[Sorgam]

As well as being vague, human rights prioritize actions of the government over those of ordinary people - the high murder rate in America is not a human rights violation (what right could be more true than the right to not be killed?) but the relatively less severe execution rate of political prisoners in many other countries is a human rights violation. I live in a country with poor human rights but very good safety against violent crime. I'd much rather be here than in America where I won't be arrested for complaining about the government but I'm likely to be robbed or threatened with a gun if I walk down the wrong street at night. Different harm caused by different groups but one is a human rights violation and the other is not despite both being ultimately under the control of the government.

The effect of this is America can say "we have good human rights, we don't torture political prisoners" and an authoritarian country can say "We have good security, our people don't kill each other". The latter is usually more directly helpful to more people, but the former has somehow become seen as superior.

[kijin]

The reason government actions are often prioritized is that 1) governments have the power to violate human rights more deliberately, systematically, and effectively than most ordinary people, and 2) most people are utterly incapable of defending themselves against governments.

A random thug can violate your rights as much as a government can, but he's probably not doing it systematically, and it's usually much easier for you to protect yourself from his actions. A shotgun will keep random thugs away from your home, but it will do nothing to deter a SWAT team.

Human rights were designed to prevent systematic abuses that victims cannot possibly protect themselves from, such as Hitler's persecution of ethnic minorities. The UDHR of 1948 was a direct response to the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany. The framework of human rights was never intended to protect ordinary people from one another: that's what the police is for.

[Sorgam]

If it's only systematic abuses, then the rogue police torturings in Brazil that the article described would count as "crime" and not be human rights violations. I think it's a grey area between the government allowing it to happen and actively doing it. Is a policeman breaking his rules really worse than a powerful gang? The latter may do more systematic harm and be more inescapable.

[danbruc]

If you violate national law, it is a crime, otherwise it is a human rights violation. If you violate national law but the law is not enforced, you end up in the grey area. I this case I would say if the state actively looks away it is a human rights violation, if the state is just overwhelmed it remains a crime. This of course again leaves a smaller gray are around looking away because you are overwhelmed.

[kijin]

The police represent the government, and everything the government does is assumed to be systematic. So it's a human rights violation, unless you can prove that it really was the isolated behavior of a rogue police officer.

[learc83]

>"We have good security, our people don't kill each other". The latter is usually more directly helpful to more people, but the former has somehow become seen as superior.

Surely there is a level of authoritarianism which you wouldn't support? How far is too far in the name of safety? I suspect different cultures have different answers.

You also can't just look at the murder rate. Let's use China as an example, sure they have less murders than the U.S. (maybe partly because they are more authoritarian), but there are fewer labor protections. You may be less likely to be shot in China, but you are more likely to be killed on the job.

>I'd much rather be here than in America where I won't be arrested for complaining about the government but I'm likely to be robbed or threatened with a gun if I walk down the wrong street at night.

I'm not sure were you're from, but being threatened with a gun is not a common occurrence in America, it's certainly not likely--even if you are walking down the wrong street.

The US has a higher homicide rate than Western Europe, but if you remove gang members and drug related homicides, the numbers go way down.

The high murder rate is definitely a problem, but most of the Europeans I've talked to think it is something that middle class Americans deal with on a day to day basis. This is simply not true.

[danbruc]

The United States are probably not the best country for comparisons when it comes to human rights.

The United States was a traditional leader in human rights and one of the few countries that has used its power to advance human rights in other nations.

What? When? And compared with which countries?