The War On Bullshit

(or, “Why human rights are a bullshit basis for a legal system”)

Disclaimer: this article is not about human rights violations by any particular person or group and is not right wing propaganda aimed at justifying torture, terrorism, genocide or other evils in our world. This is about scrapping human rights as a basis for ethics and law in favor of something more effective.

Many countries have a bill of rights or equivalent legal document that sets out the rights and freedoms of citizens. See, for example:

• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2006)
• Human Rights Act 1998 (United Kingdom)
• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982)
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
• United States Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution (Completed in 1789, ratified in 1791)

Here are some examples of rights:

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
• Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability (Canada).
• A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (United States)

Here are six reasons why basing a legal or ethical system on rights is a really bad idea.

1. Inter-Rights Conflict

The primary reason that any rights-centered ethical system is doomed to abuse or impotence is that practically all of the rights are in conflict with each other. For example, freedom of religion is clearly in conflict with freedom from discrimination based on gender, race and sexual orientation, because of the racism, sexism and homophobia ingrained in some religions. Said Rajaie-Khorassani, the Iranian representative to the United Nations said in 1981 that the UDHR was “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition”, which conflicted with Islamic law. [1]

It is easy to contrive situations where freedom from torture conflicts with right to life, or where the right to trial by jury conflicts with the right to security. Just pick a few rights and use your imagination. I’m sure you won’t have too much trouble finding the conflicts.

2. General Absurdity

In the novel Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein criticizes the U.S. Declaration of Independence and 20th century democracy in general as unrealistic, idealistic fantasies in which “people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.” (p. 93). What good is the right to work when you can’t find a job? What does your right to life mean when a man with a gun threatens your family? What does the right to liberty mean in a country full of jails? What good is the right to asylum when some psycho in Guantanamo Bay is shoving a taser up your ass? Some people have this notion that they have a right to the things that make life worth living. This is nuts. Family, career and hobbies all require work and sacrifice, and sometimes shit happens and your rights don’t mean squat.

3. Judges’ Pragmatic Misapplications of Rights

The next problem is that judges tend to interpret rights in a social context, rendering them impotent. This is why, for instance, free speech does not apply to children in school. If all people have a right to free speech and are entitled to freedom of discrimination based on age, and elementary education is mandatory, it clearly follows that children have the the right to free speech in school. However, the judges who’ve ruled on this thought for a few minutes about the problems it would cause and shut it down. As far as I know, there are no bills of rights that say, “you are entitled to the following rights as long as it’s not too difficult;” yet, this is how judges interpret rights, time after time.

4. Pragmatic Rights

When government officials sit down to write a bill of rights, they do so in a particular social and historical context; they’re human too, with all the biases and irrationalities that may imply. Some rights, like the right to a name, may be timeless. Others, like the right to bear arms, are included for reasons that make sense in a particular historical context. The problem is, once rights are granted, it can be prohibitively difficult to remove them, even when the world changes such that they no longer make sense.

In the U.S., the second amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Of course, a militia is no longer necessary to national security in the United States. At first glance, then, the second amendment should be repealed (unless another justification is found). This has proven incredibly difficult. Arguments of the form, “you can’t introduce gun control because it’s against the constitution” miss the point that a constitution should be regularly updated to keep pace with the changing social context. But I digress (I’ll return to gun control in a later post).

5. Layman’s Misunderstandings of Rights

Ever hear someone claim they have the right to smoke? To hurt themselves? To eat badly? To punish their children how they see fit? To be rude? To drive?

Many people succumb to the delusion that they have a right to do whatever they want, as long as it is not illegal. This is simply untrue. A person’s rights are explicitly granted by national legislation such as a bill of rights. If no legal document confers a right (e.g. to smoke) then no such right exists.

Some people make a philosophical argument that certain human rights are innate (see the preamble to the UDHR). Practically speaking, however, your rights are those your country decides to give you.

6. Promotes Egocentrism

I don’t know about anyone else, but I am sick and tired of people whining about their rights. What ever happened to responsibilities? What about honor? Depending what country you live in, you probably have the right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean you should be rude, incite fear and hate, make people uncomfortable or generally irritate the people around you. You may have the right to pursue happiness, but that doesn’t mean you can neglect your children if they get in the way.

I suggest (and this is just a conjecture, but worth considering) that the emphasis on rights in western society explains at least some of the self-centered behavior that has become ubiquitous. If our culture instead emphasized duty and honor, doesn’t it seem likely that people would treat each other better?

Conclusion

I hear and read constant blathering about rights without any regard to responsibility. Simultaneously, we have a dearth of intelligent debate on whether certain rights should be granted or whether right are the best basis for our ethical and legal systems.

In my next post, I will suggest an alternative basis for ethics and law in western culture.

The big news in sports in the last few days has been Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron’s epic home run record: 755 career home runs.

(For anyone who’s unfamiliar with baseball, a guy called the pitcher throws a hard round ball that this other guy, the batter, tries to hit with a big piece of wood. The best the batter can do is hit the ball clean out of the field, an event called a home run. It’s similar to a six in cricket.)

Bonds’ new record has largely been marred by allegations of steroid use, which Bonds firmly denies. The fact is, whether or not Bonds took steroids is largely irrelevant; the whole idea of breaking a long-held record in any sport is preposterous. Here are seven reasons breaking old sports records doesn’t really mean anything.

1. Equipment has changed

Pick your sport. Be it baseball bats, golf clubs, or hockey sticks, the equipment of today is far different than what was used 30, 50 or 100 years ago. Babe Ruth swung a veritable ax handle compared to the bats of today. And don’t get me started on the advantages afforded by that armor that Bonds wears.

2. Rules have changed

Baseball, like many other sports, is subject to near yearly rule revision. For instance, the strike zone is far different now than in past. Try hitting 750 homers when you have to swing at everything from your ankles to your neck!

One of the most aggravating examples of this is in Olympic power lifting. The “Clean and Jerk” was so named because the lifter had to project the bar cleanly from the ground to his shoulders, i.e., without touching any other part of his body along the way. This meant the lifter had to bend his or her arms, which reduced the energy transfer between the lifter’s body and the bar. Now, the bar is permitted to touch the hips, so the lifter can maintain straight arms, and thus can lift more weight. The new lifter never really beat the old records, because they were performing a different lift!

3. Training Methods have Advanced

Aerobic and Anaerobic training have come a long way in the last hundred years. We know far more now about the relative effectiveness of different exercises and routines. Besides personal trainers, the modern athlete has physiotherapists, massage therapists, chiropractors and even orthopedic surgeons to keep him or her healthy and rehab injuries. More specialized training equipment is available, not to mention the advances in computerized swing analysis. Hank Aaron didn’t have a computer to analyze readings of his swing and tell him how to optimize his power output.

4. Diet has changed

Barry bonds has Vector, protein shakes, and mineral supplements with Major League Baseball’s blessing, regardless of whether or not he took illegal performance enhancers. Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs on cigars, beer, and hot dogs. (Thanks to JG for this point.)

5. Opponents have changed

This may be stating the obvious, but the pitchers faced by todays batters are significantly different from the pitchers of old. Two major drivers of this difference are 1) the pitchers have access to all the same advantages as other athletes and 2) there are more teams now, so an individual batter will see the best pitchers less often.

In any team sport, advances in technology may affect offense and defense asymetrically. If technology improvements favor offense, then scoring X points in the past was presumably more difficult than scoring X points today.

6. Playing fields have changed

If the size of fields have changed, in any sport, it changes the game. At the risk of stating the obvious, it’s harder to hit balls out of a bigger field. The introduction of astroturf has also changed baseball among other sports.

7. Norms have changed

There was a time when a pitcher was expected to pitch a complete game. Now, teams routinely have a pool of relief pitchers, an eighth inning specialist and a closer. This means less at-bats against tired pitchers. While other examples exist, I’ll leave it for now; perhaps interested readers might suggest other sports norms in the comments.

Conclusion

Based on this analysis, I conclude that the whole concept of Bonds breaking Aaron’s record, or Aaron breaking Ruth’s record, is as absurd as arguing who was a better player, Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretsky. The game has changed. I’m not saying whether it’s easier or harder to hit a home run now than in past, just that the game is so different that quibbling about the relative achievements of players from different eras is just bullshit.

Previously in this segment, I discussed how the RIAA fabricates a link between unauthorized music downloading and shrinking music industry profits. After some insightful discussion, I also differentiated the treatment of piracy in criminal and tort law. Today I turn to what might be called the Robin Hood argument.

Francois writes:

“And even if such a correlation [between music downloading and profit erosion] could be demonstrated, it still would not justify bullying and threatening teenagers… [I think] the current RIAA strategy of blackmailing teenage students is … mafia-like.” (Post-press note: Francois wasn’t happy with the way I presented this - see his comment below)

Dar Al Harb writes:

“I always feel for those bastards who lost a few million. Never mind who they hurt or how they hurt in thier endevour to make millions of dollars”

These quotes exemplify a common attitude, especially prevalent in western society, that the big bad corporation deserves a little payback and should not pick on poor, helpless teenagers, students, seniors, etc. I call this the Robin Hood argument: Robin Hood isn’t a bad guy because his victims are rich and his beneficiaries are poor.

This sort of reasoning is undesirable in the context of P2P file sharing for two broad reasons.

Reason 1: The Big Bad Corporations are owned by regular people.

When someone argues that the music industry is comprised of evil, faceless corporations, they forget who owns those corporations. The owners aren’t just old white megalomaniacs; these are public companies owned by a wide variety of people. It’s not even just people who own stocks, either. Do you invest in mutual funds? retirement savings plans? bonds? exchange traded funds? other derivatives? When the big music companies lose money, it’s not just the wealthy that lose money, its also the middle class and even the poor who have directly or indirectly invested in them.

Reason 2: Poverty does not justify theft of non-essential goods.

If a penniless parent with a family on the brink of starvation steals a loaf of bread, I think many of us will forgive him or her for taking the lesser of two evils. However, music is not food, it’s entertainment, and humans generally do not need entertainment to survive. I suspect that most property crime is committed by people of limited financial means. If a guy steals your car stereo, do you want him let off the hook just because he’s poor? As a society, we do not accept poverty as a defense for crimes or wrongs against others; therefore accepting poverty as a defense for piracy would set a dangerous precedent.

Being poor may be an excuse for stealing essential items like food, but it does not justify your nephew’s 80 000 track pirated music library.

Qualifier

Please take note, I am not saying that P2P file sharing is theft, or that the Music Industry hasn’t screwed over artists for years. I’m not saying that file sharing is unethical or causes the Music Industry’s “losses,” and I am not saying that the RIAA is justified in its absurd legal behavior. All I am saying is that if the Music Industry were being victimized by downloading, the fact that the downloaders are poor while the Music Industry is rich is not a defense. It is not to dilute strong defenses by combining them with weak defenses like the Robin Hood argument.