U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-08-2016, 04:47 PM
 
512 posts, read 374,225 times
Reputation: 437

Advertisements

I have noticed often that human rights seems to be almost in direct opposition to nationalism. I do not think so in all cases, however in many it seems to be true. Some observations

1. Nationalist parties in politics are generally considered to be racist/evil/anti-human whatever

Look up Donald Trump in America, Marine Le Pen in Europe. People often criticize those who promote "our" nation first are looked at as exclusionary and called racists. I would argue that to a certain extent categorizing people by the color of their skin is only logical when acceptance into society is based upon national origin.

For instance -

If you had to judge between two males in America in the town of San Diego. One had brown skin, the other with white skin. You were told that one should be deported because he is an immigrant. You would probably conclude that the one with the darker skin is not an American just by looking at him. I do not think that is illogical since most Americans are European descendants and have whiter skin. It sounds evil, but you all know that it isn't illogical. However in politics where we worry about how people perceive us, it can come off as mean to point out the obvious.

If you accept nationalism, how can we not see the obvious links to the fact that nation-states are much more highly homogenous than the world we live in. How can we not us superficial facts like the color of skin, or hair, or dress to point out outsiders? It will not work with 100% certainty. But I doubt that there is not strong correlation between the sound of your last name and your national origin.

2. "human rights" are regularly denied to foreigners

If you look at the major reasons that people don't like immigrants, typically listed are the fact that they get access to "our" healthcare and education. Europe comes to mind currently as this immigration crisis is causing people to get angry and try to protect their welfare states. People are complaining that immigrants are demanding healthcare. Yet if healthcare is truly a human right; is this not like men complaining that women are trying to get jobs? I am a man and if I said, "These women are trying to get a job and compete against me! How dare they!" People would think I am a terrible person. However if healthcare and education are human rights and not national privileges, then the argument against them sounds weak.


Can human rights be compatible with competing nation states? Go ahead...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2016, 09:46 PM
 
189 posts, read 133,088 times
Reputation: 511
I think it can be compatible. There are good reasons for wanting to maintain a national identity and not let wandering strangers come in and abuse the system. Just as you wouldn't want random people wandering in from the streets and asking to share your lodging and food because they are homeless/starving. There is a humane way to deal with these people while maintaining your own security - ask them to respect your laws and expectations, explain the consequences and the benefits you are willing to provide. You can help those in need without giving everything of yourself away, and you don't need to take the hard line of completely rejecting their humanity and their need. It can be a fine balancing act.. I suppose my advice is to treat others with respect and to expect respect back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2016, 09:58 PM
 
512 posts, read 374,225 times
Reputation: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anika783 View Post
I think it can be compatible. There are good reasons for wanting to maintain a national identity and not let wandering strangers come in and abuse the system. Just as you wouldn't want random people wandering in from the streets and asking to share your lodging and food because they are homeless/starving. There is a humane way to deal with these people while maintaining your own security - ask them to respect your laws and expectations, explain the consequences and the benefits you are willing to provide. You can help those in need without giving everything of yourself away, and you don't need to take the hard line of completely rejecting their humanity and their need. It can be a fine balancing act.. I suppose my advice is to treat others with respect and to expect respect back.
I still think that this completely side-steps the concept of human rights. If you want to make the "my house" argument, then that is completely based in people having rights due to being the fact that the nation state guarantees "citizens" rights, not "human" rights.

Once again, if people go out and say to their congressmen that they deserve something because they are human, wouldn't it be much more accurate by your argument that they deserve it because they are a citizen? The whole "my house" point is entirely what conservatives say every time they explain why they should not have to pay taxes to support people. Because once again, why should someone be forced to take care of a stranger? If your ultimate point is that we should be forced to take care of people because they have citizenship, then it would seem that you fundamentally agree with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2016, 10:15 PM
 
189 posts, read 133,088 times
Reputation: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027 View Post
I still think that this completely side-steps the concept of human rights. If you want to make the "my house" argument, then that is completely based in people having rights due to being the fact that the nation state guarantees "citizens" rights, not "human" rights.

Once again, if people go out and say to their congressmen that they deserve something because they are human, wouldn't it be much more accurate by your argument that they deserve it because they are a citizen? The whole "my house" point is entirely what conservatives say every time they explain why they should not have to pay taxes to support people. Because once again, why should someone be forced to take care of a stranger? If your ultimate point is that we should be forced to take care of people because they have citizenship, then it would seem that you fundamentally agree with them.
Well, I'm not very well versed in the technicalities of these terms... who guarantees and demands what.

Per wiki, a nation is "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." If a member of the nation believes they deserve something, that's all good for them, and they are free to try to force a law that guarantees this benefit to all members of the nation, to all of humanity, or whatever. They may decide that their nation should guarantee certain rights to all people ("human rights"?) and certain rights to citizens only.

Again per wiki, human rights is "a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person." A belief. Not a universal constant.. I'm sure lots of people have differing definitions of what that means... for your example of the guarantee of medical treatment, there's a lot of wiggle room for interpretation here - are you guaranteed treatment you don't have to pay for? are you guaranteed treatment for unnecessary procedures? Answers will vary..

Again per wiki, a tax is "a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions." Government takes your money and distributes it. You can argue with their choices, and conservatives seem to prefer that their taxes do not go to services, but it part of the definition of taxes that at least some of them *do* go to services...

Edit: oops, not part of the definition I posted above I guess I should say that it is implied that the government will spend some of these taxes on services (nothing stopping the government from keeping all taxes and not distributing them at all!)

Last edited by Anika783; 05-08-2016 at 10:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2016, 10:50 PM
 
512 posts, read 374,225 times
Reputation: 437
Quote:
They may decide that their nation should guarantee certain rights to all people ("human rights"?) and certain rights to citizens only.
That is fine by me. I think that the definitions that you used are fine and that most people agree with them. My contention is that people are being duplicitous in their use of human rights.

I am an American, let's use a problem that constantly pops up here - Mexican immigration.

If someone stands up in front of a crowd and says, "All people deserve to have medical care it is a human right!" Then they turn around and say, "Well immigrants shouldn't get the same benefits as Americans". Don't you find that duplicitous? It's clear that they really mean that all Americans should get a privilege of healthcare.

The "my house" analogy seems to clearly be the overriding reason why people are getting benefits. If I had children I would give them free rent. But I would never argue that it is a human right. It's a benefit that I give to my children. People by arguing for "human" rights and not "citizens" rights seem to be biting off more than they can chew. I understand that people want to limit foreigners access to services because they are expensive. I just would prefer that the moral reasoning would be consistent.

I do also however think that it can lead people to certain conclusions that people don't like. Nearly every group that people consider to be racist has always used nationalism as their overriding reason why they can use law to do things to other people.

WWII Japanese and Nazis - extreme nationalism (also racists)
KKK - Extremely nationalist groups (happens to coincide with racism)

Modern day right wing groups always use nationalism as their basis of why they act the way they do.

It seems obvious to me once again since the fact of evolution guarantees that the people who have spent 1,000s of years evolving together have developed similar traits along with their familial bonds. Nation states generally represent this as they are clusters of geopolitical areas. I'm not saying that nationalism = racism. It's just that it is extremely logical to make the connection since protecting "our" people would obviously be the ones who look like them. (Their family)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2016, 11:26 PM
 
2,963 posts, read 2,731,327 times
Reputation: 6561
I think they can be compatible. Humans are still at their most basic, tribal, and the base nature tension of incompatible cultural abrasion makes certain people in academia and elite circles develop acute amnesia to it usually because they are not as subject to the 'cultural abrasion' on a day to day basis, or because they feel doing so earns them some badge of honor.

Immigration thoughts:
Why have people historically and today hate immigrants?

Racism:
The wished-for end of racism

Demography
Is immigration the only way to solve the declining birth rate in developed countries?

Based on your interests you may also find this post of interest
sustain"ABILITY" reposted from economics forum

Why the media and elites play up on the immigration and other 'flashpoint' issues:
Class warfare underway in USA?


An analogous thought on the religious spectrum may also be helpful in finding a corollary to the 'cultural abrasion' issue.

When religions (cultures) espouse beliefs that enable, enrich, heal and console people they are positive. When they espouse hate, double standards of behavior to others, demean, degrade and destroy they are negative.

The Logic of God, by John Reigstad, who expounds on an Aristotlean view to respect enlightened pluralism has a great take on this concept: The affirmation of your own religious tradition and the traditions of your ancestors while remaining sympathetic to the peaceful traditions of others.


My apologies if this seems rambling, I'm trying to cover a lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2016, 06:42 AM
 
512 posts, read 374,225 times
Reputation: 437
Quote:
I think they can be compatible. Humans are still at their most basic, tribal, and the base nature tension of incompatible cultural abrasion makes certain people in academia and elite circles develop acute amnesia to it usually because they are not as subject to the 'cultural abrasion' on a day to day basis, or because they feel doing so earns them some badge of honor.
This very statement gives the juxtaposition of the argument that you are making. Human rights are not based upon tribal/cultural or other identity. If people are claiming that their rights come from their humanity and not from their tribe (their national tribe). Then they are not being honest.

Sure we can talk about respect for traditions and whatnot. However all of these arguments don't counter the basic point that if people are honest, we are getting our rights based upon our tribal identity, not our humanity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2016, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Raleigh
8,183 posts, read 6,074,910 times
Reputation: 11389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027 View Post
I am an American, let's use a problem that constantly pops up here - Mexican immigration.

If someone stands up in front of a crowd and says, "All people deserve to have medical care it is a human right!" Then they turn around and say, "Well immigrants shouldn't get the same benefits as Americans". Don't you find that duplicitous? It's clear that they really mean that all Americans should get a privilege of healthcare.
Not really duplicitous. And, define healthcare. Immigrants have access to medical care in the US. They won't be turned away from the ER with a broken leg. What goes unsaid is that with nearly every Human right there are limits. People have freedom of speech, but if a speaker whips up a crowd into a froth and directs them to burn the neighborhood down, he will be arrested and charged and found guilty. Solitary confinement might be a violation of human rights, but at some point the safety of the prison staff has to be considered. So it goes for the healthcare debate.

One might think that Healthcare is a human right, but at the same time, you have to have reasonable limits. You wouldn't let a homeless person on the street sleep in your house or even your car overnight. In the same way, you can draw the line at taxpayer citizens for the benefits of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2016, 10:12 AM
 
189 posts, read 133,088 times
Reputation: 511
I think your original question is this - Americans say that there are certain human rights that belong to all people and therefore the government must provide these rights to them, and then turn around and say 'but not to those people.'

I think the answer is in this quote -
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;"

- the people have a belief in universal rights, but in order to secure these rights, there needs to be some kind of government. To secure certain rights you have to have rules, which will likely impinge on someone's rights. This is partly why there is so much dissent in politics between liberals and conservatives - they disagree which rights are more important and which should be sacrificed for the benefit of all.

I don't think that there is necessarily conflict between demanding a government benefit based on believed universal right, which only benefits the citizens. The government is a construct by the citizen to make sure that they are able to secure the rights which they believe they deserve (the justification being that they just do because everyone does). The justification is not "because we are citizens and can make up whatever rules we want, we will give only citizens medical care," it is "because all people deserve medical care, we the citizens will provide it to ourselves." When an uninvited intruder comes in and says "all people deserve medical care, you citizens give it to me" - I believe the citizens would not be hypocritical in saying "no, we choose to only provide this right to ourselves, go ask someone else" (although obviously most people are not so callous, and do help out a bit).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2016, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Vienna, Austria
482 posts, read 209,842 times
Reputation: 478
Rights are given to a human considering he is kind, law-abiding and wants good for everybody.

A nationalist wishes good only for a part of society and doesn't wish to others therefore his rights to organize a nationalist party are restrained in many countries.

A foreigner have to show his modest and intelligent behavior in his new country and then he may get and use all rights.

If a man a woman can use his right to do something bad the right is restrained. But there is a feature: the law belongs to an average man or woman and all people are different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:25 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top