@DissidentKitty there are a lot of moral problems with the framing of "human rights": namely that they emphasize formal rights at the expense of substantive rights: if you have a "right" to obtain medical care but you cannot afford it, in what sense is that right meaningful?

and this framing also obscures how law works and how embedded these concepts are to the liberal framework. your ability to exist freely and dignified in the world should not be contingent on the blessing of a state to recognize some right or another by law. rights which can be taken as freely as they are given



@substack @DissidentKitty@radical.town I'm going to try and channel my inner Stirner now :no_stirnir:

Human rights are not anyone's rights: they are the rights of 'human', which is but a concept, an idea, a spook. As all absolute moral frameworks, 'human rights' ultimately represent the attempt by a group of people to impose their own sense of 'right' and 'wrong' on everyone else.

Every individual has a right only to that which they can accomplish, and every person can decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong *for them*

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon Bida.im

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!