Are Political Rights And Human Rights Compatible?

One of the age old questions in political science, is whether we should adopt a view that human and political rights are compatible. Nay, say some, even related to one another.

The argument is maybe one which makes more sense to have in the theoretical, or philosophical context. Why shouldn’t this be the case? If you’re ever curious, you can just look up the measurements and use the dip-stick or hydroquixometer (with 3 capacitizing load-balancers) and see what’s going on in the world. We have the data, and there’s not totally a green space, despite what some might say, for comparativists to rule the day.

Rather, we should expect in most circles and longer-forms of dialogue, they would rue the day they asked about systems of government, and rights. Very cosmopolitan, something even John Rawls may have aspired to, and yet was never shy about ensuring his arguments were for a Western audience in liberal-democratic societies.

It’s easy to see why, both human and political rights are not universal in the particular. If you are a parent in a nation who is still modernizing and even going through the middle stages of industrialization, does it always make sense to have totally free speach on a web of social media? Does it make sense that media companies can attract international advertisers? Does it make sense, the technologyt platforms which support conversations, should be outlawed, banned, or strictly regulated?

Well, which do you chose. You probably want some of it, and who doesn’t. And you….sorry, the amendment, you definitely want some of it, and for the rest of it, you’re also concerned about the solidity of instituions, what consolidation has taken place here or within civil society, and you’re also participating in some strange blend, of ideological nationalism. Hopefully, from the point of view of the United States, this is liberalized. If you know, you know, and you can explain it back to me.

And if you’re anywhere in a position of influence, power, control, or decision-making, perhaps making policy and playing some role in how narratives are formed or are delivered (ew says the peanut gallery, hold your nose and shut the fuck up for a second, thank you), you’re also at least eager to understand, how this connects to your immediate role.

And yes. Constitutionalism, as well as two very important aspects of freedom in general, which is relevant. Maybe, a three-pronged list is a useful tool for the non-philosophers.

1. Rights always appear about safety, and can never not be about what options and outcomes those rights produce.
2. There’s always an aspect of the judgement, based on options. Optionality, or deliberation, or tribal storytelling and narratives. It’s the bugaboos which keep us all awake through the night, and it’s the way the real world works, which is tangential but not totally disconnected from that. (hold mine, what it do)
3. Finally, constitutions we can assume, are a structure which represent, one aspect of this relationship of rights and instantiation.

Here’s the reading I’d like to put out: Every constitution, does support some notion that political and human rights, aren’t totally distinct. The more serious regional specialists or folks who know single nations very well, can clarify me here.

But lets say a common structure looks like this. Maybe it’s a model for what any system of expanding and enforcing, while also limiting, looks like. Lets keep it for now, all constitutional and within rule of law….ew, icky even only jurisprudence, particularly.

1. The constitution makes references to people, universally.
2. The constitution may make equal mention, of people in different social or religious groups. Ew. Also, LOL.
3. The constituion may further specify rights allocated to different groups and peoples, while also specifying, when this happens.
4. Further, local or other federal, national, or state laws, may specify conditions differently, which abridge the foundational laws. That is, the structure of the United States Bill of Rights, is not universal.
5. And as an example, I say that the government can’t alter or abridge speech, organization, or participation in politics. I also say, they can’t bring threats against the national assembly or the safeguarding of the nation.

And, we can’t in the West, not fully, really or always, in good faith be like, “Ta-Da=We did it you guys.” Because in the United States, economic, geographical, educational, and all kinds of other, highly social and very liberal, free flowing systems and institutions, take the “oomph” out of the most idealist reading of the constitution.

You can even find, the batshit insane Ph.Ds from West Point, who will promise you that the United States is only innovative when we’re at war, or going to war, or think we’re going to war. And there’s probably troves and troves of data, that shows it’s more than just money, time, and physical resources that make this the case. Those always exist.

Anyways, are we getting to the philosophy point already? If there is one, it’s simply that animistic interpretations of rights, live always in constitutions. It’s not really a distinction that matters. 1+1=2 and we’re squaring a circle to say it’s different.

And so this is hard, because if we buy this crock of bullshit, along with the spinny “whirly helicopter” hats and maybe a comedic, oversized lolipop, we’re actually saying that Thomas Hobbes was wrong, and political rights, as they’re reflected, and the push towards human rights in the modern era, is always about how animistic conceptions are discussed and made procedural.

You at least need to deal with a claim, “Is Russia using far-right military organizations to colonize, or control regions?” Well, who knows. What builds the most functional financial model? What if mom and dad are at home, with their hat, lollipop, in a very comedic large fluffy red chair, watching this, and not sure if it’s good or bad?

The flip side of this, is how can you tell, really, when the full of a self, a human person, is able to show up and vote? Really, deeply, meaningfully. They can show their president, that 100,000 people are really, really pissed off about the way construction or coal is going? The Facebook group has one hatchet-job, Sideshow Bob leader, and one other who knows what he’s doing, and has a history in markets, and some tangible reason why it makes sense, she, he, they, whomever, would be a better alternative for the state-run or state-sponsored industries.

This is why, not being judgemental is valuable. Because, in this light….the US and many Western nations can look at our liberalized markets, maybe a quick gander at what they make (if necessary), and show subsidies, and grants as an amazing, amazing, very hands off way to fuel innovation and continuous improvement, homeostasis, and some supply curve which just works. It has that thing, you know?

The deeper philosophical point, is that animism forces us into corners.

1. One, it’s hard to see why claims that the fair rules of competition are being violated, may come from the very same source, and political foundations.
2. Two, it’s not really hard or that difficult to see, that animism doesn’t have an apriori rule that makes decisions ethical, moral, or agreeable for both humans and our non-human counterparts.
3. Three, there’s not a clear way, within this article, to see how an idea such as disproportionate, political rights, and the institutions, and rules of law, which support, or don’t support, the expansion, and passionate upheaval, or slow, degradation of these systems, ever makes sense. Ever.
4. Finally, Four, there’s always clear opportunities to co-op animalistic terms, definitions, processes, and ways of being, which sort of rule out….90% of the content, and really leaves us with a decision.

The conclusion, is this not philosophical. Elsewhere I’ve written about contr-philosophical political theory. But, this is slightly different, slightly not.

Who, would have ever thought….and all this time….