Are Human Rights Real? | Natural vs. Legal & Positive vs. Negative



What are human rights? Are they universal? This video compares the definition of natural vs. legal rights, and positive vs. negative rights. Locke’s Second Treatise of Government was a big inspiration to me in this video, so if you haven’t read it yet, you definitely should 🙂

Check out Virtual Shield & their new IdentiSafe program! https://virtualshield.com/go/roaming/

Patreon:
https://www.patreon.com/roamingmillennial

Paypal:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2AMCQNPWLVK5S

Merch (New!):
http://shrsl.com/?ifzt

Twitter:

Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/roamingmillennial

Business Email: [email protected]

FAIR USE NOTICE
This video may contain copyrighted material; the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism, comment, review and news reporting which constitute the fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, review and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_human_rights#Natural_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
http://people.uwplatt.edu/~hood/inalienable.htm

http://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/index.php/diametros/article/download/542/709

FTC this video is sponsored

source

Fahad Hameed

Fahad Hashmi is one of the known Software Engineer and blogger likes to blog about design resources. He is passionate about collecting the awe-inspiring design tools, to help designers.He blogs only for Designers & Photographers.

33 thoughts on “Are Human Rights Real? | Natural vs. Legal & Positive vs. Negative

  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    Well, that all comes down to a matter of opinion. I would argue that Health is a natural right; not in the sense that you are entitled to the property of some pharmaceutical company but in the sense that the state is required to ensure your wellbeing and does not deny you the chance to see a doctor for example. I guess you would agree that the right to life (as stated in the declaration of independence) is a natural right. Wouldn't that right be violated if you die as a consequence of not being able to get treatment for a deadly disease? Among Life, Liberty, and Property Locke also mentions Health. Moreover, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the World Health Organization's Declaration on the Rights of Patients state Health Care as a right.

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    While I'm still not sure whether I fully agree with you, this video gave me something to think about and these are the contents that I enjoy most, to challenge my beliefs and make me think, there aren't many of them out there. Good job roaming.

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    Here's a monkey wrench that blows everything you just said up: free will (as you defined it) doesn't exist. Going by the Kant quote, intrinsic worth is dependent on people being capable of determining their own character. Check this out:

    In a game of billiards/pool, you can know where the balls are going to end up before you've hit the first ball – if you know the exact starting position and velocity of everything. Brains are the same way, just with cells and neurons instead of balls. The environment is the same way, except with particles. So if we knew the exact position and velocity of everything that makes up you and the environment you're in, we could know exactly what you're going to do.
    Why does that destroy free will? Because you never could have done anything differently. You don't get to choose to do anything because you were always going to do those things, as determined by the brain you were born with and the environments you have encountered; "the power whereby the person is capable of determining his/her own character" never existed

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    Wow, awesome video. I took it upon myself to read Kant in high school and university, and he has been someone who has deeply influenced my thinking about morality in absence of religion. So it seems pretty clear to me that natural rights are a consequence of the categorical imperative; treating humans as ends unto themselves. Therefore, I don't think natural rights hinge upon a belief in God (this was actually quite clear in the video, but bears repeating).

    As for, other political philosophers who influenced me; Thomas Hobbes, George Grant, Marshall Mcluhan, and Harold Innis. Innis might be considered to be more of a historian or an economist, but I think he does the best job of answering the question "why does Canada exist?"

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    The only right that I can think of is to permit the activities of a person's kind with that person's kind. Without the forceful inclusion of those not of their kind.

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    I would argue that If the government gives you a legal "right" to something it is not actually a right, but a privilege.

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    The idea of "natural rights" is the first attempt at globalism.

    I hate globalism and therefore do not recognize "natural rights".

    Rights and obligations are to be decided by individual societies, either through reform or civil war. Not anyone else.

    And the natural competition between these societies then determines which model of governance, society and rights is the just one by being the most prosperous and stable one compared to the others who are fraught with civil wars or internal demands for political reform.

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    Regarding so called "natural rights" (and any so called "rights" in general), I like to quote Robert A Heinlein on the issue:

    "What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries.

    What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'?

    If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?

    As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

    The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."

    -Starship Troopers (Robert A Heinlein)

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    Do you think we should consider extending Human Rights to 2nd Gen Synth like Mark Zuckerberg?

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    Thanks for that explanation. One thing I am confused about, you say the right to property is a negative human right and I get the sense that you don't think governments should infringe on that, does that mean that individuals have the right to own anything? What basis would you have for making anything illegal? Would it be ok to own nuclear bombs, anthrax etc, so long as you keep it safe and don't harm anyone? In my country (the Netherlands) for instance, firearms are illegal (unless you have a permit), because of their potential to do harm, would you/Locke be in favor for this? (I'm guessing not).

    I'm a big fan of your videos and would really appreciate a reply :).

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    Wow I'm reading the comment section and feeling ill. Half the comments are about how beautiful she looks….yes she is beautiful WHO CARES. She still miss informs people and refuses to admit her mistakes. If you make videos about politics,health care,science and 1000 other topics you must have a deep well of never ending knowledge.She doesnt…she just uses google with little facts and biased opinions.

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    Why can't she approach the topic of veganism with this much insight?

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    I disagree about your stance of health care not being a right. Since we live in a modern society where we pay taxes for services like health care, police enforcement, etc, we as tax payers do have a right to use these services. If someone doesn't pay taxes then they forfeit that right.

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    You conservatards are blowing the whole "ANTIFA IS A THREAT TO AMERICA!"
    narrative out of proportion. You literally exaggerate anitfa as a DANGEROUS
    threat. They are not. They havent murdered anyone. They havent blown up government buildings. They havent declared WAR against the United States government. Unlike the right wing terrorists such as Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski. But you do this without knowing that right wing
    terrorists are literally the greatest threat this country faces over
    ISIS and alQaeda as the FBI states. Right wing terrorists have literally
    committed more terrorist acts in the US more than ISIS and alqaeda
    combined. But you wont fess up to this fact. You will deny, deny, deny
    and post misleading statements.
    Instead you listen to propagandists such as Breitbart, InfoWars, the retard in this video and Carl Benjamin. Do you honestly fucking believe that AntiFa is a SERIOUS threat over right wing terrorists? Ifo so, you need to stop watching youtube videos and get into the real world.

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    i think of myself as a realist but I do care bout whts going on with North Korea.

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    I like the way you tickle my brain… jeez that sounds creepy

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    First of all, people don't have any rights unless they rank among the proletariat, and only because I'm gracious. Second, animals have no rights except the right to a humane death before they are eaten so stop arguing about it. Roaming Millennial is not hot, bae, sexy or any of those things. She's a flatulent meat package who is waaaaay past her prime and has outlived her usefulness as a sex object, just like most of you. And last, don't + me just because you can't handle being reminded that you are peons who have no valid opinion except for the one someone greater than yourselves gives you, so shut the hell up.

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    Rights don't exist except through agreement or through power. A declaration of universal rights mean nothing without the war machines to enforce it.

    Reply
  • December 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    Locke's Second Treatise definitely worth reading, with the somewhat antiquated language, says the essential points. Read it first in high school, without fully understanding it, understood later when older. No real refutation to it, just lies and obfuscation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *