Quick Short Essay---Some ideas about what rights should be in an ideal society

Rights

Rights should be as expansive as possible with the liberty, autonomy and wellbeing of all being the general goal. Rights should be limited by the principle that one’s rights do not extend to the point of violating another’s rights. We should thus have the right to do whatever we want as long as it does not violate someone else’s basic rights. People have a right not to be harmed if it is avoidable. So I can go out into the world and do what I want providing what I do does not harm another. At least if it is avoidable. If I could not have done otherwise or been reasonably expected to do otherwise I am exempted from being held responsible for rights violation. On the other hand If I attack someone else he has the right to harm me in self-defense (if otherwise unavoidable) because my rights to do what I want in pursuing liberty, autonomy and wellbeing do not extend to a right to attack another person. I have a right to pursue a business and become successful as I want with it, providing that in doing so I do not harm others or violate their rights. If I use slave labor or an unfair wage or no benefits or prevent my employees from unionizing I am violating their rights. Each person should have the right to life and liberty and to pursue their life goals and life their idea of the good life as long as it does not interfere with those of others to the extent that it could have been avoided. We should all have the right to free expression. As well as freedom of religion, thought and so on. As far as government goes its purpose would be two fold, to provide enforcement against violation of rights and to provide basic amenities for those who cannot afford them and keep things such as roads and hospitals running smoothly. Everyone ought to have the right to the minimum quality of life that could be considered a decent life where life, liberty and wellbeing are provided for. That is considering we have enough resources for all to live a decent life no one should have to spend their time worrying about what they’re going to eat or health care or education when they could more productively spend it contributing to society if financial concerns were not an issue.  Education should be free, subsidized by government all through college and even graduate school, law school or medical school and other fields of study of a comparable level. Everyone ought to have the right to have these kinds of opportunities and should not be held back by financial difficulties but only by their own ability and effort. Thus, while education should be free, acceptance of applications should be granted strictly on the basis of merit. This ought to be a general rule throughout society so that the best person for the job or for any particular endeavor gets that job providing the maximum efficiency. Those who do not pass the bar exam for example do not have a right to be lawyers despite their lack of ability. They are free study law for free (provided they are accepted into law school), to take the bar exam as many times as they want but they cannot be a lawyer until they do. If a person fails at a certain endeavor it should not be seen as a mark against them but merely a cue that they should perhaps channel their abilities in a different direction. The benefit of the doubt should be given to the idea that everyone has some or other abilities they are best suited for and all encouragement and assistance should be provided to them in finding what it is.

Health care should also be free and guaranteed, subsidized by the government. Public transportation also. No one should be prohibited from the opportunities to better themselves simply because they couldn’t afford to travel, take care of their health or go to college. That would be the general principle behind this. The rationale would be not only that everyone has the right to a decent quality of life, but that were everyone to find what occupation is best for them society as a whole would benefit from the added efficiency. Such services would be paid for by a progressive tax system that goes into effect after people start making more than a certain amount of money a year. For example if you make less than a hundred thousand dollars a year perhaps you are not taxed at all or very little, as some have suggested. But if you make more than that, the percent you pay of your income should be gradually higher with the idea in mind that after a certain point no one needs all that money and it is simply wasted sitting in a bank collecting interest or in the stock market. If you have more money than you can ever spend you are indirectly causing harm to others through sin of omission as that money ought to be spend in a productive way and taxing you on it does not effect your actual lifestyle or quality of life one iota. The other way the social services would be paid for is by cutting subsides to businesses and by drastically reducing the money spent on the armed forces. There would be a right against coercion as others have suggested and a right against involuntary servitude. This would obviously include things like a military draft. The military would be strictly a defense force. Designed not to attack other countries but only defend ourselves from attack. Thus we would have no bases in any foreign country and no need for them or for military alliances. Problems would be solved and wars preempted through cultivating a careful diplomacy and encouraging fair trade and making ourselves as a country indispensable in an economic sense with a powerful industrial base so that no one would have an incentive to take actions that harm us as we could deter them economically. At the same time we should have a formidable enough defense that any aggressive nation would simply pay too high a price by attacking us. We should work for peace and diplomacy as a model for interaction between nations and not interfere unduly in the activities of other nations except to promote values of autonomy, liberty and democracy but this should be done primarily by setting an example and always by peaceful transparent means.

The system should be a democratic one where everyone has a right and opportunity to participate to as much of a degree as possible.   Democracy should be as localized as possible with people able to elect those who directly govern them and affect their immediate lives. All important decisions such as those relating to war, and things that will directly affect a majority such as changes in social services and so on should be put to initiative to all the people to vote on. Every representative should be able to be recalled if considered to be performing ineptly or contrary to the will of the people. With these sorts of safeguards in place the goal would be to allow each individual as much say in the laws that directly affect their lives as is actually practical and feasible.

As many others have said I agree that certain laws should be in place to prevent discrimination on the basis of arbitrary criteria, race, gender, etc. However rather than having programs like affirmative action, which while I agree with it as it is in place in America currently I think it is justified for historical reasons as compensation to the descendants of African slaves for the disadvantages they’ve suffered, discrimination should be prevented by a strict adherence to a merit based criteria for hiring practices. The goal should simply be the best person for the position gets the position. One thus has a right to challenge one’s rejection if one can show that one was in fact best for the position but not simply because one happens to fall in a traditionally discriminated against category of person. For example women should be allowed to join the military and be fire-fighters. There should be not institutional discrimination based on gender. However the goal should never deteriorate into trying to fill a quota of such and such number of women fire-fighters. Certainly the standards of qualification should not be reduced for women but they should have to pass the same standards as everyone else including physical standards if they want a position that calls for physical strength and endurance etc. To lower the standards is to insult both the women who can pass them and the men who would still have to. I have every faith that there are women who could pass the same physical standards for firefighting and the military that men do. Those that cannot could simply try again and again until they do or find a line of work more suitable, with every financial assistance towards that goal from their government or community, for example a free training program, etc.

Finally there would be an absolute right for people to do whatever they want to their own bodies no matter how harmful as long as they are not harming or violating another’s rights in the process. Thus all drugs would be legal as one’s own body would be considered one’s absolute property. All forms of consensual sex would be legal. Suicide would also be legal as long as it was not coerced. No paternalistic law would ever be allowed to be passed even if a majority government wished to; I agree with Mill that they do more harm than good. Smoking would be allowed in bars for example. It would be up to the owners of the establishment to set the rules for things like smoking. Those who disliked smoking could find a non-smoking bar. As long as one was not unduly subjecting another to things like smoking such as forcing another to inhale second hand smoke, smoking would be allowed in public places. On the other hand smoking would be banned indoors in places like hospitals, planes, libraries and classrooms with the guiding principle here being that people need to go to those places whereas bars, casinos and so on are places of recreation that no one has any need to go to but goes to merely for enjoyment. The same would apply for other drugs. As long as one was not harming another while under the influence there would be no reason to ban drugs that was not paternalistic. On the other hand if a person was under the influence while getting in a car accident and harming another they would be severely punished for such irresponsibility perhaps with their driving license taken away presently. No one would be allowed to use the fact they were under the influence as an excuse for any crime, in fact it would be held against them with the understanding that everyone is responsible for their own actions. So while a person would not be punished simply for using cocaine. If they got out of control and beat someone up under the influence they would be punished severely not for being on cocaine but for beating someone up and they would not be allowed to use the fact they were under the influence as a mitigating circumstance, rather it would be held against them as an irresponsible choice for them as they obviously couldn’t handle it properly. This would apply to all drugs. However only adults would be allowed to use drugs as it could be argued that children were not old enough to make an informed rational decision on whether to or not. Exactly when a person becomes an adult, be it 21, 18 or 16 would be up for debate and might even vary depending on the community or even the individual. Perhaps at 16 a person is allowed to take an “adult test” and if they pass it they are treated like an adult. This would allow for the more quickly maturing members of society to be allowed the same rights as adults but would not force a less mature 16 year old to be tried as an adult for a crime since presumably he would have failed the test. Taking the test of course would be a choice never required. Then when a person turns 18 perhaps full adulthood is bestowed on them, unless they apply for an exemption claiming immaturity and they would then be required to take undergo a psychological evaluation. Some people might be permently impaired and never reach adulthood such as mentally retarded people. They would have the protected status accorded to children.