Back in 2010, somebody asked a question about group rights, and mentioned the right to transmit one's language. Thomas Pogge replied by saying:
"You have a right to speak to your children in the language of your choice; but do you also have a right that they be taught this language in school? Not, presumably, if you're the only speaker of this language far and wide. But if thirty percent of the adults in your town speak Spanish as their native language, then that could be a very compelling reason for requiring that Spanish be taught in the local schools."
My question is: Isn't this what democracy is for? If a sufficiently large proportion of a community has an interest in one thing or another, deliberative democracy ought to provide them with a way to satisfy that interest (opening their own schools; mandatory Spanish classes in all schools; extra funding for schools with Spanish classes; etc.). Is that all group rights are, then? People negotiating situations favorable to their interests within a democratic framework?
If group rights are the result of successful negotiations in democratic frameworks, then that must mean individuals rights are similar, i.e. the right to life (unless you are killed by somebody defending their own life from you) is a right because it has been (or would be, if anyone bothered to make an issue about it) successfully negotiated in a democratic framework?
Read another response by Thomas Pogge
Read another response about Justice