I count this as philosophy I guess. I think its insane even as an ideal that that we don't have global human rights, and we generally don't talk about having them or even think about them. Most I think would argue that its impossible to have because the state the world is in but I wonder if the argument is backwards. We can't have anything but a chaotic world without them.

I believe there are four rights that would be pillars of a peaceful world, or at least the beginning of a movement towards a peaceful or decent world.

1) Access to water
2) Access to food.
3) Access to Shelter (place to use the washroom).
4) Access to an uncensored Internet.

I would like to add the word 'free' to each, but people then think destroying economy makes it even more impossible. So we can either suggest it has to be free, or that at least you can't make it unattainable as a result of poverty etc.

I realize most believe these 4 things are unachievable or at least people will say 'How in the world do you propose we do that'. And there are many paradoxes associated with them.

But I think the simple act of spreading the ideal of global human rights would bring about the change. No one needs to do anything or fixing anything. No solution need to be brought forth, just a new ideal that people should have universal rights. Not to use military force to impose such a thing, but instead just to spread the idea.

I'd also point out something I think is strange because I'm mathematically minded, that the first three are the most basic of human needs, and the last one is at the pinnacle of technology, seems strange to me, but seems to fit snug.

Thoughts?!

if it's just about spreading the ideal and you concede that it's unattainable.. well, the second best alternative to an unattainable ideal might not be striving towards the unattainable ideal but something else. it would probably better to spread carefully thought through, realistic proposals.

What is a human right? (Non-rhetrocial)

I think a lot of people run aground because they don't really have a good category for what a human right actually is. Instead, it often turns into a list of "things that I think would make life better" as opposed to going down to some sort of fundamental "rights" level (akin to the phrase "inalienable rights" as described in the US Constitution).

Specifically, I think you're way off in the following:

I have a hard time thinking of internet access as a human rights issue. I think it's valuable and important, but a human rights issue? No.

Edit: It may help to consider that in 50-100 years, there may not even be an internet anymore, or that it won't be anything like it is today. Are you sure that you want something like that to be a "pillar"?

Edit 2: Or the fact that 30 years ago, nobody would even understand what you're talking about, or believe that such a thing was even possible if you explained it to them.

I didn't think I conceded it's unattainable, just people think it is. But I see what you refer to when you say 'realistic proposals'. For example leaders of countries sitting down to discuss global rights. But is that realistic? I don't think it is. I think those are polar opposites. Then entire population has to put the ideal in their heads, or the majority, or the tipping point amount.

Do you really disagree so fast that you don't see the value of a single global human right? Doesn't it not astound you that humans haven't agreed to even one. I'm not talking even as far as writing it down on a slab or making a governing body ....at this point I'm saying if you walk down the street and ask someone if he's heard or thought of global human rights they'll look at you confused.

This question is far more important than my answer.

This has never really been defined, but I think I understand your question well. What happens when we say 'everyone gets access to water'. Does it mean we build an army to defend that right, have a courthouse, declare the rights daily in school. Do we kill people that take these rights, can you lose them through crime. I'm thinking all that kinda stuff is your question? I don't think it matters, you don't need to go that far. Just getting the world thinking on a global terms will solve those things naturally.

We would worry about corruption in the enforcing of these things etc. but corruption comes when we don't think globally.



Yes because when you can cut off a population you can enslave them

This would be easier to answer in 50 years when the Internet is archaic. We worry about making a mistake in naming rights, and that later, we would enslave ourselves again. But once we are free or intelligent and connected we won't do that. Perhaps Internet is the wrong word, but its the free connection of the people etc. so you can't separate a population.

yes and we are conditioned that we cannot change, but I think its clear we can...30 years ago maybe not.

Which is why I asked, and I'm disappointed that you really didn't answer.

No, you're way off.

So it's a human rights issue if there's a small island with a community of 100 people in the middle of the ocean and they don't have internet access?

This is pretty much meaningless to me. You've use "enslave" above in the sense like colonialism or dictatorial rule, but here you've used it as "enslave" ourselves (again?). I think you should rethink your thesis and try again later.

The OP belongs in the politics forum and will be moved there.

Because I don't think it can be answered with conventional thinking. Regional human rights become debatable and fall victim to politics etc. Global human rights, may fall victim too, but they also serve a different purpose which is causing people to see each other as a whole, sort of like not blowing up the world with nuclear war. Thats somewhat just my opinion, but I don't think humans have really had a chance to try it.

You didn't try to clarify?

At this point I think yes. And perhaps we'll redefine these later, but we need ideals that bridge all humans. And a community of 100 people cut out from others may not be natural (although the definition of natural breaks down), but perhaps a long time we were all together on one land and then separated. Its possible this separation brought about all this 'corruption'.


Yes under the current understanding that is wrong because they are different uses for the word, but I don't think they are different. Some humans are enslaved under rule. We see many protest type movements that are us (the enslaved) vs them (the ruler). Is that truth or is the truth humans have simply enslaved themselves?

Possibly but possibly you made a conclusion from false foundation. We are taught some of us are free and some are not. I'm suggesting in order to free the world, we must see that 'I' cannot be free unless 'they' are free. So under the old paradigm my thesis is sketchy but under the new one I propose I think things may fit.

Thx. This is fine, it doesn't matter to me, I guessed at what was most appropriate. I would like to point out though that I think the division set between philosophy and politics hinders the conversation. I think a lot of solutions are missed in this world because of divisions like this.

Here with global human rights, I think they are somewhat anti government. That no national body would support them, they are against the principles of democracy, capitalism, rule, organized religion etc.

So in this way I think its the opposite of politics.

I don't even know what you mean.

Ummmm... maybe you should clarify what you mean by HUMAN rights. My understanding of the phrase is that HUMAN rights have something to do with HUMANS having particular rights on the basis of their HUMANITY. This distinguishes it from rights endowed by particular governments towards it citizens or anything like that. So "regional HUMAN rights" to me makes absolutely no sense.

Nope. I think your problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a HUMAN right is. The connection between being human and having access to the an uncensored internet requires some work.

This requires elaboration.

Again, I don't see why this has anything to do with human rights.

You're rambling. I don't think that responding to you is going to be productive until you can clarify what you're talking about.

Thats because I'm crazy, but I will try to ramble less here.


Yes this is strange to me, because I agree, but don't certain countries have human rights, like no man shall be a slave, and rights to protest etc. Doesn't that go against our understanding because human rights only make sense if they are universal?


Not sure how I don't understand what human is. You ask about a certain group of people on an island. I think that is something we could deal with later. Questions like should we corrupt a society thats never seen technology etc? But what seems more immediately important is that no group gets cut of from the world. North Korea comes to mind, but also countries around the middle east, I can't remember which one but when they were in revolt their government cut their telecommunications with the world.


I was suggesting that we are so far into technology we need it to secure our freedom.

Don't know if I'm answering this quote but I think we agreed human rights have to be global or they aren't human rights?

I tried. I think differently and appreciate your efforts.

All four of these require human labor; one or more people must mix their labor with certain resources in order to provide these things to other people.

What you are advocating then is global human slavery.

What is slavery? In all past slavery there was a division between people. Then certain humans could do labor for someone else's ideals. You also seem to suggest we are free now. Maybe you feel you are free, but I am also suggesting you are not free unless everyone is.

Another way to say it is this is the only labor that can free man. I don't think thats slavery.

Even the whip master is a slave to his daily life, and the kings and leaders aren't free either. Who is free?

Also I didn't gave a way to bring about these rights. Aren't you thinking slavery is the only answer. What about volunteers. My thoughts are these things will be solved once enough humans come together and agree we should view each other as a whole.

Or we can take your suggestion that its slavery and compare it to our lives today, how much labor goes on in the name of war. Money, resources, lives, all this could be used for universal rights.

Its when one person violently subjugates another to his own personal ends.

Its the opposite of when two people voluntarily exchange their efforts for mutual gain.

can't we use people voluntarily exchanging efforts for mutual gain as the way too achieve these rights? When their is a division between people there can be slavery, but when we all seek each others' freedom as a whole can we enslave ourselves?