Pol Ideology 81, Human rights and dangers of turning socialist

Yesterday, my friend and young dynamic lawyer, Atty Arpee Santiago gave a talk at our college alumni group UPSEAA. Good lecture.

Arpee started with historical and philosophical evolution of the concept of human rights (HR), from thousands years BC to the present.

Other notes from Arpee's lecture:

1. HR's four main characteristics:
Universal, Inherent, Inalinable, and Indivisible. 

2. Evolution of HR international:

 
Universal Declaration of HR (adopted since 1948) 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (right to life, freedom of religion, expression, assembly, due process) 

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (labor rights, right to health, right to education, right to adequate standard of living).

My comment: The 3rd is a move towards socialistic set up. Health and education have become state responsibility when they should be personal and parental/guardian responsibility.

3. State obligations re HR:

Obligation to Respect -- refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of rights.

Obligation to Protect -- prevent violation of rights by other persons and third parties.

Obligation to Fulfill -- take appropriate measures towards realization of rights.

My comment: These are consistent with the Intl. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, good.

4. Three Pillars of UN Guiding Principles on HR:

Protect -- State duty to protect (prevent, investigate, punish, redress)

Respect -- Corporate responsibility to respect (respect HR throughout operations)

Remedy -- Victims access to remedy.

During the QnA, I posted my Qs:

1. Hi Arpee, do other people have “human rights” over my (or your) income and savings?
If No, thank you.  If yes, on what basis, why, and how much?

2. Re “environmental rights” leading to higher fossil fuel taxes to “protect the environment/planet”, don’t farmers, harvesters, fisherfolks, truckers, etc also have human rights to cheaper oil, energy?

3. Is “non-poverty” or zero poverty a human right?
If No, good. If yes, how about those who are lazy, or industrious and work 7 days a week but also party and drink 7 nights a week and have zero savings, they deserve subsidies?

4. Re mandatory vax, currently implicit mandate via discrimination, since govt and pharma manufacturers have no liability and accountability if sickness and death happens after vax, if companies force their employees to be vaxxed, will they have liability?
If No, why? Any law/s that protect them from culpability?
If Yes, what laws specify their culpability re financial and personal damages?

5. If in doubt re lockdown vs econ dislocations, mandatory vax, the Constitution prevails, especially the Bill of Rights. Right?

Arpee answers:

1. No.
2. Complicated topic. Other example is mining.
3. Implicitly Yes. 4Ps pre pandemic, Ayuda during pandemic.
4. (My internet goes bonker, got disconnected, did not hear his ans. Out of town and using only Globe data)
5. A judicial matter.

Arpee is a product of UP (undergrad) and Ateneo (law), bad combination and likely to be socialist minded. But Arpee is also practical and has FNF bearing of freedom, thanks.

A socialist would answer my Qs above as:

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. No.
5. No.

And I will debate a socialist anytime. ;-)

Thanks for the good talk, Arpee.
------------------

See also: 
Pol. Ideology 78, Milton Friedman and China, October 26, 2020 
Pol. Ideology 79, Paul Krugman leftism, January 03, 2021
Pol Ideology 80, Capitalism reset, liberal democracy, September 10, 2021.