I think that is a big part of why I think of Rights as social constructs. Someone in China might be focused on a Right to eat every day, while in the West we might focus on a Right to breathe air without coal particulate to have babies willy nilly.

I have a thought experiment that might help the reader decide what he or she thinks is the correct position: imagine living in a society in which the majority hurts some minority group (here called “the other”). The reason for this oppression is that “the other” are thought to be bothersome and irritating or that they can be used for social profit. Are you fine with that? Now imagine that you are the bothersome irritant and the society wants to squash you for speaking your mind in trying to improve the community. Are you fine with that? These are really the same case. Write down your reasons. If your reasons are situational and rooted in a particular cultural context (such as adhering to socially accepted conventions, like female foot binding or denying women the right to drive), then you may cast your vote with Hart, Austin and Confucius. In this case there are no natural human rights. If your reasons refer to higher principles (such as the Golden Rule), then you cast your vote with the universalists: natural human rights exist. This is an important exercise. Perform this exercise with everyone you are close to — today — and tell me what you think.

The author gets badly mixed up in his closing paragraph, attempting to herd the people who deny that rights are universal into an anti-rights stance. The Arab peoples have only the rights they take or we assist them in getting. If they stand in the street to assert their rights without some kind of force behind it, moral, economic, or physical they will die and have only the right to moulder.

Having a right to something doesn't guarantee you'll get it. It just means that when you are denied it, the perpetrator is wrong, in a universally moral sense.

What if stability is the right most cherished by Syrians, is the regime wrong to crush the protests? Self determination doesn't necessarily put food on the table. <shrug> Are we fiddling with the idea that democracy is a human right? It may seem less so after another 10 years of deficit spending and resultant economic collapse and hunger.

Can I put your prediction on the Cellar calendar?

Um, have you met us?

That's an interesting way to look at it, I never really thought of it. I think I would say that it depends on the definition of stability. The South was more stable before the civil war, but the slaves nonetheless had a superseding right to be free. I wouldn't say the Syrians have a right to any specific form of government, but whatever government they have can't be trampling on any individual citizen's inherent rights.

Irregardless* of coal particulates, should the air be allowed to have babies willy nilly?
I think not. What would happen to the earth if there were that much air?
Where would we put it?

No, no. strict limits on air reproduction.

(and now I will get back to fixing my computer.

Make it so, but I do reserve the right to vote for centrist candidates who may find a way to grow out of this hole.

Wouldn't you say that racial equality is a social construct since slavery was humanities SOP from the mid 19th century back?

Ha! Where is your Golden Rule now?

In the year 2021, if man is still the one
if woman still likes fun
In the year 2121

Not I, because I don't buy the idea that rights are a social construct. I think the basics (life, freedom, independence to make choices that don't infringe on anyone else) are natural rights that apply to all people and all cultures. Not saying there aren't places where reality squashes those rights--including a few here in our own country, like recreational marijuana use--but I believe it is fundamentally, morally wrong when that happens.

They are an offense to my moral outlook as well, but there are people who see those infringements as justified for their construct of the greater good, doesn't that challenge universality?

Not if they're wrong. :)

:)