Civil Rights - Some Essentials

Americans' misunderstanding about the nature of civil rights lead to arguments that are based on false premises.  The core properties of civil rights that I'd like to discuss in this article are:

1. Civil rights are competitive
2. Civil rights' conflicts are resolved by policies that limit the rights of the parties in conflict
3. There are no absolute rights
4. Some rights are more essential or basic than others
5. A essential rights trump less important rights

Civil rights are competitive means that everyone's civil rights conflicts with someone else's. I am free to dance but not if I land on your feet. I can play music but not if it is so loud it damages your eardrums. One consequence of this obvious concept is that there are no absolute rights. There is no absolute right to dance or to play music or to speak or even to be born. Every right of one person may conflict with at least one of the rights of some other person.

Civil rights' conflicts are resolved by policies that limit the rights of the parties in conflict.  Laws that deal with these issues set limits on the rights of individuals when they conflict with equally important rights of other individuals. Row v Wade is an example of determining how to limit the rights of an embryo and its mother. I believe that did it in a thoughtful manner considering the rights of both parties to such conflicts. People who say that an embryo has an absolute right to be born do so be completely ignoring the rights of the other individual involved, namely the mother.

There are no absolute rights.  When anyone asserts that someone has an absolute right, they do so by ignoring or depreciating the rights of someone else.

Some rights are more essential or basic than others.  If I'm on fire, I should have the right to yell for help louder that it is pleasant for some people to hear. It is unlikely that I will prosecuted for disturbing the peace.

More essential rights trump less important rights.  I own a store. I have the right to serve who I want but I do not have the right to exclude customers on the basis of race.  If I did, it would stomp on the right of people to be served in public places.  I don't have the right to deny your rights.  This sounds simple but politicians every day assert their right to deny other people's rights.  

Being Fair to Israel

Most progressives use different standards to judge Israel & its enemies. That is bias. 

Most progressives don't criticize arabs' raining missiles on civilian areas or blowing up buses ... when it's done to Israel. That is #bias.

Criticism of Israel is not bias unless it is unfair. The most obvious kind of unfair criticism that which is false. The other kind is criticism based on different standards for opposing sides. The grossest use of unequal standards is when absolutely no standard is used for the Arabs - there is no criticism at all. 

Progressives, who pride themselves on being fair, should be fair to Israel.