• masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    They’re providing/enabling the human right.

    You are literally saying that your human rights should be privately owned by somebody else. If that’s the case, why even bother with human rights?

    • Kissaki@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      You gotta separate the concept of a right from fulfilling them.

      You can have a human right. But that alone does not answer how it is fulfilled.

      The right is not owned. It can’t be.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        You gotta separate the concept of a right from fulfilling them.

        Says who?

        If a human right only exists on paper it’s not a right - it’s a buzzterm for political racketeers to throw around. Fulfilling a “bill of rights” is the core part of the (so-called) “social contract” between the liberal state and it’s subjects - if it’s merely “fulfilling” those by pretending they exist, the existence of the liberal state - and liberalism itself - becomes irrelevant and unjustifiable to the subjects.