I agree with you - people want to label everything as a "human right". I think Internet access should be a right, but I don't think it's a human right. I guess it all depends how one defines "human right".
I think the best term is "individual right," and the term "human right" should be abandoned.
The original proponents of rights treated them as "individual rights." Later, people who wanted to violate "individual rights" made up the "human rights" idea as a contrast to "individual rights."
But for the sake of this conversation, I just went with "human right," accepting it as valid and not getting into all the mess I just talked about.
By the way, a Constitutional right, ideally, is just an individual right that has been written specifically into the Constitution.
Later, people who wanted to violate "individual rights" made up the "human rights" idea as a contrast to "individual rights."
That's a tendentious misrepresentation, bordering on incendiary, not at all suitable for this discussion forum. The human rights movement has roots in the Red Cross, the Geneva convention, and the post-war efforts to create international peace.
International conventions on human rights are not primarily used to "violate individual rights." Yes, they are used to make claims for the positive duties of states and societies to care for the suffering. When water is available, none should be excluded; when water is needed, that is a human rights issue, and measures should be taken.
(To make a counterpoint, the "individual" rights—of which you speak from a libertarian or Randian perspective—are not really all that individual. That's why the rhetoric of individual rights is so often used by those in favor of the rights of corporations. Randians equivocate the notions of the individual and the corporation for ideological reasons.)
It could be a Constitutional right, or a statutory right. For example, you have a right to a keep and bear arms (in the US), but that is a Constitutional right, not a human right.
The Constitution defines what the founding fathers of the US considered human rights. I suppose statutory rights could fall under the category of "not human rights". And, I guess some folks consider some statutory rights to be directly contradictory to human rights (water shutoffs in Detroit or foreclosures of homes during the banking crisis, for example).
What kind of right do you believe internet use would fall under?
Some have argued that prohibiting Internet access to an otherwise free person (not a prisoner) is cruel and unusual punishment. In 1992 that was laughable. In 2015, it's much less laughable.
A 'human right' is a right that every human on the globe should possess. The right to vote in a democracy is not a human right - only citizens of that democracy can vote in it. It's reasonable to say that French citizens have the right to vote in France, but not that the entire globes should, for example.
I'm not sure if you're trying to play language games to be obtuse for some reason, but the right to be involved in one's government absolutely is a human right.
To say "the right to vote in a democracy is not a human right" is arguably not false, just going on narrow definitions of "vote" and "democracy," but the right to be involved in one's government? Oh yes.
Just because it is denied so many does not mean it is not still a human right.
... you're saying that people who aren't citizens of France should be able to vote in French governmental elections? You're opposing "only citizens of that democracy can vote in it"? Why is it a human right for a Russian or a Fijian or an Argentinian to vote in the French elections?
I can't make out what your problem with my comment is.
Eh? I didn't say not in their own government. I said that people who are not French citizens can't vote in the French elections, and it's not a violation of human rights that they can't. I didn't say that Russians shouldn't be able to vote in Russia.
Stop strawmanning my words.
Edit: to be clearer - being able to get involved in your own government is a human right. Being able to vote in the French elections is a civil right, reserved to French citizens.
All cats are animals, but not all animals are cats.
Why is it pedantic to be confused by a naysayer who is twisting your words to say something you did not say or mean, and try to reclarify it? If someone accuses you of possibly playing language games to be obtuse, why is trying to clarify the issue considered pedantic?
Edit: it's also a bit weird to accuse someone of pedantry when the topic at hand is the subtlety of difference between terms ("what defines a human right as opposed to other rights").
