[human rights] there's no such thing

Charles Robertson is thought provoking again on the subject of "Handing Out Rights". He dislikes phrases such as:

The joint report by [...] says [a particular group of people] in Jersey should have more rights, independence and choice.

Really? What rights? Because rights come with responsibilities. Your right not to be assaulted gives me a responsibility not to hit you. So upon whom will the corresponding responsibilities for these new rights fall? What's the betting that it's you, me, and our wallets, and we're not really talking about rights at all, but services?

Read the whole thing. I replied thus:

I don't believe in "rights" at all. The concept of a right is that there must be a right "from" something or someone and even where there's a right "to" something, it implies that there is someone to hand that right out in the first place.

In the political sphere, this usually means the government. The only way to get the government to guarantee "rights" is by legislation. And legislation on social issues goes against the whole fabric of a democratic society - it accepts that the government can do things to you and that you need protection from that.

There is a subtle assumption here that you don't run the government - the government rules over you. I don't accept that in the least. My model of a government, the image I have in my mind's eye, is that of representatives, temporarily appointed by us, taking care of the daily running of the army, health care for the aged and so on.

We fight for and negotiate our own conditions and pay a flat tax for those who are incapable due to age, youth, insanity or ill health. Those we employ to take care of these things are accountable to us. This is the so-called government.

This is the concept behind Secretaries in the British government, i.e. officially servants of either the crown or the people but not rulers from Westminster or Washington.

They may have the "right" to enjoy office for some time but it's still a very wonky term.