Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Unexercised Rights

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:15 / 27.07.04

"A gentleman is a one who knows how to play the bagpipes, but choses not to."

Are there rights which are better not asserted? Random examples: Mercedes owns the patent for the seatbelts used in almost all cars today. They have never asserted it. I look at the 'right to own a gun' thread and think 'even if you have the right to a gun, does it benefit the world if you choose not to carry or possess one?'

Some rights, perhaps, should be there, but should not be exercised lightly, or even, perhaps, at all - especially in the context of a world which appears to me to be coming increasingly Rights-heavy and Responsibility-lite in some areas (my Right to own my car, my Responsibility to avoid environmental pollution) and which remains distressingly Rights-lite in others (Gitmo).

Thoughts?

19:45 / 27.07.04

Perhaps eating/using animals might be one case. I personally don't think that we can assume that we have the right to use them as we see fit, but one need not agree with that position in order to abstain from the use of animals. Many people argue that it is a natural state to eat animals (as many animals do by instinct), but I don't feel it necessary to argue about that point, because even if we do have the right to use animals as we choose, I believe that it benefits the world in a number of reasons (be they moral, economic or environmental) if we choose not to exercise that right.

02:22 / 28.07.04

Here in the US the principal right that gets people in a snit is the right to property. I'm not going to bring my bleeding anarco-socialist thoughts to bear on actual property, but its corollary; the right, nay, the obligation to consume, consume, consume. This right to spend our money any way we damned well choose has led to disgusting levels of pollution, waste (toxic and otherwise), and the current obesity epidemic.

It's not the consumption that bugs me so much as the consumption without thought to the consequence. Not so much the purchasing of an automobile as the purchase of a Hummer. Not so much buying food as buying a Super-Sized Big Mac meal. This seems to me to be a trend with finite viability.

To sum up, the assumed right to waste resources.

09:41 / 29.07.04

Some rights, perhaps, should be there, but should not be exercised lightly, or even, perhaps, at all

Could you give some examples, please, Mink? I'm not sure if the things you cite in your first post are meant to be examples or not, and I'm also not sure whether you're talking about an abstract sphere of rights beyond/outside the current situation of global capitalism/national governments, or about historically and nationally specific examples.

For example: I don't think Mercedes has the 'right' to hold a patent on seatbelts; and I don't think anyone has the 'right' to own a car, or any other piece of equipment whose use more-or-less directly kills other creatures. I just don't think it's defensible to assert that a 'right' exists if it is one that should never (or sparingly) be exercised. What good does it do to frame the current configuration of global trade/capitalism, which leads to a certain proportion of people globally wanting and/or needing and/or being able to own a car, in terms of rights?

Hmm. I seem to have an idea in my head that rights have to be universal (and therefore, for example, it is ludicrous to talk about the 'right' to own something which was only invented a century or two ago*). Anyone with more of a grasp of rights theory/discourse, please jump in here.

*Though it's all about translation, of course: homosexual identity was only invented a century or two ago and I'd probably defend the 'right' of people to claim it on the grounds that people have a universal, quasi-ahistorical 'right' to freedom of sexual expression, so I guess you could defend the particular 'right' to own a car as an example of a universal right to freedom of movement...

We're The Great Old Ones Now

12:13 / 29.07.04

I was thinking - in a rather casual way - both about rights created by law, and about rights which are asserted as universal. I was about to say I was being untidy, but actually as I think about it for a second I'm not sure there's a huge difference. What is the basis of a fundamental, universal human right? In what way does it differ from a created one?

Some people assert a fundamental human right to self-defense. Certainly, Gandhi could be said to have laid that aside - although again, his choice to abandon violence may have been more powerful than weapons, and therefore a more sneaky strategy to achieve the same goal.

07:39 / 07.08.04

What is the basis of a fundamental, universal human right? In what way does it differ from a created one?

It's my understanding that all rights are created, in that they are asserted in specific historical and juridical circumstances, but that they are asserted as fundamental and universal. I looked up the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that seems to be the basis on which they're asserted there (though, obviously, those are specifically fundamental and universal human rights. I can't think of a context in which a 'right' has a meaning - certainly not a legal meaning - if it isn't asserted on that basis, though).

Agamben talks about this a bit in Homo Sacer, which I've been reading for my dissertation - the way that rights are said to inhere in people as people - what he calls 'bare life': that is, humans are said to be/legally considered to be born with rights, not granted rights through being citizens of a state, or whatever. (He points out that the figure of the refugee brings to light how this doesn't work: the moment a person is stateless, hir universal human rights are in fact universally ignored.)

There are certainly going to be particular moments and situations where you don't want to exercise your 'rights', and maybe you can read most things in terms of rights (Gandhi gave up his right to violent self-defense as an expedient in pursuit of his larger right to national self-determination, for example). I'm guess I'm not quite sure when it's useful to do that - when it helps you to see what's going on, and when it doesn't.

20:03 / 09.08.04

In exchange for efficiency and expediency, it is often best to forego one's right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of one's peers in deferance to plea bargain and a lesser sentence.

Also, I find your story about Mercedes not enforcing its seatbelt patent unbelievable, as Volvo had the first safety belts in 1849. The first U.S. patent for automobile seat beats was issued to Edward J. Claghorn of New York, New York on February 10, 1885. Swedish inventor Nils Bohlin invented the three-point seat belt, which was introduced by Volvo in 1959. Mercedes had little impact on seatbelt development.

Even if the thrust of your story is true, but concerns Volvo and not Mercedes, patents are only enforceable for 20 years in the United States, which means that after 1905 anyone could legally equip a car with a seatbelt, regarless of how magnamonious Volvo, Mercedes, or anyone else was feeling at that point.
[/derail]

We're The Great Old Ones Now

15:53 / 10.08.04

Mercedes have the patent for the tension-release doohickey belts which are actually in your car, without which seatbelts were just ropes holding you to the seat.

Aggressive much?

Tryphena Absent

01:34 / 11.08.04

I've been trying to find a way to express this from the first day that this thread was started and obviously there's only one way it can be expressed because my grasping for another has failed.

The idea that there should be rights that should not be exercised is illogical, contradictory and utterly obscene as is evidenced by the treatment of refugees.

I don't really understand the purpose of this thread or your position in starting it Celbate Mink but the answer to the question in the summary is certainly not.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

08:20 / 11.08.04

Anna: that's an interesting and interestingly furious response. Why is it 'obscene'?

Let me offer you a few examples:

1) I have a right to claim unemployment benefits. I choose not to because my savings are adequate to support me between jobs, and it strikes me as obscene that I should take advantage of the system for spending money I don't need.

2) Every person of maternal Jewish descent has a Right of Return to Israel. Some choose not to exercise that right because they feel it exacerbates the tensions in the region.

3) Hypothetical: someone slanders me. I have a right to take them to court; if I do, they will probably be bankrupted by the process, never mind the judgement. Must I continue merely to uphold my right?

4) Gandhi's strategy of non-violence. It was indeed a strategy, but it derived its force from the willing abdication of the right to physical self-defense. It claimed the moral high ground from that abdication. I increasingly believe that this approach to violence - while no one can demand it of anyone - is the most effective and the most laudable.

And the purpose of this thread, by the way, is to examine the concept of rights in general, and perhaps also to look at the flipside of the Right - the Responsibility. It is also my intention to to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, in accordance with article 19 of the declaration of Human Rights. You suggest my question is 'obscene'. Does that mean I shouldn't have asked it? Or that I must, in order to uphold my right to do so?

And in what way does the treatment of refugees - I assume you mean here in the UK - make this an untouchable question? I have not suggested, nor would I suggest, that asylum-seekers under article 14, refugees from disaster or war, or even economic migrants, should abdicate what rights they have. In fact, I believe this raises the question again: the British government has a legal - and perhaps a moral - right to limit the number of immigrants to the UK in a year. Perhaps it is a right which should not be exercised.

08:33 / 11.08.04

I'm not sure the Government does have a 'legal right' to limit the number of refugees coming into Britain. Again, I'm not as knowledgeable about rights as I should be, but I'm fairly sure that they only inhere in individuals, not governments, and that not all legal privileges, entitlements or imperatives can (or should, as I've suggested before) be expressed as 'rights'.

As for your examples (apart from the first one: in the UK you have no right to unemployment benefit/JA if your savings are above a certain level), I can't imagine that anyone has ever argued that all legal rights must be exercised in all situations, so I'm not sure what you're arguing against. Rights are not the same things as moral imperatives.

Hmm. I'm probably just arguing hard and legalistically because I get slightly squicked by the liberal-consensus model of 'rights and responsibilities', for reasons that are unclear to me.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

08:40 / 11.08.04

[shrug] Okay, scratch option 1. There was a time when I was below the line on paper. Thinking about it, I'm over it now.

I'll check the government's legal position if I have time, but I'm pretty sure they can limit numbers of migrants and possibly non-political refugees, certainly hailing from countries outside the EU. It's possible that they cannot in legal theory limit numbers of asylum-seekers, because that is part of the Rights Declaration to which I believe the UK is signatory.

I'm not making a coherent argument for or against anything - I'm prodding at the notion of Rights to see what falls out. It's a word/concept which gets chucked around a lot, and I want to understand it better. What is the liberal consensus model you're talking about? Can you tell me why it makes you uneasy?

09:11 / 11.08.04

Oh, I'm sure they can do it, Mink, but I think the legal basis of their ability to limit numbers of immigrants is not a right.

I'm thinking about liberal-consensus at the moment, for some other reason that I forget - oh, yes, this thread of yore, and especially this post, so I'll get back to you when I've thought of something.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:11 / 11.08.04

How about this (loosely)...

Rights come in two basic forms: assertions about things no one may prevent me from doing, and assertions about things no one may do to me.

Rights define a boundary within which I may operate freely and without fear. They seek to define a circle of moral, legal, intellectual, and physical space which is mine, and which is impervious to the power of others; all individuals have in theory equal basic Rights, even though given individuals may vary in their ability to call upon the mechanisms of government to enforce those Rights.

However, owing to the nature of the world in which we live, these circles may (or may be seen to) impinge on one another, and the consequences of my exercise of a Right may disproportionately affect the life of another person. I may feel that the exercise of that right at this moment is less important than the consequence for that person - even though their Rights per se are not affected. Unless, I suppose, it's their Right to Happiness.

We are each of us a tangle of Rights and powers and possibilities and responsibilities. Possibly the term is over-extended. I'd list Asylum as one of the most important in practical terms of now - but it's very bound up with the way we do global politics and the nation state, and what's happening in the Post-Soviet world. The Right to Asylum is what you might call a secondary one, in that it's fallback from 'no one has the right to persecute me' to 'if someone does, I can go elsewhere and they have to take me in'.

It just seems to me that there are moments when it's better to hold off than to demand satisfaction. I wanted to use that to pry open the Rights question, because it fascinates me and I don't have the answers.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:16 / 11.08.04

I think the legal basis of their ability to limit numbers of immigrants is not a right.

Hmmm. I've no doubt they would be mandated to do so if they went to the nation with the question. The United Kingdom is a sovereign entity with borders and the like. What would you call it? A traditional and legitimate power of the government of a Nation State, perhaps, but not a right?

Can rights (I'm having a capitalisation battle with myself) belong only to individuals?

Our Lady Has Left the Building

10:38 / 11.08.04

I suppose it would depend on how you would define 'rights', a sovereign nation might have the 'right' to raise an armed militia/army to fight a battle, but should an individual not also have the right not to fight if it's against their conscience? If you're talking about how one person has the right to do anything until that impinges on someone else's rights, the rights of the state would surely be another circle of influence on that wouldn't it?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

12:17 / 11.08.04

So is the State (in its ideal form) a consensus which is granted rights of governance over the population by the consent of that population, but which acknowledges the right of the individual to defect in matters of conscience from the line pursued by the State?

And do all inidivuals have a right to anything they want unless that action meets the resistance of the countervaling right of someone else? In which case, are there core rights which override others? (I don't know I'd agree with that first position, actually: I think maybe rights should be positive and bounded rather than open until countered.)