Nathan Key

* * *

So what are rights anyway?

When the founding fathers of the United States were drafting our Declaration of Independence, they had been grappling with this question quite a bit. It was even more important to them because they had been living under the boot of oppression. They were colonists who were being taken advantage of in order for the "homeland" to finance wars, debt, and extravagances. Feeling the burden of injustice, they didn't merely fight back- they thought through their situation and came to a rational conclusion about why they felt slighted.

Most of them didn't want to be a free and independent State.
They merely wanted to be treated fairly and equally.

From their writings and the writings of contemporary philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes, and others, we've now got a rather nice framework from which we can address Universal Human Rights. I'm going to write about them a little differently than these men did, but this blog is entirely based on the principles they laid out- just so you know where I'm getting my ideas.

In order to fully understand Human Rights, it's important to distinguish between three sets. We'll call the first Goods & Services. These are things that people are able to produce or enact. The second category is Legislated Rights. These are entitlements that a particular government or community has given to its citizens. The final category is Universal Rights. These are rights and freedoms that are common to all humans on the basis of their existence rather than their citizenship, beliefs, or purchasing power.

Universal Rights. In order for something to qualify as a legitimate Universal Right, it must fit within the following two criteria:

1. It must be accessible/inherent to all people, in at all times, in all places in the world.

In regard to number one, we must qualify Universal as ALL people. In the future, as technology changes, humanity might come across something that's good and beneficial for the folks living in that time period. But since those of us living today, and everyone who's lived before us were unable to benefit from that advancement, it cannot be a Universal Right. It doesn't meet the qualification of ALL people. So language, computers, cell phones, and the like cannot be rights because they are not common to all people in all time periods.

The same can be true of anything that is contingent upon living in a certain area of the world. We cannot say that anyone has the right to swim. Swimming is something that one can do only if they have access to water. In some areas of the world, there isn't any water readily available for swimming, and so this could not be classified as a Universal Right.

2. It must not be reliant upon another human being's existence, property, or will.

This criteria is a little more tricky, but it's true nonetheless. Basically, it says that we cannot claim as a Universal Right anything that is reliant upon someone else. For example, I cannot claim a Universal Right to Mutual Love. Mutual Love requires that another person exists and that they have the ability and desire to love us back.

In the same way, I can't ever say that I have a Universal Right to someone else's work or their food. This is because a Universal Right wouldn't just mean that I have a right to it, but that all people, in all places, and in all times have a right to this person's work or food. Even if that person agrees that everyone at all times can partake, we cannot say that this is a true Universal Right because it's still contingent upon that person's will- not to mention the fact that food and work are limited resources and therefore CANNOT ever be given to all people.

So, what are some Universal Rights?

Our founding father's decided that Life, Liberty, and Property were some.

Life- each man and woman is entitled to their life. No one should be allowed to take it from them needlessly.

Liberty- each man and woman is entitled to make their own decisions. Although we agree to give up some of our personal liberty in order to respect the "lifes and property" of others, all men are free (yes, was completely hypocritical for the men who owned slaves to write such a thing, but I believe it's true of all time, even if some people throughout history were denied this right)

Property- each man and woman is entitled to the work of their hands. If they make it, grow it, or construct it, they can claim it as their own and should not be required to surrender it against their will.

Legislated Rights. These are rights that are given to us because we live under a certain time period or a certain government or community. Voting is a good example of a legislated right. It cannot be Universal because it requires a Democracy or some other representative form of government, and let's face it, not all people live under a Democracy. Some other examples could include a Trial by Jury, Miranda Rights (the right to remain silent), and Marriage. Legislated Rights can also entail the rights that a person might have to another person's Universal Rights based on fulfillment or violation of contracts- for instance, I might be entitled to another person's property if they have agreed to give it to me for a sum of money or service and I provide that money or service. It could also be said that if an individual violates the Universal Rights of an individual- takes their life, liberty, or property without their consent, the individual who violates those rights may have abandoned their own and be required to give up their life, liberty, or property as a result.

Goods & Services. The are things that are created, designed, grown, or provided by other humans for the benefit of others. These include food, clothing, homes, land, manicures, cell phones, medical care, education, and anything else that is given to us or provided by us.

This is where I'm probably going to get a lot of arguments, but I'm going to say VERY STRONGLY that we cannot EVER claim as a Universal Right anything that requires another person to provide it. Goods and Services cannot EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER be Universal Rights.

Simply stated, if I cannot have a Universal Right to food because that would mean that the farmer who produces it has no property rights or liberty rights. If I have a right to it, I can take it without his consent. In fact, I could force him to grow it for me if it were truly a Universal Right.

Same thing for Education.

I cannot say that all humans are entitled to education because such a claim would first require that there be teachers and professors. Then, it would also mean that my claim to their services trumps any rights they have as to what their services are worth or who they'd like to give their services to.

Same thing for Healthcare.

I cannot say that all humans are entitled to medical care because such a claim would first require that there be doctors, nurses and medicine. But secondly, it would also mean that my right to their services trumps their right to give their services and their right to choose who to give their services to.

The conundrum: Both education (and soon Healthcare if we're not careful) are actually Legislated Rights in a lot of countries (including here in the US). This means that the government has taken the Universal Rights of Liberty and Property away from the individuals in the Education and Heathcare industries and given it to the rest of the citizens.

It may not seem like such a big deal- after all- it seems to benefit everyone, right?

But the problem is this- if you forcibly take away rights from some individuals, you take it away from ALL individuals. This means that claiming a right to Healthcare and Education actually dehumanizes all of us in the process. We all suffer the loss of our Universal Rights when we choose to take them forcibly from someone else.

This isn't to say that Education and Healthcare are unimportant. They are vital. They are almost as vital as food- which is another thing we're not "entitled to." So we need to look for ways to make sure that all people have access to Education, Healthcare, and food.

But the answer isn't redefining these things as Universal Rights or Legislating them. Because when we do, we all lose. The quality of life, liberty, property (and therefore education and Healthcare) all decrease when we try to manipulate the system into something that it's not.

* * *

Nathan Key: Thanks for agree to let me interview you, Chris. Now, from what I’ve read on your blog, you've recently decided to head back to school for an MFA? Can you tell us more about that and what prompted you back into education?

Christopher Cocca: There's no shortage of opinions on the utility of the MFA on the web and in general. For me, it's about being around other people who are trying to do the same thing I'm trying to do: push myself to producing the best possible texts. Doing this with other writers (students and teachers) appeals to me. If I had to do it over again, I wouldn't major in creative writing or English instead of political philosophy as an undergrad. And I'd still get the MDiv. I'd do it all the same as I did, including eventually going back and exploring/improving this part of what I do in a more formal, educational setting. I'm glad to be going back now, in my extremely late 20s, with a very clear focus.

NK: You know, sometimes I wish I could head back to high school and college with that clear focus you just mentioned- knowing then what I do now. Ah well… On your blog you've mentioned Postmodernism quite a bit, lately. One meme I've been exploring here on this site is the postmodern idea of "death of the author" and how media, art, and literature have been affected. As a guy who's writing a novel and working toward publishing your own ideas and stories, how is your role as a writer and storyteller changing?

CC: The death of the author is another way of saying everyone's an author. In the postmodern literary sense where reader-response sometimes is taken to trump everything, I get what some people mean, but on the other hand, with all of us social networking, tweeting, meme-ing, song-quoting, whatever...everyone is some kind of passer-on of content. Some people are creating, authoring. Some people are receiving and retransmitting. Many, actually. RT hashtag cliche. The interesting thing to me is that our references are so ubiquitous but people still think that repeating them makes them clever or interesting, that somehow repeating this line or lyric or saying this punch-line or snarky thing --- the punch-line everyone's expecting because you've heard it a million times --- makes us authors. I'm talking about general conversation here, not just the passive-aggressive what I had for lunch today Facebook status updates. And then you've got what's going on in Iran, which should really make all of us feel pretty shameful about most of the things we use social media and social networking for. Nothing in the world to say and all the freedom to say it.

Here I'm going to do it myself: we're like the Junkions from the original Transformers movie (the cartoon). Using catch phrases from television shows to navigate our lives and determine how we speak to one another. In art, this is interesting: it's open source, it's sampling, it's remixing. It's the good things about the death or redefinition or authorship.

In conversation, it's the worst. It's free time x cheap entertainment x laziness. I tend to feel this way about cliche in writing, too. So, as an author or a writer or a blogger or whatever, I try to edit all of those placeholders out. The challenge is finding new ways to say things, and I think this goes for speech and relationships, too. No one can ever play "In Your Eyes" for Ione Skye again. Think of all the tender little phrased you'd love to say to your wife if you weren't so embarrassed by them because people in movies said them first.

Maybe the problem is using other people’s art to express yourself in the first place. Sometimes it's amazing (the Grey Album, for example), or the open source art projects that are coming up. But in real life it's sort of cheesy. So I think we need to learn to make our own art for our own purposes, which is why people started making art in the first place.

NK: Speaking of Open Source- which makes me think of all sorts of free downloadable content- you've been posting some bits and pieces of your novel, Milton County Power & Light up on your blog lately. I've seen a few other authors post their books online, too- Monster Island is a great example- and I'm wondering if the future of authors is similar to the future of musicians- it doesn't really seem like musicians really need record labels, and it doesn't seem like writers need publishers. Where do you think we're heading with all this?

CC: This is something people are talking a lot about, especially with things like LuLu making publishing and delivery so easy. It seems very similar to the success we’ve seen among indie bands and unsigned artists through platforms and communities like MySpace, YouTube etc.

But while I agree that musicians don't really need record labels anymore, and while writers might not need publishing houses, they still need editors. I think that's the disconnect in the analogy. A musician can throw up a demo or a crummy song on MySpace and when no one likes it they can take it down, make it better, whatever. But if you self-publish a novel before it's really ready, that's out there forever. I think we sort of understand music as more of a work in progress in the sense that demos and alternate cuts and completely unfinished songs are interesting. Boxsets and anthology albums are full of these things and people collect the bootlegs. It's not the same with writing.

That said, just like writers need editors, most musicians need producers. But then you've got this whole crop of one-man virtual bands that do it all in their bedroom on a Mac and it's amazing. Chad Van Gaalen is like that. I guess what I'm saying is that it depends on the maturity of your talent. I know that I'm not about to self-publish a novel because I know how much work I still have to do. If I wrote a perfect pop song, maybe, I'd know it. At present, my book isn't that.

So that's the practical side of it. But there's also another difference. Releasing your own album is almost a badge of honor. When your band gets big you can reminiscence about how you put out the first EP yourself and sold it out of your car and even for people who never make it past that, I think it's all very romantic. It's cool. Maybe I only think that because I haven't done it. But there's not the same kind of vibe when it comes to self-publishing. I think most writers aren't ready to say the self-publishing has the same kind of punk ethos. Even small presses who's mission is to publish new voices or avant guard stuff have editors and gatekeepers and for good reason. Someone has to go to bat for your work. Reading an experimental novel doesn't have the same built-in viral opportunities that listening to a 4 minute alt.country track does. It's just not a viral medium. This is probably why flash fiction is so popular on the web. Six-sentence stories or one-sentence stories can become memes. That's what tweets are, and people are using Twitter and Tumblr and Facebook for this kind of viral lit, mircostories, koans, whatever.

NK: Of course, none of those writing forums pay really well, either. I know from past experience that a band might be able to make money from live music shows or T-shirts. But writers don’t really have that sort of thing…

CC: As far as a paycheck, at the moment, I think it's more about building social and artistic capital than actual capital. But publishers will find a way to make more money than they currently are off of the kinds of things you're talking about. Writers will too and a few already are. Present company excluded.

NK: OK, last question. Who'd you bet on if Stephen King and John Grissom were up against each other in a cage match?

CC: Neil Gaiman.

NK: Nice.

* * *