - you have the freedom to try to buy a house.

Your right to a utopian wage for no input by self is a bullshit right. It imposes a cost on someone else - usually by way of tax slavery. Because taking a significant portion of someone's production without compensation is slavery, even if you call it a tax

[Account Deleted]

12.

Your example is BS as it's unenforceable...The second guy would just tell the first guy to get stuffed

[Account Deleted]

13.

if you make yourself invaluable to the labor mkt you'll always find a job that will pay higher than the min wage...it's called being a self starter and being prepared to get off your backside.

their are doers, and then their are people like PK, self indulgent wannabes...

[dB]

14.

Yep, and before you know it, the island would have its first trade war. They'd need their own equivalent of a Trans Pacific Partnership to sort it all out.

[Account Deleted]

15.

Spot on, Jim.

Take note PK and others...

[David Capper]

16.

The 'right' to a job is at best an aspirational statement (ie it would be nice to have but maybe essentially unachievable without revolutionary change, and if history is anything to go by, unachievable even then). In reality having a job is a function of numerous factors which may or may not be under the control of the individual, such as availability, education, location, mobility and culture. The alternative to the right to a job is unemployment not slavery, after all slave had an obligation to do a job (in the sense they were obliged to do the work assigned to them), they did not get a wage for it (in the generally accepted modern concept of slavery).
Again a 'right' to a fair wage, is an aspirational statement.
Subject to governmental imposition, a fair wage is a function of negotiation, either by the individual with the employer or collectively through a union (unlike a lot of people on this site I see a valid place for unions. I also do not have that much trouble with governmental imposed minimums, particularly in affluent countries). It is also a function of other factors such as availability, education, location, mobility and culture.
The value of aspirational statements is they encourage society to make steps towards them even if they themselves are largely unachievable.

[pk]

17.

>The alternative to the right to a job is unemployment -

see homelessness > see starvation >see no option but to take whatever someone is willing to exploit your labor for = slavery in the guise of the working poor.

>if you make yourself invaluable to the labor mkt you'll always find a job that will pay higher than the min wage...it's called being a self starter and being prepared to get off your backside.

ha yes Andy, tell that to the thousands of impoverished, uneducated third world women who make your clothing, working 60 hr weeks for minimal amount - they should just waltz off to uni and get and engineering degree? simple huh?

[kraka]

18.

"they should just waltz off to uni and get and engineering degree? simple huh?"

That is their right pk. And these thousands of impoverished women-which countries do they live in? I wonder if the USA said they were going to invade this country to free these impoverished women if you would support the women and cheer or abuse the US for trying?

There is no such thing as a right to have a job-especially here where a large portion of our community decide they would rather be on the taxpayer tit. A job is achieved through a combination of self esteem,ability and willingness to work, starting from the bottom if necessary,and taking the steps to improve from there.

If someone capable of working decides it is their right to be on the dole (and don't kid yourself that this number is not insignificant)then it should be a taxpayers right to not pay for them, or at least make them work for it.

Rights are all well and good and make for flowery reading but we live in the real world. People should be able to walk the streets at night in safety but the reality is they cannot-in part because the legal fraternity has seen fit to award criminals access to free legal aid and other rights that make the punishment for committing such acts so small as to make the risk worth it.

[Account Deleted]

19.

WTF?

But ppl like you are okay for tens of billions to be wasted on fighting imaginary AGW instead of helping people get out of poverty...

[pk]

20.

I never said people have the right to a job, just the right to be paid appropriately for their time, be that via minimum wage laws or the right to collective bargaining - something which is not allowed in many workplaces across the world and makes for 2 things- a massive amount of working poor (also see- crime, poverty cycles, low education standards, family abuse & extremist religion filling the void) and a tiny elite group making billions off their predicament (while also asking for government handouts too- because you know, they are 'employers')

[Mike]

21.

Um pk, yeah u did say its a real right to have a job mate.

[pk]

22.

where mike? quote me.

[Anton]

23.

Comment 8

>the right to a job and to a fair wage

the alternative? slavery.

It's a real right and what brought the west out of the mire of the 19th centuries' satanic mills and also which still sees children hunched over sewing machines in bangladesh deathtraps instead of going to school.

Do you know what you post? or were you trying to change history again?

[dB]

24.

The second guy would just tell the first guy to get stuffed

And hopefully that's exactly what Andrew Robb told the yanks in Singapore this week.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/transpacific-partnership-with-us-should-hold-fears-20131210-2z416.html

[Wally]

25.

Copyright is a right for the life of the author.
However after that, it should fall directly into the public domain as it is in my opinion, and of many other libertarians, that intellectual property cannot be transferred after the death of the author.

[dB]

26.

What if the "author" is a drug company? I guess they just need to settle on how long is long enough, which often seems to be the sticking point on these negotiations.

Or to return to the OP's Gilligan's Island test, how long should the second shipwreck survivor have to sit out in the rain, before he too is allowed to build himself a hut without paying the first guy a royalty?

[kraka]

27.

This rights argument is intellectually lazy and being pushed by the intellectually lazy left. With the exception of free speech the word right could be replaced with the word responsibility.

It is not your right to have a job-it is your responsibility to get one.etc etc

In the case of free speech IMHO it should be absolute. It is my right to say whatever the bloody hell I like-it is my RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that what I say is not offensive, racist or whatever lest I be ostracized by my peers. It is here where the left show their intolerance and totalitarian tendencies.

The do not believe I do have that right and that they have the right to be offended and seek retribution through the courts to ensure that nobody ever says anything that they judge to be offensive. It is not enough for them that friends and peers are lost if one is consistently boorish and offensive-NO they wish to be the judge of what is and isn't acceptable.

This might be ok if the Judgement comes from a balanced, benevolent source-but when it comes from a left who have shown that their morals and principles are floating and movable depending on which side says it then they can, quite frankly, fuck off-I despise their totalitarian nature and their complete lack of tolerance for anyone who dares to argue for the right to free speech or against the right to be offended. The victim mentality is a large part of what is wrong in society today.

[kraka]

28.

PS-when I say fuck off to the left-I MEAN TO BE OFFENSIVE.

[John of North Lakes]

29.

As a married man for thirty five years I have rights. I am just not allowed to exercise them!

[Wally]

30.

Copyright would only apply to that company's documentation of the drug, not the drug itself. That would be covered by patents, which of themselves are proving to be a large limiting factor in the way we compete with the rest of the world, since patents that apply here don't necessarily apply in other countries e.g. China which puts us at a disadvantage in comparison.

In the cases of a 'greater work', copyright will usually fall to the last person who had a substantial contribution to the project. In the case of film, it's the director, producer, DoP and composer usually.

The desert island test is interesting with copyright. You might be able to trade how to build a better hut for other goods once, but after that you've already passed on the knowledge and the other person is free to share or withhold that information, similarly to the public domain.

@kraka
If you'd like to have some input into copyright or patent law, then do so, otherwise, shut up.
(My attempt to be offensive too).
You also neglect to keep in mind the very legal tools that we have against freedom of speech in this country, libel and slander.
Those legal terms are why absolute free speech doesn't exist here, among other reasons as well.

[kraka]

31.

WTF are you doing referencing me you illiterate twit. I didn't even read your post and Nothing I wrote was in response to your patent law post. Libel and Slander laws are all we need and nothing in my post says we shouldn't have them-I was talking about racial vilification laws.

I'm guessing you are a lefty who took offense-wanker!(offence intended)