• HubertManne@piefed.socialEnglish
    1 year

    Not sure if I agree but many rights are so important its hard to put one over another. Speech is very high on my list and the use of valuable in the title is strange. I don’t see the qote anywhere in the article though but what they do say is powerful:

    “I think of privacy from the framework of fundamental human rights, the rights of private communication, to live a private life, to think and do and communicate with who you want."

    “We can’t build new worlds, we can’t imagine new paradigms without that incubation space, without the safety to experiment with ideas and think about what could work or not.”

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksdeleted by creatorEnglish
    1 year

    Lulz, privacy without food to eat won’t be too useful

    • einkorn@feddit.orgEnglish
      1 year

      OK, I am going to try arguiung that privacy supersedes food:

      To have a right to anything means there is something that I own. Owning something puts a division between me and others who can not own this specific thing: My right is my own, I do not have to diminish it by sharing. The most fundamental form of division is absence. Having a right to privacy is a right to the absence from others. Therefore the right to privacy is a more fundamental one than the right to food.

      However, I agree that in practice eating in public beats dying in private any time of the day. 🤷

      • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
        1 year

        …and for that you get down voted.

        I think you expressed that well. If you can’t own your thoughts, you can’t own anything.

    • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
      1 year

      Food is not a right at all

      E: remind me which country has enshrined food as a basic right.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1 year

      Food isn’t a right though. It’s necessary for life, sure, but nobody is obligated to provide you with food unless you’re incarcerated or something.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1 year

          Agreed. I believe everyone should have food, I just don’t think it’s a “right.”

          I detail the distinction here and here should you care to read it.

          • droans@midwest.socialEnglish
            1 year

            Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

            Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksdeleted by creatorEnglish
        1 year

        But privacy is? We’ve been eating food much longer than we’ve had any privacy…

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1 year

          There are two types of rights:

          • negative - government prevents others from violating it (you have it by default)
          • positive - government forces others to provide it (created by the government)

          Privacy and speech fall under the first, food and health care fall under the second. You have privacy by default and the government has to actively violate it, you don’t have food by default and the government has to actively provide it.

      • Uninvited Guest@lemmy.caEnglish
        1 year

        Article 25

        When I was younger I knew it as the “Right to Food & Shelter”, though I’m not sure if that was taught in a Canadian context.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1 year

          And I disagree with that document because it mixes positive (freedom to) and negative (freedom from) rights. Article 25 in particular merely places obligations on governments, and is pretty vague.

          While I believe everyone should have the things in the document, I don’t think many of them are necessary for an individual to be considered “free.”

          For example, let’s imagine a hypothetical communist utopia. There would be no government, and people would share what they have with no expectation of reciprocation (though you’d have a group to manage distribution). Therefore, there’s no entity that can guarantee housing, medical services, etc, that’s on the community to provide, should someone want to. Nobody guarantees a “right” to housing or healthcare or whatever, but you’ll probably have it if you live in a densely populated area.

          Likewise with any anarchist utopia.

          So that’s why I reject any “right” that lays obligates anyone to do anything for me. A “right” to me is something I have innately that can only be violated through action instead of inaction.