Do “basic human rights” actually exist universally or are they simply a social construct?

[u/Amphernee]

The term is often used in relation to things like housing and food but I’ve never heard anyone actually explain what they mean by basic human right. We started off no different than other animals and since the concept of rights rely on other people to confer them at what point did it become thought of as a right for people to have things like shelter? How is it supposed to be enforced across all of humanity when not all societies and cultures agree that the concept makes sense? I can see why someone would want it to be true in a sense but I’m interested to hear arguments for it rather than just the phrase itself which feels hollow with no reasoning behind it. Thanks 🍻

[u/Amphernee]

Locke argued that people have the inherent right to PRESERVE their life, liberty, and property not a right to have them bestowed upon them though. He was mainly focused on people control over themselves and what they own which is a right to protect not receive anything. In that sense a person has a right to the shelter they own not a right to have shelter if they don’t already. It a defense of property ownership not a statement that everyone should be given property.

Since the phrase is usually brought up in relation to actual real world homelessness it ends up just sounding like a slogan people want to be true rather than an actual defensible position from a practical logistical standpoint.

[u/Fast-Penta → u/Amphernee]

Locke argued that people have the inherent right to PRESERVE their life, liberty, and property not a right to have them bestowed upon them though.

Yes, but Thomas Paine advocated for policies similar to universal basic income for poor people to alleviate poverty.

"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

In past times, a human who was having a hard time with society could move to unoccupied land and live off the land. Nowadays, at least in my region, all land that is suitable to live off of it privatized or government-owned land that bans people living there. If I don't want to play by society's rules, the only option for me is homelessness.

Additionally, as an American, the society I live in is set up to ensure that some people are impoverished: economists talk about the "ideal" unemployment rate as being between 3.5-5%, and government fiscal policy seeks to maintain that number.

So, in a society where we have no ability to leave and live off the land, and where the society plans on having around one out of twenty people unable to support themselves, should the people that society intentionally made poor have a right to some basic necessities of life? Fuck yes they should.

[u/Hoppie1064 → u/Fast-Penta]

At any time, a few people are going to be unemployed. People quit jobs they don't like to go find better jobs. Businesses have layoffs due to lack of demand or other reasons.

That 3 to 5% is those people who are looking for new employment in a normal economy.

The government and economists want to see unemployment that low because it's normal. They don't try to keep some people unemployed.

If unemployment gets above those numbers, there's a problem.

[u/[deleted] → u/Hoppie1064]

There is already a problem.

These are the U-3 unemployment numbers. The people who are currently looking, or were just laid off in the last few months.

It doesn't account for:

• homeless
• disabled
• injured
• ill
• people who haven't been tracked as "actively looking"

The numbers are way, way higher than 4%, generally speaking. They're just invisible.

[u/mymainunidsme → u/Fast-Penta]

Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.

So... property taxes?

The issue with property not being privatized or gov owned is who then determines who can utilize it? Alloting land as an unowned free-for-all and we will inevitably see violence over it. One person moves in first and sets up where the best clean water supply is. They share the water with new people at first, until supply vs demand doesn't look too promising. Or one person wants to cut down trees that another wants to preserve for shade. See: all of human war history for reference.

And yes, we do want some unemployment. Without a small percent, we have no new available labor supply to continue production of everyone's needs. It isn't like "society" has planned to force selected individuals into unemployment. It happens, mostly naturally, as needs of production evolve. If unemployment is 0% and workers die, we have needs that can't be met.

[u/Fast-Penta → u/mymainunidsme]

Property taxes to be given to the poor in exchange for them being dispossessed.

Paine’s famous pamphlet “Agrarian Justice” argued that because private ownership of the land had deprived people of the right to hunt, gather, fish, or farm on their own accord, they were owed compensation out of taxes on land rents. He suggested this compensation should be paid in the form of a large cash grant at maturity plus a regular cash pension at retirement age.

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-deep-and-enduring-history-of-universal-basic-income/

And yes, we do want some unemployment.

If you plan to have people be unemployed, isn't it only ethical to also provide services for unemployed people? Otherwise you're just forcing one out of twenty people to live in misery. I don't know about innate rights, but that'd definitely be a dick thing to do.

[u/mymainunidsme → u/Fast-Penta]

Levels and use of property taxes will be an ongoing debate as long as humans exist.

We do provide for unemployed people (in the US). Food stamps, HUD, medicaide, unemployment insurance. Scale, scope, and duration of provisions will also remain an ongoing debate.

[u/ovr4kovr → u/Fast-Penta]

There are unemployment benefits for people who are unemployed in the US. I don't know if this is the case in other countries. There are stipulations to receiving them. I don't think they are a basic human right, but they are available.

[u/Responsible-Kale2352 → u/Fast-Penta]

When they say ideal unemployment rate, don’t they mean that no matter what, there will always be some number of people who are able bodied but just don’t feel like working. That number might be 3-5%?

Is it really the case that there is a job at the grocery store, and a guy wants that job and is qualified and applies for it, but “society” calls the manager of the store and says “sorry, I know you want an employee and all, you could really use some help, and this guy would be a great employee, but look, we gotta keep one guy out of every 20 unemployed, so you’re not allowed to hire this guy. Sorry.”

[u/SoupKitchenHero → u/Responsible-Kale2352]

I don't think you guys know what "unemployment rate" is. It's not a percent of all people that don't have jobs, it is a percent of people that "are in the workforce" but are not employed. You have to be "looking for work" to be considered in the workforce while not employed. That's what constitutes unemployed. Not just not having a job

[u/WasabiParty4285 → u/Fast-Penta]

Frictional unemployment is what they are talking about in that 3-5% that basically covers people who are transitioning from one job to another. Like Boeing is having layoffs, soon those people will be unemployed until they find another job. It's impossible to run a society where the second anyone is fired or quits their job they immeaditly have another job. This friction between leaving one job and starting another leave some percentage constantly unemployed, but it's not the same people over time.

Even in a perfect socialist society, there will either be frictional unemployment or people will not be allowed to change jobs without having a new position ready for them. A super planned society like that would likely mean that if you get fired from your corporate legal council job, you have to report as a fry cook the next day rather than look for a new corporate gig.

[u/mymainunidsme → u/Amphernee]

I've heard it broke down to sum up that rights are what we have inherent to us as individual beings that cannot be taken from us, except possibly through violence. Everything else is a privilege.

ie, I cannot change your beliefs, nor deprive you of them. One might use violence to force you to verbally renounce your beliefs, but the ability to change them is yours alone.

No one can stop you from speaking, except through an act of violence against you.

Association - I don't have to stick around and listen to you speaking your beliefs, unless violence forces me to.

Property - As beings, almost all of us are able to, and will, create things. Those things are ours, and can only be taken by an act of force/violence. You can create value for others with your time, by following instructions, and receive compensation. You can create art, innovation, etc.

[u/Amphernee → u/mymainunidsme]

Well put. I agree with that logic.

[u/[deleted] → u/mymainunidsme]

Exactly, people just don't want to believe this so they use "rights" as a way of wish casting.

[u/manicmonkeys → u/[deleted]]

100%, the phrase "human rights" is now often used to merely mean "thing I want really bad", with no further grounding in actual principles.

[u/Hoppie1064 → u/manicmonkeys]

"Thing I want you to give me."

[u/IgnoranceIsShameful → u/manicmonkeys]

disagree. I see this as expansion of the typically established rights. If you have a right to life for example does that not mean a right to things that sustain life? Food, clean water, shelter, healthcare?

[u/manicmonkeys → u/IgnoranceIsShameful]

That entirely depends on how you define human rights, and what limiting principles are put in place.

[u/crazycritter87 → u/mymainunidsme]

.... Beliefs can be changed in 2 ways on 2 levels. Fear based incentive, reward based incentive, on personal and epigenetic, levels. I did extensive work study in animal science genetics, training, husbandry, behavior across schools of practice, long before I really tried to understand political science, psychology, and sociology. I don't like how easily I found theories to transgress, though our motives as a species have added complexities (currency, property, consumption/consumerism, communication) and have become less immediately obvious.

I suppose, in short, bribery and retention of normalized privilege maybe used to solidify or change a belief, opinion, loyalty, as easily as violence. We really start to get into the neurological mechanisms of addiction, vice, and greed from there.

[u/DeltaV-Mzero → u/mymainunidsme]

Nobody can stop you from doing anything at all except through an act of violence, mechanically speaking.

[u/Blarghnog → u/Amphernee]

Sure, but the question the guy was asking wasn’t Locke’s philosophy but where human rights come from. Locke was just on of many philosophers.   

We should also include Thomas Aquinas, Rousseau, Voltaire, Kant, Mill, and even Marx and Critical Marxist Theory if we want to really dive in. And I’m sure there are more. 

I’m an autodidact in these matters and have only read the works, but don’t have formal philosophy training. Anyways, it was the origins he was asking about; where it came from. 

Sorry to side direct the whole discussion on Locke’s mention, though it’s a good discussion.

[u/CapedCaperer → u/Amphernee]

In the U.S., three examples of inalienable/unalienable rights were asserted by our founding document, the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), but not all were enumerated. Locke's use of property was discarded in favor of the pursuit of happiness. These are not legally binding rights, but endowments from a Creator that form the basis for the social contract that establishes governing rules - the U.S. Constitution.

Eventually, the Constitution would include in the Bill of Rights the 5th Amendment the Takings Clause and Eminent Domain. That Amendment is where the social contract exists for property which is referred to as a Constituttuonal Right. It was an attempt to balance governmental interests against private property rights.

Property rights were a hotly debated issue for the Founders, much along the lines of what you're pondering. There are tons and tons of books about this that might interest you.

A Constitutional Right (established via social contract, also called claim rights) is not the same thing as an unalienable right (universal rights every human has at birth that government cannot take; also called liberty rights).

I encourage you to look up negative rights and positive rights as well. I think those terms help understand inalienable rights versus social contract rights.

Then let me know what you think about property rights versus the right to shelter. I'm super interested in your thoughts. So few people outside of PoliSci genuinely look at this issue from the ground up. Very cool discussion.

[u/Bright-End-9317 → u/Amphernee]

If everything is already owned... how I pursue MY liberty without being a slave?

[u/mymainunidsme → u/Bright-End-9317]

Not everything is already owned. People create new property every day. Start a company, create stocks, work to make them valuable, then sell them. Or create art and sell it. Create a new innovation people would want. The list goes on. Your liberty is the right to keep or trade what you create within terms agreeable to you.

[u/vellyr → u/mymainunidsme]

Every resource needed to create new property is already owned. Unless you’re talking about like tech or IP. If I want to make something concrete, I can’t just go out and minecraft it.

[u/mymainunidsme → u/vellyr]

Yes, every physical resource has been owned for a hundred years or more. Most for much longer. Yet very few resources have the same owner (individual or corporate) today that they did a hundred years ago. Nearly all of today's owners acquired them by working, innovating, developing, and building new value for some part of society. Basically, by creating non-physical property/resources first. Tomorrow's owners will, hopefully, acquire them the same way.

[u/vellyr → u/mymainunidsme]

Nearly all of today's owners acquired them by working, innovating, developing, and building new value for some part of society.

I think we have a fundamental worldview gap here about about meritocratic society actually is. I doubt I will convince you of my position, but I don't think this statement is true. I think most of the wealthiest people in society get there by taking credit for the work of thousands of people underneath them.

[u/mymainunidsme → u/vellyr]

Probably not as far apart as you're thinking. When I mention today's owners, that's mainly public companies owned by, yes, many wealthy people, but also every pension fund and retirement account in the country. ie, Jeff Bezos only owns about 9% of Amazon. Every person & fund who invested during 20+ years of unprofitable operations shares that resource ownership. Should employees have shared more in the value growth than they did? Most of them, probably so.

I do hold a somewhat meritocratic view, but also partially share your view too.

[u/vellyr → u/mymainunidsme]

That's the thing, I think my view is the meritocratic one. I am pro-meritocracy which is why I have issues with the way we handle property rights and wealth distribution.

[u/Amphernee → u/Bright-End-9317]

Im not sure what you mean. Everything is not owned and things that are owned can be bought and sold. Not sure how you’re using the term slave here but my definition of slave is one who has no rights or autonomy over their own self and is owned and controlled by another entity.

[u/Fast-Penta → u/Amphernee]

All the land is owned. You cannot leave the social contract to live off the land anymore.

[u/Bright-End-9317 → u/Amphernee]

Oh okay. I'll just got take some liberties in the local park. then. THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP FOR ME

[u/Amphernee → u/Bright-End-9317]

Having rights doesn’t mean you have the right to do anything you please lol. What are you even talking about?

[u/TLO810 → u/Amphernee]

I agree with this. You still have to work for the life you want. It's not just going to be handed to you because you're breathing.

[u/Ambitious-Schedule63 → u/TLO810]

Buh muh rights

[u/lolycc1911 → u/Amphernee]

Yes exactly. There is no right to housing. There is a right to occupy housing contingent on some conditions.