Many women in the West were brought up to do the bidding of their menfolk. Some Blacks in apartheid South Africa were content, at some level, to aspire only to lives of servitude, because of their upbringing and education (or lack of it). That didn't make what was done to them right, or even excusable.

But it's never been about human rights for some people, just about getting their way. The end justifies the means, as the Marxists used to tell me at university: we'll pretend to be democrats, we'll use the revulsion people feel against apartheid to get elected, and then we'll do what we really want to do: destroy capitalism and create a workers' paradise. Whether the workers want it or not.

Yes, I realise that, which is why I specifically referred to the mainstream Left. John Humphreys is a tosser in a wide variety of different ways, but I really don't think he wants to overthrow Parliament and replace it with a Workers' Revolutionary Council.

"democracy, human rights, and liberty are universal values"

Define "universal". From what objective, supra-human, extra-terrestrial place were they handed down to us? Surely, the very fact that a fair proportion of the world's population don't agree with you is proof that they're not universal?

I'm not saying I don't believe all people should have certain rights, but I don't understand how some people agreeing certain rights are "universal" makes them so. To suggest that one's viewpoints are "universal" i.e. value-free, sounds remarkably similar to the claims the religious make about their belief systems.

Also, I'd like you to explain why, for example, the right to freedom of speech and free elections are considered "universal" by the West, but the right to food, the right to work, the right to free healthcare, the right to receive all the wealth created by one's own labour, the right to telephone/internet access are not?

Isn't it an odd coincidence that "human rights" were developed by Western, post-Christian, liberal capitalist societies and perfectly dovetail with those societies' conception of how things should operate?

For a usually intelligent bloke, DK, what a lot of utter drivel.

First of all, on what planet does "universal" mean "value-free"?

Secondly, human rights are universal: it's implicit in the word "human". If they didn't apply to all humans, they wouldn't be human rights. That doesn't mean you're born with them; it doesn't mean no-one thought them up; it doesn't mean you can't argue with them; it doesn't mean they're not the product of a particular type of society. It's just part of their definition.

Similarly, the Christian ideal of forgiveness is universal. That means that Christians are supposed to forgive non-Christians and it means that Christians believe that it's a good idea for non-Christians to practice forgiveness too. It doesn't mean it's not a Christian idea.

Yes, human rights are an explicitly evangelical political project: the whole point is to spread the word and spread the ideal. Whether you agree with it or not, the main point of my post is that the Left used, very recently, to subscribe to that venture; now they attack anyone who does.


> I'd like you to explain why, for example, the right to freedom of speech and free elections are considered "universal" by the West, but the right to food, the right to work, the right to free healthcare, the right to receive all the wealth created by one's own labour, the right to telephone/internet access are not?

Someone who complains so much about the EU's democracy deficit should already know the answer to that.


> Isn't it an odd coincidence that "human rights" were developed by Western, post-Christian, liberal capitalist societies

What, you mean successful ones? No, that's not odd at all. It's causation.

And no, human rights weren't developed by post-Christian societies. The post-Christianity came later.

Er, that was a DA not a DK, S2.

That said, what our diabolical chum fails to realise is that it's about negative rights as opposed to positive rights. The right to be free from X not to have X.

Oo, you're right. Oops. I have no idea whether DA is usually intelligent, and I doubt he complains about the EU. My apologies to DK, if he's reading.

>Surely, the very fact that a fair proportion of the world's population don't agree with you is proof that they're not universal?

That kind of depends on how that proportion is made up. You wouldn't expect the dictators, thugs and other beneficiaries of a lack of human rights to agree to give up their powers; and their victims are unable to make their wishes known.

True, Stephen, but still not the point: you're making the same mistake as DA in thinking that an idea's universality has something to do with how many people agree with it. In fact, "universal" refers to who the ideal should be applied to, not to who agrees with it.

So what you actually mean is "people who believe in the completely subjective idea of human rights generally believe they should apply to everyone"? Well, that can be said about most religions - evangelical humanist capitalism is no different.

"Yes, human rights are an explicitly evangelical political project: the whole point is to spread the word and spread the ideal. Whether you agree with it or not, the main point of my post is that the Left used, very recently, to subscribe to that venture; now they attack anyone who does."

"the Left" is not a monolithic bloc which agrees on everything. Bloggers who start criticising "the Left" en masse tend to use "no true Scotsman" sophistry to justify their pseudo-arguments.

A lot of what I imagine you're thinking of when you talk about "the Left" in this instance are very aware of the concept of human rights, and subscribe wholeheartedly to it (although they may believe freedom from poverty is more important than the freedom to starve holding a polling card). However, they're also aware that there's a political movement out there who have twisted the concept of human rights into a justification for "preventive" war and used concern for human rights as a cover for advancing certain capitalist states' geopolitical interests. That it is used as a cover is evident by the unequal way in which they apply their ideas about human rights, and the kinds of human rights they believe in.


"What, you mean successful ones?"

VALUE JUDGEMENT ALERT!
Anyone can be "successful" if they define their own terms.


"it's about negative rights as opposed to positive rights. The right to be free from X not to have X."

That still doesn't give us a rule for defining what is a human right and what isn't? Do I have the right to be free of wage slavery, free of cigarette smoke and car fumes in my lungs, free from manipulative and misleading advertising or propaganda, free from having my beliefs insulted?

There's a difference between believing all human beings should have X, or not have X, and an evangelical political project which aims to ensure all human beings live under capitalist hegemony, whether they like it or not.

Aren't Al Queda an evangelical political project, based on the idea that there's one "successful" system that everyone should be made to live under, for their own good?

> "the Left" is not a monolithic bloc which agrees on everything.

I am aware of this. However, there are supposed to be some ideals binding the lot together, or what's the label for? The wish to spread human rights worldwide used to be one of those ideals. If you don't believe me, try a library.

> Bloggers who start criticising "the Left" en masse tend to use "no true Scotsman" sophistry to justify their pseudo-arguments.

Well, I base my opinions of the Left on my experiences of having been a part of it for most of my life.


> So what you actually mean is "people who believe in the completely subjective idea of human rights generally believe they should apply to everyone"?

Absolutely, yes. From your tone, I infer that you think subjectivity is a bad thing. Can't think why, but hey.


> Aren't Al Queda an evangelical political project, based on the idea that there's one "successful" system that everyone should be made to live under, for their own good?

Yes, and they're wrong. Those of us who prefer systems in which, for instance, women are allowed to learn to read are right. See, this is the trouble with this bizarre belief that subjectivity is a bad thing: you end up in a position where you can't make really quite simple value judgments. Oo! Help!

> VALUE JUDGEMENT ALERT!

Yes, value judgments. There's nothing wrong with judging values. It's what leads to progress. Our ancestors judged that heat was better than cold and therefore mastered fire. There's nothing inherently objectively good about fire; it was a subjective idea. But it was also a good idea. Socialism's another subjective idea, you know. I don't notice you getting all het up about that one.


> Anyone can be "successful" if they define their own terms.

Yes, and the recent mass migration from Norway to Congo illustrates perfectly how many people disagree with my definition.