Comment on Privacy is ‘the most valuable right of all’, says Signal’s president.

• ProvableGecko@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Food isn’t a right though.

  That’s also something else to think about

  source

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • droans@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        And that’s covered in my second link.

        source
• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  But privacy is?

  source

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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.

    source
• uninvitedguest@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    And I disagree with that document because it mixes positive (from 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.

    source