Hacker News Reader

Comment by gonmf | Hacker News Reader

I'll let you on on a secret that you aren't thought in elementary school. Real human rights are intrinsic and inalienable. Things like the right for your pursuit of happiness and freedom of thought and speech. All supposed rights that require other people's labor or permission (health, education, shelter) are bogus, they are just organizations moving goalposts. Real rights are not bestowed.

Bogus rights are to not be offended, not be attacked, be given dignity and respect. Real rights are to defend yourself, stand your ground and use your body how you want. You just want a few more social norms in some spheres of interaction than some of your neighbors that's all.

View on HN

And just how are you going to pursue happiness or use your freedom of speech if you do not have the ability to defend yourself? A healthy body to stand your ground with? An education that enables you to express what you want to say?

You are not advocating human rights, you are advocating social Darwinism in its worst form.

I am not advocating. It's just what we have. Decreeing we have the right to health doesn't make diseases disappear.

I am advocating not calling this a discussion about human rights but about human wants.

There's no such things as "real rights." Rights are granted to people by the entities willing to defend those people in the exercise of those rights. There's no "real" right to a pursuit of happiness, there's no "real" right to freedom of thought, and there's no "real" right to freedom of speech.

> Real rights are to defend yourself, stand your ground and use your body how you want.

A right that you grant to yourself is called an "ability."

That is false, or maybe just semantics. Imagine an enslaved man. I believe he has the right to attempt to free himself from slavery. By your definition he doesn't because those around him haven't granted him that right. In my definition he may or may not have the ability to actually free himself or attempt to.

Did slaves in the 17th century have the right to free themselves from slavery? No. That right was limited by law. They had the ability to do so, in some cases, but certainly not the right (as is legally recognized).

Well I hope then that you end up in a society like what you describe, where there are no bogus rights. All the best.

I know I won't, it is too far away I would probably not be alive even it came to pass.

My point was that at least some people recognize that these rights are made up and want to be in a place where they may be offended, they may be riled up, and laugh, and be insulted, and be seriously challenged in their beliefs. We are the smartest known species in the world and yet most of us make such a darn effort not to upset our childhood-imprinted beliefs.

My point was that at least some people recognize that these rights are made up

All rights are "made up". Rights can only exist in a system that recognises them, definitionally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com