a framework for the rights of humans

introduction

So, I’ve been thinking about what we mean by “rights” and have the strong sense that our usual way of thinking and operationalizing rights are not quite what they need to be. I want us to think differently. “Human rights” is a phrase that shows up all over the media and it centers the notion of “rights”. I want to center humans, people. What we need is a framework for humans, for our rights. Let’s not lose our humanity.

the framework

The only way the concept of rights can work is if it’s grounded in something foundational: we exist. And not only do we exist, but humans are essentially the way we have been for thousands of years. There is a technical specification to a human being. Things it needs to flourish, to thrive. Food. Water. Shelter. Human connection. Freedom of movement. Autonomy. This is not, by any means, an exhaustive list. What’s important is that we’re entitled to those conditions that allow us to be who we are. We’re entitled to those things necessary for human flourishing. We’re entitled simply because we exist.

Created? Evolved? That’s not the point. The point is that, however we got here, we function in a certain way and with certain needs. Those needs are our rights. And those needs precede the organizational structure of any collection of humans. In short, no government or private entity is entitled to interfere with those rights.

Rights are naturally occurring but socially discovered. Rights are naturally occurring but socially relevant. Rights are the brake against collective action.

Privileges are socially constructed via agreement and in response to certain behavior. Membership in a group, for example, can give you certain privileges with respect to that group. You must, of course, meet the obligations you incurred via membership to exercise those privileges.

Socially constructed abilities are privileges unless not being able to exercise a privilege results in a rights violation. Voting as an example…voting is a privilege bestowed by membership in the constructed group called a democracy. However, making decisions about an individual who has no say…taking away autonomy…is a rights violation.

The framework also agrees with what libertarians and anarchists get right…governments violate rights…the only way out is democratic government such that the governed determine collective action. Libertarians replace government with a “nobody tells me what to do” ethos and this actually leads to greater violation of rights as we devolve to “might makes right”. Anarchists correctly suppose that humans are cooperative by nature and that government is unnecessary. The issue here is scale. Democratic government is simply human cooperation structured to handle scale. There are potentially many ways we could democratically organize ourselves.

And since humans are everywhere, human rights are international. Ultimately, protecting human rights internationally will require a democratic body of democratic nations.

examples

Following this framing allows us to better understand things as rights violations in ways that we haven’t understood. Human beings are thinking, feeling decision makers. We are not simply instinct driven. Knowledge and accurate data are fundamental to our making choices that meet our needs. Denying us that information can lead to rights violations. For example, food product manufacturers claiming that a food-like substance is healthful when it isn’t are violating human rights to healthful food. The complexity of our systems and our need for information to make decisions also lead to the realization that education is a human right.

mass human conflicts

The focus on human rights is critical when considering human conflict. We desensitize ourselves when we talk about groups of people. Nations don’t kill human beings. Human beings kill human beings. A human being pulls the trigger or pushes the button. Depriving human beings of food? Rights violation. Depriving people of homes to live in by bombing them? Rights violation. Restricting human movement? A clear violation of human rights. These things are non-transferable. Fear that some human beings will do terrible things does not justify mass violations of human rights.

incarceration

This framework requires that we re-examine incarceration. Freedom of movement and autonomy are human rights. Incarceration is always a rights violation. Does it mean we never incarcerate anyone? No. What it means is that we understand the significance of what we’re doing and we use it only when allowing one to have freedom is ALSO a rights violation. For example, we would incarcerate someone who can’t be turned aside from violating the rights of others. The State is after all, just people, who have their own rights and are contemplating violating the rights of a fellow community member. A person locked up, is still surrounded by the community. They’ve been sequestered and prevented but not removed.

property rights

This framework also has implications for property rights. Human beings need personal property. Clothes, shelter, food, tools to do the things. In our modern, hyper-connected society, one of those needed tools might well be a phone. So, from a rights perspective, personal property is clearly a human right.

Human beings need land: ground to stand on and have shelter on. Human beings need clean water. Human beings need air. These things are different from personal property in that they are the natural environment in which we all live and which we all collectively need. The natural environment is un-ownable from the perspective of rights. Allowing others to enclose vast tracts of private land violates a fundamental human right: movement. In fact, this entire notion of enclosure creating ownership is specious. It enables wealth hoarding power dynamics rather than keeping the focus where it belongs: human flourishing.

The framework also hints at an idea that what you have a right to is limited to what’s needed for human flourishing. And even what you hold for flourishing, when it comes to un-ownable things like land, create a communal debt even if your possession is legitimate. The debt isn’t owed when you cross some boundary…it’s always owed for something like land or water access.

It also allows one to understand that exercising eminent domain is always an injury and that paying money for the purported value of the land you’re taking isn’t restitution. Restitution would look like equivalent land. And a rights-based understanding is one that says that the project should find another way rather than violate someone’s rights.

discoverability and evolution

Rights that only seem relevant in peculiarly modern contexts, the right to digital privacy, are still not socially constructed. They’re socially discovered. The core question is always how do humans function. We might create strange, never before seen, conditions of life, but humans are still humans. This points to another feature of the framework, it is ever evolving. We’re continually learning more about what makes humans what we are and what we need to thrive.

conclusion

Nations don’t have rights. Corporations don’t have rights. At most, they have privileges. Human beings have rights and our collective focus needs to be on protecting our rights because this is what will lead us all to have as good a life as humanly possible. This is a framework that allows for our evolution in understanding and it points us in the direction of creating true democracies. And it is a framework that requires us to attend to what is local, human-sized. This is the foundation upon which everything else is built.