Rights and Responsibilities

[Gromit]

We only have what rights society deems. These rights change with time. The many over the individual.

For instance we used to have the right not to be detained for a long period without evidence of wrongdoing. Now all they have to do is suspect you of terrorism and they can hold you for an age.

p.s. The US has the right to silence and the UK doesn't. We have the right to have our silence used against us in court.

 

[detective-boy]

There are both rights and responsibilities, but they are not conditional upon each other.

Of course they are ... but that is where personal standards and morals come in - as a member of society, benefiting from the "rights" you have a moral obligation to subscribe your share of the "responsibilities" don't you?

 

[detective-boy]

Quite simple. I buy a book. I have the right to the possession of that book. No associated responsibility there.

But if you are going to claim possession of your property, you have a responsibility to respect others claims to their property.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

The problem is that as society becomes more segregated - on whatever lines, we become hidden from more of the problems that go on around us and only have the media to rely on, who have their own agenda.

Some who go on about "rights" have not always spent time in areas where people are too scared to go outside of their front door.

Some who go on about "responsibilities" and think "prison" is the answer to everything are also similarly misguided.

The challenge is the segregation - by age, race, religion, class, income bracket, you name it. Segregation breeds ignorance which breeds hostility.

The other thing - and this is something the "super rich" need to take heed of, is that they only have their wealth with the consent of the people. Once that consent begins to fall away, then there are problems. The privelidges that the upper classes had 100 years ago crumbled in the face of 2 world wars - costing many their thrones and estates.

Much of the theft/violent robbery crime is a sign of that consent breaking down - as well as being a sheer case of runty-bloke-ism. "Why work for a week when if you steal you can get it in a day" said one teenage youth on a documentary a few years ago.

There are some outfits I'd love to wear out and about but in London I just wouldn't dare for fear of getting mugged.

 

[Gmart]

But if you are going to claim possession of your property, you have a responsibility to respect others claims to their property.

So if i don't consider other people's rights, then i don't have any rights myself?

I don't believe so.

Everyone should consider other people's rights ideally of course and certainly it would seem inconsistent to claim rights for myself and then abuse other people's rights, but my rights don't disappear otherwise criminals would automatically have no rights on conviction.

My right to vote is valuable only when other people allow me to vote. Thus considering my right and considering it to be important (def of respect in my world)

Thus my right is linked to other people's respect of this right.

Thus whether people respect the law is the key point.

Sadly consequetive governments have made an ass of the law by continuing the illegality of drugs, not giving adequate protection to certain professions due to moralism and the obvious inequality of opportunity.

Once the law starts to reflect society as it actually is, rather than as the government would wish it to be if they had their way, then people would be more likely to give it respect.

Until then the struggle will continue.

 

[detective-boy]

So if i don't consider other people's rights, then i don't have any rights myself?

No. Please stop trying to make other people's posts fit your agenda.

On an individual level your rights exist regardless of whether or not you accept your responsibilities ... the police will still try and save your life if you fall off a roof whilst being chased from the scene of a murder you've just committed.

But on a societal level, if everyone demands their rights whilst simultaneously refusing to live up to their responsibilities, things fall apart. People can't expect to endlessly make withdrawals from a bank if no-one is making deposits.

 

[Gmart]

No. Please stop trying to make other people's posts fit your agenda.

But on a societal level, if everyone demands their rights whilst simultaneously refusing to live up to their responsibilities, things fall apart. People can't expect to endlessly make withdrawals from a bank if no-one is making deposits.

I am not trying to fit things to my agenda, and I resent the implication. The logic was simple and I expressed it.

My right is linked to other people's respect of this right. Thus whether people respect the rights and laws of the country is the key point, thus begging the question as to why so much apathy and disrespect of each other exists.

None of this has anything to do with 'responsibility'. My ability to respond and my decision to do so is dictated by how much i feel part of the society i live in. If I grow up with no opportunity to live well, then i will turn to a life of crime. If i grow up in luxery with good opportunities then i probably won't.

The challenge is therefore to create a society where we blame ourselves for our shortcomings instead of blaming 'them' for the unfairness of the system.

I don't know about you but haven't you noticed how no one trusts the police or the law or even each other! A shocking symptom of a society with great problems which are simply being swept under the carpet, or worse dealt with in an instinctively authoritarian way with no regard to how society actually is.

 

[Meltingpot]

But that doesn't prove the consistent link between rights and responsibilities.

As Haller says quite rightly:

And the same goes for the right to property and all the other examples given here. It's just propaganda taking advantage of those who are confused and giving them a plausible but false conclusion.

The responsibility in Haller's example is to provide you with the means to vote and not to impede you when you try to use it. The right to property means someone will be arrested if they try to deprive you of it (if they get caught).

 

[Meltingpot]

No. Please stop trying to make other people's posts fit your agenda.

On an individual level your rights exist regardless of whether or not you accept your responsibilities ... the police will still try and save your life if you fall off a roof whilst being chased from the scene of a murder you've just committed.

But on a societal level, if everyone demands their rights whilst simultaneously refusing to live up to their responsibilities, things fall apart. People can't expect to endlessly make withdrawals from a bank if no-one is making deposits.

Exactly.

 

[Gmart]

The responsibility in Haller's example is to provide you with the means to vote and not to impede you when you try to use it. The right to property means someone will be arrested if they try to deprive you of it (if they get caught).

That's right!! My right to vote is linked to other people not myself. The media try to go on about people not being entitled to their rights if they don't accept their own duty towards other people. But actually people will only accept this duty if they feel that society is fair.

Why should they accept this duty if society has never given them any reason to cooperate?

The sooner we start to create a society which has relevance for these people, giving them the opportunity to succeed and not just being authoritarian because they won't play by their rules, the sooner we might address some of these issues.

 

[JoePolitix]

Rights do confer responsibilities – the responsibility on others not to impinge on those rights and to uphold them. The problem is that New Labourism seems to be increasingly saying that those rights are conditional on good behaviour. Bag of shite.

 

[likesfish]

rights and responsibilities are interdependent
the gobby kid shouting you can't do that I got human rights innit

has failed to realize other people have human rights as well so how we negotiate
when they clash.

 

[Fruitloop]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding that keeps cropping up here I think. Rights are not conferred by other people, but by the state. So Blairs 'rights and responsibilities' hornswoggle should be viewed not in terms of the relations between one person and another, but between the individual and the state.

 

[likesfish]

but if we are going to have a reasonable time in this urban sprawl.
All of us have to understand we have some responsibility to the other residents reguardless of if we know them or not.

 

[Gmart]

Very rational Likesfish, but many have no interest in being so rational. They feel let down by the system and are only concerned with themselves. Indeed some might suggest that we have created a society which encourages such selfishness.

 

[Gmart]

I suppose it depends if you believe in coercion by the law if the majority of the population spends most of its time trying to get AROUND the law to a great degree.

I obey the laws which I believe to be relevant. I ignore (with some care) those which are not. A law does NOT coerce me if I feel it to be an ass. This is a necessary way of living if the law does not reflect the reality in the street.

In my local paper there is a campaign to reduce littering by banning people putting notices on cars in parking lots. I don't like the idea but the proposed law is that there should be 3 exceptions. Charities, religious groups and political parties.

Why have these exceptions? Because laws and rights are not simple anymore. All the parts of the community are consulted and those with the power get exceptions.

This is the basis of privilege. One set of rules for those in power and one set of rules for those without.

Remember! The only bar in England where you can smoke is in the houses of parliament.

We have an ongoing complication of law, with no check to ensure that it goes too far. Why not?

The law is too complicated, and even the police spend a high percentage of their time on paperwork for more targets which again people are just trying to go around.

Sometimes I think we should have a vote on what issues, in what order, the Police should address in our name? That'd be fun

 

[detective-boy]

Sometimes I think we should have a vote on what issues, in what order, the Police should address in our name? That'd be fun

In a way it sort of exists - consultation rather than a vote maybe, but getting local communities to prioritise crime and disorder issues in their area. This is in the form of the local authority / police obligation to conduct a crime and disorder survey in their area periodically (required by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998). These very, very rarely even mention serious (but rare) crimes like rape and murder ... but, when asked specifically about an individual case the public go "Well, yes. Of course the police should spend whatever is necessary on rape / murder".

A vote would be good ... but it would need the public to have perfect information on which to base their decision ...

 

[Fruitloop]

Why? Bounded rationality is an existential condition, and it hopefully doesn't mean that people should simply defer to elites whose knowledge and motivation may be equally suspect.

 

[Gmart]

To aim at perfect information and to setup a system for it is perfectly reasonable!

 

[detective-boy]

Why? Bounded rationality is an existential condition, and it hopefully doesn't mean that people should simply defer to elites whose knowledge and motivation may be equally suspect.

In all fields we defer to the professionals who operate within them and take note of their professional judgements. It is just that when it comes to policing everyone (a) thinks all plod are thick fuckwits, (b) doesn't recognise policing as a profession in any form at all and (c) thinks they know how to do policing better than the thick plods.

Would you be suggesting that the public, with no particular awareness of the complexities of the wide field of medicine, should set NHS priorities?

 

[Gmart]

Trust of professionals is very important. We should be able to trust all professionals without letting the occasional sensationalist, tabloid story distract us from the general trustworthiness of most people.

If you trust the people, they will become trustworthy!

 

[purves grundy]

what's this thread about?

 

[Gmart]

I would suggest reading it, but I would summarise it as me saying that there is no such thing as responsibility (ability to respond with a duty) per se, more that we have certain rights and when people stop respecting these rights then we have a problem.

 

[hammym@hotmail.]

Does anybody, in fact, expect the state to solve all their problems?

We should have the right to choose nothing,but the powers that be don't like it. If you choose nothing you are not consuming /spending as they would like.
Somtimes it feels the state causes most of this worlds problems let alone sorting them.

 

[_angel_]

Trust of professionals is very important. We should be able to trust all professionals without letting the occasional sensationalist, tabloid story distract us from the general trustworthiness of most people.

If you trust the people, they will become trustworthy!

Should we trust any government department with our personal details after the numerous well publicised cock ups?

Actually, I wonder how common this loss of data is. A tenner says it is actually happening all the time but the media has chosen to publicise it now to nail Brown.

 

[purves grundy]

I would suggest reading it, but I would summarise it as me saying that there is no such thing as responsibility (ability to respond with a duty) per se, more that we have certain rights and when people stop respecting these rights then we have a problem.

Cheers for the summary. I'd say that respecting rights is all about duties and responsibilties. Every right has a duty attached to it. Legally speaking, those duties fall upon the state.

There must be more to the thread than this...

 

[likesfish]

you want to live in a functioning society you have responsibilities to society.
if you go around behaving like a "stroppy teenager" i know my rights all the time.
while not respecting other peoples rights society breaks down
its give and take you just can't take all the time

 

[Prince Rhyus]

Can we have a European Convention on Human Responsibilities please?

I wonder what the effect would be if we had something like "the Highway Code" but for pleasant behaviour - something not legally binding but something that a judge and jury can take into account when considering a case.

 

[Mallard]

The new Citizenship courses being introduced in schools mention 'Rights and Responsibilities' and 'Politics in a post ideological era' both sounding like a Blairite New Labour manifesto. State funded indoctrination?

 

[purves grundy]

The new Citizenship courses being introduced in schools mention 'Rights and Responsibilities' and 'Politics in a post ideological era' both sounding like a Blairite New Labour manifesto. State funded indoctrination?

Don't worry - I've taught Citizenship in schools and given the derisory amount of resources that are put towards it, I can reassure you that there is precious little indoctrination going on. Anyway, I can't see how facing up to your responsibilities - which are correlative of the rights we claim - counts as indoctrination. The vast majority of threads on Urban seem to be complaining about people's lack of responsibility towards one another and society in general.