They absolutely are political. The entire concept of human rights is political. There's a widespread consensus in many, many countries that they are worth protecting, but there's nothing magical or special about human rights that gives them any power beyond any other political decision.
> No human construct grants a person a right to violate human rights
Human rights are a human construct. Moreover, they only make sense within the context of social contract which only becomes practical when enforced by a government.
>(which are not "human rights" in the sense that you do not have the right to compel other people to perform the labor required to supply you with these things)
>(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care
Why are they required and what are they required for? Countries exist that don't have the exact same human rights, so clearly those rights don't need to exist for a nation or an individual to successfully exist.
A person acting under the auspices of a state has no right to violate human rights. A state is merely a human construct. No human construct grants a person a right to violate human rights.
> the security and protection of property under the rule of law should be a human right
Well, it is - although the extent to which this should extend from humans to corporations is debatable. Otherwise you end up with situations like Philip Morris suing Australia over their anti-smoking policy.
> So, in your view, human rights cannot be suspended, even if there is an emergency?
This does seem a pretty common misconception. People seem to forget that even the most liberal countries still regularly and systematically infringe on people's rights, e.g. by imprisoning criminals. But you don't see many of the anti-lockdown types protesting the existence of prisons.
In both cases, it's a matter of proportionally balancing the loss of individual rights with the interests (and indeed, other conflicting rights) of the community as a whole.
> depriving them of their inalienable human right to life (by tolerating their lack of food and shelter and sanitary conditions)
Do you believe it's a human right to receive food, shelter and sanitary conditions? I don't. For me, people have a right to work for (or otherwise pursue) those and if unfairly prevented by other people (and not by circumstances outside human control, such as mental illness), their rights are violated. But that's as far as the human rights go.
> Can you expand on an example of a 'new' human right that would be authoritarian in nature
How about a right to live in a community free of external interference—a stronger version of the right to self-determination? You could argue that it would prevent acts of external aggression, but it could also be used to prevent aid when a nation's people are being oppressed.
Right - people should be protected from the government using force to lock them in a cage without communication to the outside world.
reply