A Simple Question: Why?
Over at her LJ in a private thread, which I have been given permission to excerpt in this public post, phamos818 wrote:
But it's a generational rights issue between us at this point: You believe rights stop at what HR folks call first gen rights (civil and political) where as I also believe in 2nd gen rights (economic and social).
"HR," for those who don't know, stands for "human rights." While I reject this manner of discussing rights ("first generation rights" seem to have some degree of overlap with individual rights, while "second generation rights" are basically "rights" to welfare-state benefits, and "third generation rights" are too bizarre for me to even grasp--you can find out more about this stuff at Wikipedia here), I accept that phamos818 accepts it to some extent, and in particular that she supports "second generation rights." The Wikipedia article says, of these supposed "rights" (as of the time of this post--Wikipedia changes from time to time, though this article appears to have been unchanged for several months--and with links to other Wikipedia articles removed for ease of reading):
Second-generation human rights are related to equality and began to be recognized by governments after World War I. They are fundamentally social, economic, and cultural in nature. They ensure different members of the citizenry equal conditions and treatment. Secondary rights would include a right to be employed, rights to housing and health care, as well as social security and unemployment benefits.
My question for phamos818 is a simple one: why do (or should) human beings have these "second generation rights?" Your answer may be as short or as long as you like, and if you'd prefer not to spend the time answering yourself, you can outsource the job to someone else via a link provided a.) the link is publicly accessible (i.e. requires no subscriptions or registration) and b.) you indicate any significant disagreements you have with the person(s) you're linking to. I'm not looking for a book, let alone a course of study, here, merely the basic case for your views--something between a few sentences and a few pages long. I realize that the shorter the case you make (or link to), the more that will have to be left out. So I want to let you know that I am asking in good faith--I know a lot will be left out, and I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here. I truly want to understand why it is that you think as you do. I may have criticisms--in fact, I almost certainly will--but my primary goal is to understand.
NB to phamos818: If I've asked you this before--perhaps more than once--please pardon me. If I have, your answer(s) faded from memory. I'd like to have this in writing so that I can appreciate your thinking better. If you feel uncomfortable--for whatever reason--discussing the matter publicly, please email me and I'll leave this post up with an update saying that you choose not to discuss the matter publicly. Also, see the NB to others immediately following this.
NB to others: if phamos818 chooses not to discuss this matter publicly, I encourage my other readers to draw no negative inferences about her. She is under no obligation to discuss it publicly--or at all, for that matter. In terms I think phamos818 would appreciate, it's her "first generation right" not to do so! Do I have that right, phamos818? Or is the right to speak (or not to speak) somehow "second generation" or "third generation?"
But it's a generational rights issue between us at this point: You believe rights stop at what HR folks call first gen rights (civil and political) where as I also believe in 2nd gen rights (economic and social).
"HR," for those who don't know, stands for "human rights." While I reject this manner of discussing rights ("first generation rights" seem to have some degree of overlap with individual rights, while "second generation rights" are basically "rights" to welfare-state benefits, and "third generation rights" are too bizarre for me to even grasp--you can find out more about this stuff at Wikipedia here), I accept that phamos818 accepts it to some extent, and in particular that she supports "second generation rights." The Wikipedia article says, of these supposed "rights" (as of the time of this post--Wikipedia changes from time to time, though this article appears to have been unchanged for several months--and with links to other Wikipedia articles removed for ease of reading):
Second-generation human rights are related to equality and began to be recognized by governments after World War I. They are fundamentally social, economic, and cultural in nature. They ensure different members of the citizenry equal conditions and treatment. Secondary rights would include a right to be employed, rights to housing and health care, as well as social security and unemployment benefits.
My question for phamos818 is a simple one: why do (or should) human beings have these "second generation rights?" Your answer may be as short or as long as you like, and if you'd prefer not to spend the time answering yourself, you can outsource the job to someone else via a link provided a.) the link is publicly accessible (i.e. requires no subscriptions or registration) and b.) you indicate any significant disagreements you have with the person(s) you're linking to. I'm not looking for a book, let alone a course of study, here, merely the basic case for your views--something between a few sentences and a few pages long. I realize that the shorter the case you make (or link to), the more that will have to be left out. So I want to let you know that I am asking in good faith--I know a lot will be left out, and I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here. I truly want to understand why it is that you think as you do. I may have criticisms--in fact, I almost certainly will--but my primary goal is to understand.
NB to phamos818: If I've asked you this before--perhaps more than once--please pardon me. If I have, your answer(s) faded from memory. I'd like to have this in writing so that I can appreciate your thinking better. If you feel uncomfortable--for whatever reason--discussing the matter publicly, please email me and I'll leave this post up with an update saying that you choose not to discuss the matter publicly. Also, see the NB to others immediately following this.
NB to others: if phamos818 chooses not to discuss this matter publicly, I encourage my other readers to draw no negative inferences about her. She is under no obligation to discuss it publicly--or at all, for that matter. In terms I think phamos818 would appreciate, it's her "first generation right" not to do so! Do I have that right, phamos818? Or is the right to speak (or not to speak) somehow "second generation" or "third generation?"