I agree, it would be a very boring, and unjust, world if everyone was of the same ilk.
I think we need to define 'rights' and having done so I would be a little surprised if we don't agree on a great deal.
The very word 'right' has been co-opted by various segments of politics and has come to be misused in my view. It gets used, for instance, when politicians and sundry groups with an agenda should really be using 'aspirations'...maybe 'societal aspirations'...better yet 'priviledges'. If they used words appropriately then society would be a very much better place...we all know politicians twist the meaning of words and have been doing so more and more in modern times...particularly since the 1960s. Look up the meaning of the word 'Government', 'Leader' or 'Minister' and see the disparity between the true meaning and common usage/practice let alone comparing the meaning to the behaviour of people in those positions.
We are all born, in western societies anyway, with individual rights which are intrinsic because they are moral. I have an intrinsic, moral right to my life, to my freedom (of speech/thought/action), to own property and to, as the Yanks say, the pursuit of happiness (however I define that)...and SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE. These rights are said to be 'self evident' and 'inalianable' because they are moral.
We exist and prosper, or otherwise, based on our judgement...by viewing the world around us rationally and making sensible judgements about cause and effect...that is what the 'right' to life actually means. I have 'a right' to go about my life as I see fit, working in whatever job I can get, keeping unto myself a maximum amount of the fruits of my labour, owning property and using it as I see fit all based on my best judgement to make myself, and those for whom I am responsible 'happy'
Govts and Laws exist to protect those individual human rights because the ONLY thing that can stop me exercising my individual rights is force.
Think the raping and pillaging hordes of history and that is why Government evolved - to protect the basic individual, moral rights of it's citizens.
If someone forces me to do something against my better judgement, by threat of violence or whatever, they have stopped me exercising my intrinsic and moral rights, my judgement. individual rights can be violated only by means of physical force. The very basis of our society, or any civil society, is that using force on another individual, whether it is the Govt or an individual applying that force, is illegal and no Law could ever by bought into force that could change that because that would be immoral...to the extent that society allows it anyway...we all can point to cases of individual rights to property being forcibly removed by local/state govt...but society has 'agreed' to this...although I think its obscene.
And I am not talking about criminals...they by their actions have violated another's individual rights and this have no claim to protection of their own rights to life/liberty etc. This is just an example of where society has decided to draw a line in the sand to ensure society survives.
I don't have a right to steal, speed, drive drunk etc etc because by doing so I am infringing on another persons individual human rights. If I drug some girl to have sex with her I have removed her ability to exercise her judgement which would probably tell her not to have sex with me...I have violated her most basic human right...to live her life as she sees fit based on her judgement and rational decision not to have sex with me.
So do I have a right to a job?
No...because to exercise that 'right' someone else must be forced to provide that job...I have removed his/her basic, individual human right to live their life, utilise their property, exercise their freedom of thought/action or words based on their best judgement...thus no such right to a job can exist...I can aspire to a job, that's all.
If something I want to do has NO EFFECT on someone else's individual human rights then I have every right to do it...if it does then I cannot.
If an employer refuses me employment has he infringed on my individual human rights?
No. I am still free to exercise my judgement to look for another job, get better qualified, offer my labour at a lower rate or use my property as I see fit.
If an employer sacks me because he has found a better employee has he infringed my rights? If I have no employment contract then no...see the previous paragraph...my individual human rights are intact. That we have Laws that FORCE an employer to maintain the employment of someone their judgement deems should be sacked actually infringes on the employers individual human rights and as such is an immoral Law.
No employer is going to risk damaging his business by sacking good employees or risking them taking their skills to a rival employer...unless they are an idiot..and they do exist. But they have not infringed anyone's rights by so behaving.
Ditto 'rights' to a certain level of wages.
If an employer offers crap T&Cs to low time CPLs and 'requires' them to wash aeroplanes, drive buses etc does that infringed that pilots rights?
No, they may be guilty of breaking other laws with respect of duty time limitations but no-one has had his right to use his best judgement to rationally decide the effects of this requirement...to exercise his freedom of action/words/thought to remove himself from that situation and seek alternative employment. His rights are intact and so are those of the employer.
Does AIPA have 'a right' to take action through the courts to limit the career potential of pilots employed by QF subsidiaries? While AIPA members would without doubt say YES the in fact absolutely DO NOT. By doing so they are seeking to forcefully remove the rights of others to live their lives by rational application of their best judgement. If QF wants to offer employment to an individual on certain T&Cs and said individual agrees then NO ONE's individual rights have been infringed and thus QF and that individual have EVERY RIGHT to proceed.
Those AIPA members would suggest they are merely acting with the best interests of said individual and some/many members actually believe that in a heartfelt way..but its not reality.
Do I have a right to free health care?
No because someone else must be forced to pay for it...in this case everyone, via higher taxation. That society has deemed universal affordable/free health care as a worthy aspiration and decided to pay those extra taxes is a different thing altogether...but no 'right' exists.
Do I have a right to free education?
No...it is a privilege based on society's aspiration to provide it which is itself based on good public policy...but it isn't a right.
People believe they have all sorts of rights but only because someone with an agenda has told them these aspirations/privileges are actually rights.
When words were used more thoughtfully...or perhaps more literally...only a generation or two ago...people knew the difference between rights and privileges and responded accordingly...and society was a better place.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 17th May 2009 at 18:58.