It wouldn't be so much about the rights themselves being authoritarian, but that opening up the framework for renegotiation would weaken existing norms. You could, for instance, almost be certain that some countries would like to put more limits to freedom of expression.
If it restricts freedoms based on a standard that is not directly based on preventing immediate harm to others, it's probably a road to authoritarianism.
I don't believe that restrictions of free speech are necessarily authoritarian. They can enhance the overall balance of power, for example by making minorities feel more safe.
For example hate speech could be restricted, supported by a majority of for example 60%, whereas the hate speech would only be exercised by for example 10%, endangering a minority of 5%.
Those who actually argue for more authoritarian elements, for example those who'd like Trump to not be hampered as much by the judicial system, don't really want "authoritarian"-ness, but rather they want the government to do what they want. They don't seem to realize that once a government has those powers, they have no control about what the government actually does. When a sufficient majority is buying into this, and actually wants to enact the same things, it's game over for democracy.
However, most authoritarian governments didn't develop that way. Most seem to develop by some people just taking power through various means and not really through appealing to a large majority.
Interesting. Can you expand on an example of a 'new' human right that would be authoritarian in nature? I don't really understand the "right to development" example. It looks like it was adopted by the UN already in 1986 and I'm not sure if the authoritarian implications.
Could they though? An authoritarian government could just as easily say "if you do not implement this feature, we will not allow you to operate in this country" and refuse to entertain legal challenges.
EU countries generally aren't authoritarian regimes, and it's easier to argue that it wouldn't be as likely to be abused in the EU. The countries also have legislation and other controls to curb abuses of powers granted to the authorities. It may not be 100% but it's different than in an authoritarian regime where curtailing dissent seems like an obvious goal, not just a potential and somewhat unlikely side effect.
With that said, it still always seems shortsighted to me to abandon fundamental principles for circumstantial or narrow gains.
Not sure about authoritarianism leading to violation of human rights. I'll give you an example, I was raised with what I might say a pretty authoritarian family. Without it, I could've been lost doing drugs or similar because of my "freedom". Not that they took it all away, I can still go out doing things, but when I do something bad or is deemed to be, I get scolded.
There's another bigger weakness for authoritarian governments: it limits innovation. I'm not saying that innovation is impossible in an authoritarian environment. I'm just saying it's much harder to achieve in one. Limits over which ideas everyone is able to share has a cost. Worrying about whether an idea will get you fined, jailed, or worse drains your creativity. The better the government is able to implement censorship, the worse the situation gets.
This might be true. Your logic applies to all such cases though. Right to vote suffers from exactly the same drawbacks as right for speech. And authoritarianism has the same tempting benefits as censorship -- you can stop people with bad ideas from messing things up. And, just like with censorship, one day you might end up on the wrong end of the system, and not necessarily because your ideas are bad.
How could an authoritarian government enforces my outlook of life if it includes freedom of speech, separation of power with check and balances, popular participation, fundamental human rights, periodic elections and the rule of law?
reply