[pp.int.general] Are there "good" and "wrong" Rigths?

[thijs.markus at piratenpartij.nl]

Might makes right, always. How good or bad a right is depends on the power
backing it. Human rights are backed by the might of common agreement.
Though this makes it a little redundant to make them rights, as we all
agree on them anyway. And this in turn leads to the perversion of rights,
where they are not used as rights but as a means of pointing out 'you're
not part of our common agreement, and therefore you have forfeited your
rights.' 'Bad' rights, backed by more selective interest, take a more
direct route to the later conclusion.

In the case of strike and strike breaking, unions (I presume unions are
behind it) have the might to strike they find, but in order to strike
effectively, they can't have strike breakers. So they have to use their
might, against strike breakers, to back up their rights. Businesses on the
other hand find they have the right to to do business anyway, and so they
use their might to break the strike. What is good and bad here, it depends
on what might you prefer.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:23:30 +0200, Justus Römeth <squig at dfpx.de> wrote:
> But human rights are very much made by humans, and thus subject to human
> opinion, which can change. Just talk to an American or an Arab about
what
> they think of certain human rights...
> 
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Maxime Rouquet <
> maxime.rouquet at partipirate.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/29/2012 10:49 AM, Dario wrote:
>> > El 29 de marzo de 2012 10:21, Maxime Rouquet
>> > <maxime.rouquet at partipirate.org
>> > <mailto:maxime.rouquet at partipirate.org>>
>> > escribió:
>> >     Does your Human Rights reference declaration includes the words
>> >     "intellectual property" or "protects" copyright or patents ?
>> >
>> >
>> > No. Where are these terms in the declaration?
>> > http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
>>
>> Article 27. (2) :
>> "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material
>> interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
production
>> of which he is the author."
>>
>> >     But more important : who defines the "Pirate ideology" ? If a
>> majority
>> >     of people join your party and, after a tragic event, want to
amend
>> this
>> >     "Pirate ideology" to insert death penalty in it, can't they ?
>> >
>> >
>> > To amend the "Pirate ideology" they must achieve two-thirds
majorities
>> > in two votings, separated in three months at least. This is to
prevent
>> > "tragic event panic" or takeovers from outsiders.
>> >
>> > And as Jordi said, death penalty is against Human Rights.
>>
>> I quote you : "Where are these terms in the declaration?"
>>
>> I agree with you and consider death penalty as against the right to
>> life. But states and courts do not.
>>
>> Look at the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
>> Fundamental Freedoms, that covers the right to life (Article 2) : why
>> did they need to add Protocol 6 to restrict the application of the
death
>> penalty to times of war or "imminent threat of war" ?
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>
>>