Below follows some not yet fully developed parts of my own take. While I, naturally, favor that others adopt my take, this is mostly a descriptive text (“What is my take?”) and not a normative text (“What should your take be?”). A further development to a more normative text is intended, but will not take place in the immediate future. The current text is best seen as serving three purposes, namely: (a) Helping me clarify my thoughts to myself. (b) Serving as a first step towards such a normative text. (c) Helping others understand my position in other texts in this category.
I caution that the below will later be revised, extended, and otherwise altered—this is somewhere half-way between a publishable text and personal notes. I also caution that I might, on some points, change my mind after deeper thought and/or give a more nuanced treatment in light of such thought. As a particular weakness, I largely leave out special cases like persons convicted of crimes at the moment—I simply need more time to consider these issues, e.g., what restrictions of rights are or are not acceptable at what point of time. Finally, I caution that the list is currently highly incomplete and does not usually duplicate contents from other pages, even from the portions that I fully intend to include in later versions of this page.
A great number of “TODO”s are deliberately left in, as they often give the reader some further information even in their current shape. However, they do not form a complete listing of the work yet to be done.
To exemplify the complications that can arise, consider those convicted of crimes: Here we might have to start with such a fundamental question as whether a completed sentence implies that all restrictions that might have applied are washed away, or whether such restrictions may remain or be newly instituted. In the latter case, an investigation of such restrictions in more detail would have to follow.
Then we have the issue of what restrictions are and are not legitimate “during”: For someone sentenced to incarceration, incarceration would follow (and this part is not of great controversy), but what conditions are otherwise conscionable? Consider e.g. lack of or enforced solitude, access to the Internet, and what disciplinary measures that are allowed without formal legal proceedings. What about e.g. the right to vote and ability to interact with outsiders (especially, for the purpose of a retrial) at what times, in what places, under what circumstances?
In between, we find parolees and yet another set of questions, e.g. whether restrictions on the social circle are acceptable: A ban on contact with “known criminals”, say, might have a solid pragmatical justification, but is ethically highly dubious. Moreover, it can be a major problem if a large part of the prior social network (maybe, including family) is directly or indirectly disqualified.
The word “right” is, it self, a bit tricky and my own use (for now) not always consistent, e.g. in that I do not always separate between what I consider a right, what is widely considered a right, and what some might consider a right. The word might (again, for now) often be best seen as “right suggested by someone”.
I utterly reject, however, the sometime claim that rights are solely what the law gives. When that issue is of importance, a phrasing like “legal right” should be used. (A more general discussion of issues like ethics vs. law, what the law should be vs. what it is, variations of the idea of natural rights vs. legal rights, whatnot, will have to wait. The restriction of “right” to legal rights preempts such a discussion in an extreme and inexcusable manner, and often with absurd results.)
I repeatedly use formulations like “undue”, e.g. in that “undue interference” is not acceptable. By such use, I acknowledge that there might be cases where a “due” whatnot exists, while postponing the effort to nail down the details. (Sometimes, it would simply be too much writing for the time being; sometimes, my own view of the details is not yet sufficiently well developed.) However, such phrasings do bring an unfortunate vagueness that can easily be abused, fall victim to too large differences in personal opinions, or otherwise be problematic. My own uses should not be interpreted too far and I advice very great caution when using such words in e.g. laws. (Note e.g. how even a harmless seeming restriction in the legal protection of freedom of speech can undermine that protection in a disastrous manner. An important special case is the ever-widening range of speech condemned, on ever-flimsier grounds, as “hate speech” by rabid Leftists.)
Rights are and must be largely or exclusively geared at the individual. There is very little scope for rights for the group, need to protect the group, whatnot, that is not automatically covered by protecting the individual. A focus on the group, however, can very easily lead to the trampling of the individual.
(TODO import and link to Wordpress text on the topic.)
A core issue of rights is to protect the individual from undue governmental interference. This the more so, as he is next to powerless next to the government, as there is rarely a higher arbiter that can be invoked to stop a misbehaving government, as portions of the government are much too prone to side with each other in a blanket manner, as competence levels are usually low, as even well-meaning government efforts often do more harm than good, and as the government often goes down destructive paths, e.g. in the hands of ideological extremists, vote buyers, and those who cater to lobbyists.
Most importantly, maybe, the government is all too often all too certain of its own goodness.
The rights of A become limited as soon as they begin to infringe the rights of B. (Note the idea of a “bubble of rights”.)
However, this does not imply that any claimed right by B invalidates the rights of A. Concerns to consider includes who intrudes upon whom, who is active and who is passive, who can invoke the more fundamental right, and (to some degree) who has what workarounds.
For instance, in the one direction, if A lives in perfect isolation, he might have a right to play his stereo loudly at midnight. If he lives in an apartment house, however, doing so would actively intrude on the more fundamental rights of the neighbors. (Certainly, the right to reasonable sleeping conditions at conventional hours. Even absent that, peace and quite must not be forgotten.) This while it is much more reasonable to ask A to play music at another hour than to ask neighbor B to sleep at another hour and more reasonable that A uses headphones than that B uses earplugs or invests in noise-cancellation. (And while headphones on the “sending end” are much more effective than earplugs/noise-cancellation on the involuntarily “receiving end”.)
Such rights do not necessarily move on the correct level of abstraction for a text like this. (See excursion.) They do serve as an easily understood illustration, however.
Also note that workaround arguments are not necessarily relevant to all issues (nor are they, by any reasonable standard, necessary to settle this situation in favor of B).
For instance, in the other direction, if B objects to A taking a “normal” shower at 6 A.M. in order to be at work with reasonable hygiene by 6:30, his position is much harder to justify. (Where I use “normal” to imply a somewhat reasonable shower behavior. It does not follow that any and all showers would be acceptable, say, one that involves a lengthy drum solo on the piping.)
In a bigger picture, we might also have to consider the prior behavior of the respective parties. For instance, if B (!) has a history of playing loud music at midnight, it would be unreasonable for him to object when A does the same.
However, a prior behavior that consists in having tolerated a certain intrusion is irrelevant to most situations and sometime laws to the contrary are usually unfortunate, as they might force a premature and relationship-damaging escalation, lest legal rights are forfeited.
Outside conflicts of rights, rights must only be limited with the consent of the right holder or when exceptional circumstances require it. Limitations must be confined to the smallest scope and the smallest time period compatible with the reasonable purpose of the limitations, and, if more than one approach to limitation is possible, the least intrusive/damaging must be chosen—or, if practicable, the choice left to the right holder.
This point might need considerable expansion later. An earlier draft spoke in terms of “positive” and “negative” rights, but (a) I find this terminology unfortunate and misleading, (b) there are often great issues with drawing borders and/or cases of classifications that miss the point. For instance, some view the right to due process as a “positive” right, but in terms of e.g. protection against abusive governments it has more in common with freedom of speech, which is usually viewed as a “negative” right. Certainly, however, I see freedom of speech as vastly more important than the, today, often presupposed “right not to be offended”. Ditto e.g. the right to pursuit of happiness vs. the even more frequent presupposition of a “right to be supported by the government”.
Also see the below discussion of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
In case of consent, this consent must be informed and truly voluntary. For instance, signing a narrowly tailored non-disclosure agreement can be valid consent to reduce freedom of speech, but an implied consent somewhere in the “Terms and Conditions” of a particular business is not. Similarly, a government may not infer consent to a reduction of rights based on residency, and no allegedly explicit consent towards the government in return, e.g., for a right of residency is valid.
TODO Borderline case of e.g. physician–patient confidentially. Voluntary restriction? Extension of patient’s right to privacy? Whatnot?
TODO Borderline case of financing of night-watchman state (as opposed to e.g. “welfare” state). Voluntary exchange of money for service? Exceptional circumstances? Something else?
In case of exceptional circumstances, actual exceptional circumstances are necessary—not e.g. circumstances that make a convenient excuse for the government.
The core of human rights is “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
(A much longer treatment will follow in due time and/or implicitly arise through other discussions. I do not guarantee that my own use of the words involved matches the exact use of the coiners.)
The right to life is the most fundamental of all. However, this right is limited to protection against negative interference, e.g. murder. It does not include an obligation for others to keep us alive at their cost.
Likewise, the point of “pursuit of happiness” is that we have a right to pursue happiness without undue interference by others—not a right to have happiness delivered on a silver plate by others. (Off-topic, we also have complications like too many mistaking e.g. being rich for being happy, that what makes the one happy need not be what makes the other happy, etc.)
A central point of this core is the negative of “robbing Peter to give to Paul”: No-one should be robbed of life, liberty, or (the pursuit of or already achieved) happiness merely in order to benefit someone else.
Parallel to “happiness”, I see some other aspects that need not be covered by that word but follow a similar principle, e.g. that we all have a right to pursue our own education and (with an overlapping but not identical meaning) “Bildung”. Also note a below item on forming one’s own opinions.
Generally, my system of ethics (to be discussed at a later time) makes a fundamental difference between action and inaction, in that an obligation to abstain from certain actions is often given even when an obligation to perform certain actions is not present—and even when the outcomes of the failure to abstain resp. perform might be very similar. For an easily understood example, (a) we are not allowed to steal money from others, but (b) we have no duty to give money to them. This even if case (a), relative a situation where a theft takes place, might result in “X dollars less for me; X dollars more for him”, and even if the opposite of (b) would have the same result.
(A further item on a right not to be forced to act is intended, but it involves so many complications that I am not yet in a position to write a meaningful entry.)
However, I stress that the absence of an obligation to perform a certain action does not imply that we should reject it—only that the decision is ours. (As opposed to e.g. the government’s.)
Moreover, certain situations and relationships can create an obligation to act even when it would not normally be present. Examples include contractual obligations and the obligations that arise from being the parent of a young child relative that child.
A particular issue is that we have no right to force others to actively perform acts that we deem virtuous. Indeed, one of the most common and damaging problems with the Left is the opposite attitude—especially, when combined with the approach of entirely removing choice by having the government perform the acts using our involuntarily surrendered tax money.
The freedom of opinion is absolute and includes both the “right to be wrong” and the right to form one’s own opinions.
Forming one’s own opinions implies that access to the speech, writings, whatnot, of others is not hindered through artificial restrictions. (Restrictions on freedom of speech, cf. the next item, strike in two directions: it is not just a matter of preventing the one from speaking but of preventing the other from hearing. Was the purpose of a book burning to prevent the author from having certain thoughts or to prevent others from sharing them?)
It also requires a sufficient absence of indoctrination in the opinions of others, as an opinion formed while under a too strongly one-sided or otherwise biased influence is not “formed on one’s own” in any meaningful sense. (As a corollary, a school that, e.g., pushes various neo-Marxist opinions into the brains of the children, while being intolerant towards own thought, is an abomination.)
Freedom of speech must only underlie minimal restrictions.
Speech critical of the government, an officially promoted ideology, or similar must be particularly free from restrictions.
The right to express personal value judgments about others, their work, whatnot, must not be infringed by e.g. defamation laws. Ditto the right to express any statements that are factually true. (However, outside of defamation laws, some limitations can legitimately arise through a right to privacy and personal information control. Note that defamation laws still have a place, centering on untrue and/or “bad faith” statements. Also note that complications around proof of what is or is not true are yet to be clarified.)
Sufficient protection against undue consequences, even when not arising from a ban, must be present, e.g. in that careers may not be ruined by the hateful excesses of “cancel culture”. (Similar remarks apply elsewhere, but will usually go unmentioned.)
TODO To what degree can e.g. “national security” be a legitimate cause for restrictions?
TODO Expand on the pragmatic benefits of freedom of speech, the “market place of ideas”, and similar.
A parallel right not to speak is vital.
The most important part is to not be forced to e.g. profess a certain political, scientific, religious, whatnot, opinion. However, it will often also include situations like court proceedings. Someone testifying in court might then be obliged to tell “nothing but the truth”, but not “the whole truth”. (However, selective truth telling that creates the wrong impression might well be seen as violating “nothing but the truth”, e.g. if a witness confirms having seen the suspect at the scene of the crime but fails to mention that he also saw someone else perform the crime. It is the overall spirit and result that counts, not the legalistic interpretation of any individual claim.)
Restrictions on “the whole truth” are not uncommon even today, as with e.g. the U.S. 5th amendment and self-incrimination. I would go further than that, however, as the actual protections and rights resulting are often quite limited, both in possible scope and with an eye at circumvention. (For instance, the 5th amendment is not invokable if immunity has been granted and it gives no protection for statements that can have negative consequences outside the courtroom.)
The result is, then, often that some forced to tell “the whole truth” instead tries to get out of a bind by violating “the truth” and/or “nothing but the truth”, be it in the form of incorrect testimony or a failure to testify through some variation on the “I do not remember” theme.
The exact form that such a right would take in practice might be open to debate. A particular complication is that a failure to disclose that something is held back can have distorting consequences beyond what is warranted, while an equivalent of “I take the 5th” will often, to some degree, be automatically incriminating. (With invocations of the 5th amendment, e.g., it is not clear what incriminating fact is hidden, and prosecution based on that hidden fact is not possible, but it does follow that some incriminating fact is present and, possibly, in a narrow area.)
The right to have human rights might be made dependent on a support of human rights, be it in general or with regard to specific rights. For instance, someone who tries to limit freedom of speech might then (wholly or partially) forfeit his own right to free speech, a party that tries to ban other parties would forfeit its own right to exist, etc.—and e.g. requesting or instituting legal limits on those who have thus forfeited rights is allowed without own forfeiture resulting.
Forfeiture for other reasons (e.g., for free speech, having the “wrong” opinion) is not possible.
The main “against” is the issue of abuse (and, maybe, honest mistakes), e.g. in that group A raises defamatory accusations against group B for the purpose of dishonestly depriving it or its members of rights. This fits very well with e.g. Stalin-era behavior or much of the behavior of the modern Left in e.g. the U.S. and Germany.
Having a right does not obligate one to exercise that right, and the failure to exercise that right at a certain time does not invalidate that right for the future (ditto, m.m., e.g. failure to exercise towards some person). Similarly, the tolerance of a misbehavior, a rights violation, or similar, does not invalidate the right to later demand that the misbehavior (whatnot) cease.
TODO Here some care might be needed to discuss a common contrary legal principle, and, maybe, to make allowances for situations where the failure to, say, launch a timely protest has foreseeably caused another party to, e.g., make investments that would not have followed after a timely protest. (However, what applies to human rights does not automatically apply to legal/contractual/whatnot rights; and this page deals with human rights.)
Partially off topic, and maybe better added to an analysis of the Left: Leftism in virtually all its forms, including Marxism and its off-shots, is incompatible with and often antithetical to true human rights.
A general issue is the choice of level of abstraction. For instance, above I use what might be referred to as a “right to listen to music” and a “right to have peace and quiet” in an example.
However, for most discussions (and discussions of the big picture, in particular) this is a too low level of abstraction. Ideally, such rights should be implied by some more abstract and/or big-picture right, e.g. “pursuit of happiness”. On the downside, this approach can lead to endless debates over what is and is not included. (And not just in terms of “obvious” rights being denied. The U.S. debate about “substantive due process” shows how one or several abstract rights can be used to over-extend interpretation in a ridiculous manner.)
I do note, however, that a lack of peace and quiet can have horrifying consequences. That someone plays a stereo loudly at poorly chosen hours can be bad enough, but it is usually an intrusion that one can live with, unless it happens too often or for too long. My own experiences in my Wuppertal apartment move on an entirely different level and have, for long stretches of time, not only been unconscionable from a “pursuit of happiness” perspective, but have reached a level where they have been health-damaging and have, thereby, infringed on even the right to life.
(See a great many earlier texts on e.g. never-ending construction work with extremely loud drilling and hammering. TODO import from Wordpress and link.)
In the future, I might make some version of “peace and quiet” a separate item. If so, however, likely combined with some overlapping ideas, e.g. a right to privacy, which, while in many ways central, also currently finds no mention in the core treatment. (Also note portions of the following excursion.)
This field raises a great number of concerns that have had very little historical reference. Eventually, I will attempt to deal with these matters, but I need much further thought on the topic.
My first draft contained two points of immediate relevance:
If someone is judged or evaluated by an algorithm in any manner, he has the right to know the exact algorithm and the exact input data used, to evaluate its/their suitability, if need be with helpers, and, if warranted, request corrections in result from a court of law. That an algorithm has been applied and with what result must be volunteered by the evaluator.
Anyone who stores data about someone else has an obligation to inform him that data is stored and, upon request, promptly detail this data without charge or other undue obstacles.
I removed them from the main list for two reasons. Firstly, they might be too specific and I would prefer a more general principle (also note a previous excursion). Secondly, my own thoughts on these matters are still too open, and I am not certain that I would subscribe to these two points in this form. (I suspect that they were added in a haphazardly during my first draft, after which about half-a-year of inactivity followed.)
They might still be valuable to get a general idea of what types of more specific rights might be needed.
Other potential points (on a similarly detailed level) might include the right to see data deleted, to be informed of any transfer of data (and/or to be able to veto such transfer), and to request a prompt review of any automatic decision by a human arbiter.
I will not pursue this at the moment, but I note some further potential examples, more-or-less off the top of my head, in order to illustrate how many concerns can be relevant. (The same often applies elsewhere, when rights are suggested on a similar level of detail.)
Looking at other comput-ing/-er related areas, we might have the right to control one’s own computers and other devices, including when what software is or is not installed, the right to replace an operating system, and similar; or e.g. the right to access to source code of purchased software to verify its safety or knowledge of all the details of the hardware interface of various components to allow own programming. (Source code, etc., might be more relevant to group efforts, e.g. open-source projects, considering the immense complexity so often present today. In a wider field of technology, a currently popular “right to repair” seems very laudable.)
With an entirely different angle, we might suggest e.g. a right to lead a functioning life without being forced to use “cloud” products, smartphones, and similar.
Yet another might be access to sufficiently unfiltered and undistorted opinions by others on the Internet that the aforementioned right to form one’s own opinion is safe-guarded. (Here, we see that new technologies can lead more to a need to update existing rights than to create new.)
Then we have the issue of protection against government snooping on e.g. digital devices. Whether this is covered elsewhere (e.g. by some variation of the right to refuse self-incrimination) or requires a separate right might be open to debate, however. TODO import and link to Wordpress text(s) on the topic.
The following is an automatically generated list of other pages linking to this one. These may or may not contain further content relevant to this topic.