Comments on Dizzy Thinks: Human rights have actually taken away our liberty

flashgordonzz... it's called a nobhead in these pa...

2007-08-24T15:56:00.000+01:00

flashgordonzz... it's called a nobhead in these parts.

Spot the philosophical difference:EU Reform Treaty...

2007-08-23T16:34:00.000+01:00

Spot the philosophical difference:

EU Reform Treaty:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00003.en07.pdf

scroll down to around page 10 where it starts about "rights"

who is conferring these "rights" onto us? why the European Union is.

now contrast with the U.S. constitution where human freedom is self-evident - the amendments are restrictions on the what the STATE can do to the invididual:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

amendment 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."

amendment 2:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed...."

4th amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

see how this is completely the opposite way around to the EU "human rights" way of doing it.

Dizzy is a Roundhead?

2007-08-23T02:00:00.000+01:00

Dizzy is a Roundhead?

Dizzy, it's true the socialists took away your rig...

2007-08-22T23:07:00.000+01:00

Dizzy, it's true the socialists took away your right to protect yourself, and then arrogated unto themselves this right. Now you barely have the right to eject a burglar from your house without saying, "Thank you and have a nice evening".

Your dilemma is interesting. The state has no right to confer rights. The EU, for which no one in Britain voted (or voted against) because we have not had the opportunity,does not have the power to confer rights over freeborn Britons.

Now, can a government -- oh, let's say a Trotskyite government like Blair's/Brown's Labour -- hand over your right to determine your rights to an (in truth) non-legitimate body like the EU?

DizzyIt's true that human rights do not exist in a...

2007-08-22T14:20:00.000+01:00

Dizzy
It's true that human rights do not exist in any tangible sense. I've always seen them existing as constructs which reasonable people have invented to assist the living of a reasonably good life, which respects life and recognises other people live here too. In other words, they are part of a kind of social contract we sign with other citizens. Whether human rights laws can become self defeating is quite possible however.

Natch. The first priority of the state is to prote...

2007-08-22T10:58:00.000+01:00

Natch. The first priority of the state is to protect the state.

They took away my right to bear arms! ;)

2007-08-22T10:53:00.000+01:00

They took away my right to bear arms! ;)

That parts of the pay off in our relationship as i...

2007-08-22T10:50:00.000+01:00

That parts of the pay off in our relationship as individuals to the state we create.

Which I think is my point. There is a huge degree of practicability involved in being a member of modern human society. So you hate the HRA and feel it unnecessary, (although in my view it does nothing more than give us formal legal redress when the state has strayed too far) but it is the law of the land and you have to accept it, and the decisions (unelected but impliedly consented to)courts produce in interpreting it.

I don't take that view about man, I think he is a bastard.

Excellent, a Hobbesian. I am indeed nasty, brutish and short!

It's also why I didn;t vote for them and I;m not a memebr of a Labour Party.

Yes, but its that danged practicability point again. You did not vote for the law and, in the absence of anyone getting rid of it, you are forced to abide by it. Others have chosen to change your relationship with the state and other than vote and hope that the Conservatives win the next election there is squat you can do about it. Some freedom.

Statements of ideals are not the same as Acts of law which fundamnetally change the relationship

Philosphically contradictory it may be but a majority (of some description) have chosen to elect a government which promised to enact such a law, clearly the state is now in a position to *give* us the rights which you claim are ours of, erm, right. Our relationship with the state has been changed, whether we like it or not.

Anyone for armed insurrection?

This is all dangerous left-wing rubbish!We are sub...

2007-08-22T10:46:00.000+01:00

This is all dangerous left-wing rubbish!

We are subjects of her gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth. Our rights and duties come from God and are mediated through her, his Vicegerent here on earth. She, the SOVEREIGN, is the ultimate holder of sovereignty.

You and your commenters, with your talk of free individuals entering into social contracts (now that really is nonsense on stilts - who ever signed a social contract?), despite your claims to "conservatism" and your usurpation of the word Tory, are just disguised liberals, communists et al.

Lefty pinkoes all of you!!

Ludington, I considred talking about the different...

2007-08-22T10:29:00.000+01:00

Ludington, I considred talking about the different conceptions of liberty, but decided againt it.

So I vote. Who represents my position - no one. So...

2007-08-22T10:26:00.000+01:00

So I vote. Who represents my position - no one. So I stand for election myself. Who votes for me -no one. So I am elected, what influence do I have in parliament - none. Not much of an answer is it?

That parts of the pay off in our relationship as individuals to the state we create.

It is just that the modern democratic nation state is a long way from the ideals of Rousseau in the Social Contract.

I;m not expressing a Rousseauian view of Social Contract. Rousseau believed that the General Will was what gave people their freedoms and rights. He believed that man was essentially good and that we enter into Social Contract in order to be all fluffy with each other. I don't take that view about man, I think he is a bastard.

The rights *are* inalienable

If rights are "inalienable" then it implies they existence external of man in some ethereal world of the ideal. I don't accept that rationalist view.

The HRA is not perfect. It was however part of the Labour Party's manifesto in 1997 and so, as they were elected on the basis of that manifesto, we the people have arrogated to the government the right to state our freedoms in its own terms.

Yes, but that doesn't change the point I was making that such arrogation is philosophically contradictory. It's also why I didn;t vote for them and I;m not a memebr of a Labour Party. I do however accept that sometime people are, more often than not, stupid.

Statements of human rights are not without value. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been a beacon to those suffering from oppression, and puts their case for the freedom they were born with absolutely beyond reproach.

Statements of ideals are not the same as Acts of law which fundamnetally change the relationship between the state and the individuals though. The UNiversal Declaration fo Human Rights is a flffuy statement of how we should all have a group hug but it negates the fundamental reality of human nature that man is a complete vicious bastard.

I had to re-read this post a couple of times to fi...

2007-08-22T10:22:00.000+01:00

I had to re-read this post a couple of times to figure out where you're coming from. I think I've got it now. The difficulty was, I think, simply a difference in the use of "human rights".

For me, "human rights" is the collective name for those, erm, rights which are mine owing to the nature of my humanity. As a human being, I am sovereign.

What you're talking about, I think, is the difference between what is sometimes called "positive rights" and "negative rights". The US Constitution is a good example of the approach of "negative rights". A defined list of powers is granted to the government. Everything else is assumed to be in the realm of the individual. Essentially, one can do what one wants unless it is specifically proscribed.

The approach of various Continental contries is the opposite - one has the "right" (in reality one is granted the permission) to do only what is specifically permitted by the government. Everthing else is assumed to be proscribed.

A great post, Dizzy. This is the sort of stuff that is so little understood in Britain. It deserves to be discussed far more often.

"By the way, I agree with you, but your logic coul...

2007-08-22T10:16:00.000+01:00

"By the way, I agree with you, but your logic could be more rigourous."

I'm not sure I agree with that because history shows changes to law occurs through either revolution or the ballot box, which is an expression of political sovereignty is it not? (although in the case of "proletariat revoultion" it tends to replace one falwed conception fo the state with another)

So I vote. Who represents my position - no one. So...

2007-08-22T10:13:00.000+01:00

So I vote. Who represents my position - no one. So I stand for election myself. Who votes for me -no one. So I am elected, what influence do I have in parliament - none. Not much of an answer is it?

I absolutely agree with you that, as you say, "we make the state and the state does not exist separate of us. We are sovereign over it. It is not sovereign over us."

It is just that the modern democratic nation state is a long way from the ideals of Rousseau in the Social Contract. The rights *are* inalienable, we do allow the government only as much sovereignty as we are prepared to concede, but in a nation of 60 million people individual consent is a fallacy, and government is so complex, that we require the legal ability to hold it to account when it strays from its mandate. The HRA is not perfect. It was however part of the Labour Party's manifesto in 1997 and so, as they were elected on the basis of that manifesto, we the people have arrogated to the government the right to state our freedoms in its own terms.

Statements of human rights are not without value. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been a beacon to those suffering from oppression, and puts their case for the freedom they were born with absolutely beyond reproach.

The notion of human rights as expressed by the ECH...

2007-08-22T10:01:00.000+01:00

The notion of human rights as expressed by the ECHR et al is very much in the tradition of postive liberty, which is prevalent on the continent.

The UK holds to a tradition of negative liberty, which is why conlict arises; the ECHR is simply not compatible with this country's political set up and traditions.

I'm going to just quote your last sentence because...

2007-08-22T09:58:00.000+01:00

I'm going to just quote your last sentence because that seems to be the general thrust of the rest of your comments, although if you think otherwise just say:

I do not consent to these laws, indeed I cannot have consented to them as they were passed before I existed. What do I do about it?

Vote.

Just out of curiousity, can you let me know why and how rights exist?

By the way, I agree with you, but your logic could...

2007-08-22T09:53:00.000+01:00

By the way, I agree with you, but your logic could be more rigourous.

Okay then, I do not give my permission for the sta...

2007-08-22T09:51:00.000+01:00

Okay then, I do not give my permission for the state to take any action on my behalf on anything - i.e. I want to withdraw from the social contract - what am I going to do about it?

If your argument is taken to its conclusion, then we should let out of prison all those who say they did not consent to the law under which they were jailed (this would include anyone who did not vote for the parliament in which the relevant law was passed).

The Theft Act dates from 1968, the Offences against the Person Act from 1861 and murder has no statutory definition, instead it is defined by unelected judges. I do not consent to these laws, indeed I cannot have consented to them as they were passed before I existed. What do I do about it?

As I said in my update. Defining the limits of the...

2007-08-22T09:38:00.000+01:00

As I said in my update. Defining the limits of the state is done by us restrciting its right through laws which express our sovereignty over it. Human Rights don;t do that. They do not express the limitations of the state. They actually start from the assumption that the state is limitless and separate of the individuals that make it, and that the state is "giving" us rights. Put simply it has no sovieregnty to give us those "rights" because it has not been given the power over those rights by us in the first place.

I don;t believ we sign a contract when we come out of the uterus. I do however beleive that we make the state and the state does not exist separate of us. We are sovereign over it. It is not sovereign over us.

Oh yes, when I typed Washington on the train I thought it might be wrong. Forgot to check it.

Nonsense on stilts indeed.It's always worth readin...

2007-08-22T09:32:00.000+01:00

Nonsense on stilts indeed.

It's always worth reading what Bastiat had to say about these matters. He pointed out that people have three basic expectations that pre-date codified laws: to live, to be free and to use their property as they see fit. Governments should exist to do collectively what people can't or don't want to do individually.

In practice, of course, governments don't act like this. They do things which would be illegal and immoral if done by an individual - would you accept it if I forced you to give me your money, even if I told you what I was going to do with it?

As you said, governments can't confer rights because rights, to the extent they exist, are held by individuals. Governments can only take them away and pretend to give other "rights" in return.

Surely the Human Rights Act can be seen as the Sta...

2007-08-22T09:30:00.000+01:00

Surely the Human Rights Act can be seen as the State reminding itself that the rights *are* inalienable (and it was Thomas Jefferson, not George Washington). Are you of the view that the US declaration of independence and constitution are unecessary? They serve a similar purpose i.e. defining the limits of the state.

As human sociey has grown more complex due, in the main, to population growth and technological advancement, then governments of every stripe have attempted to alienate the rights that were not arrogated to it in the social contract (which is only a philisophical construct - you speak as if you have to sign it as you come out of the uterus).

As the governments of Iran, North Korea etc etc show, unless there is a firm practical basis for being able to draw a line over which government cannot cross, then anything goes. The sheer number of actions which the Blair government were found to have taken in contravention of the HRA is also good evidence of this.