I’ve been giving some thought to your “official rights to X result in governments taking ineffectual measures that result in people not getting X”. I think it can be argued that if the measures stop people from getting X, they are vulnerating people’s rights to get X in the first place, and are therefore “illegal”. Does that make sense?
I also consulted my brother on this, who actually studies Law. His answer amounted to a very harried “It’s a fracking mess. only experts can ‘sort of’ make sense of it.”
… A thought just occurred to me. Just thinking out loud here. Do “fundamental rights” matter in the same way that religious dogma does? I mean, do they operate in a similar way, in terms of their tangible consequences on people’s daily lives? Ecclesiastical Law. International Law. The Vatican. The UN. Dogma. Inarguable principles. Doctrine. Rampant hypocrisy and yet immense respect and authority. Saint vs. Merchant interactions.
Maybe I’m missing a vital difference, but the more I’m thinking about this, the more there seems to be a parallel of sorts...
Fundamental rights work, and are consistent, as long as one sticks to the so called negative rights or “first generation” rights, e.g., free speech, right to life, right to no arrest without a fair trial, etc.
For example a negative “right to internet access” simply means that the government can’t bad you from using the internet, i.e., laws like this would be a violation. Neither it, nor anyone else, is actually obliged to provide you with a computer or any kind of ISP.
I’ve been giving some thought to your “official rights to X result in governments taking ineffectual measures that result in people not getting X”. I think it can be argued that if the measures stop people from getting X, they are vulnerating people’s rights to get X in the first place, and are therefore “illegal”. Does that make sense?
I also consulted my brother on this, who actually studies Law. His answer amounted to a very harried “It’s a fracking mess. only experts can ‘sort of’ make sense of it.”
… A thought just occurred to me. Just thinking out loud here. Do “fundamental rights” matter in the same way that religious dogma does? I mean, do they operate in a similar way, in terms of their tangible consequences on people’s daily lives? Ecclesiastical Law. International Law. The Vatican. The UN. Dogma. Inarguable principles. Doctrine. Rampant hypocrisy and yet immense respect and authority. Saint vs. Merchant interactions.
Maybe I’m missing a vital difference, but the more I’m thinking about this, the more there seems to be a parallel of sorts...
Fundamental rights work, and are consistent, as long as one sticks to the so called negative rights or “first generation” rights, e.g., free speech, right to life, right to no arrest without a fair trial, etc.
For example a negative “right to internet access” simply means that the government can’t bad you from using the internet, i.e., laws like this would be a violation. Neither it, nor anyone else, is actually obliged to provide you with a computer or any kind of ISP.