Did Anyone Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declar.'n of Human Rights?

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by chula *
Do you think that they didn’t have due process rights in mind when they decided the country needed a judicial system?

No, I don’t think rights were in mind when it came time to create a judicial system. I think it was more the impossibility of running a country without one.

Fairness and human rights probably were instrumental in determining the form that our judicial system finally took, but the necessity for one does not spawn from rights concerns.

And besides, you’re straying away into red herring territory. My point isn’t that rights concerns aren’t instrumental in designing a government. My point is that rights simply are, as The Ryan said. Rights are what a just government cannot take from me or stop me from doing.

Trial rights aren’t special privileges granted by the government. They are the mechanisms of fairness and honesty that are designed into the system in order to carry out justice. To deny the protection that is built in by default is to act unfairly and unjustly, and to violate an accused person’s rights.

Putting up a blockade meant to stop people from receiving food would be a violation of basic human dignity. But the government is under no obligation to feed people. We have the responsibility to feed ourselves. Knocking down somebody’s home without justification is depriving somebody of shelter, and a violation of basic human dignity. Forcibly stopping somebody from seeking medical help is a violation of basic human dignity. Failing to provide me with free medical care is not.

So, like I said above, I agree in a sense, but I don’t believe that sense is the spirit in which the UN declaration was issued.

My point was that ensuring many civil and political rights requires affirmative action (I mean in the literal sense) on the part of the government. You should try living without a roof over your head, enough food in your stomach, or access to health care. Now that’s rough.

Not treading on my rights does NOT require action. It requires INaction. If I’m on a soapbox speaking my mind on the cost of widgets, does it require special action for the government not to violate my right to freedom of speech? NO! It requires them to do nothing at all. If I’m praying to my God, does it require positive action from the government to allow me to practice my religion freely? No, it requires the absence of interference. More things that do not require action in order to avoid violating my rights:

• Not quartering soldiers in my house.
• Not compelling me to testify against myself.
• Not seizing my property without due process. Now you probably will argue that due process is, itself, positive action. But it’s not - it’s neutral action. It’s due. It’s the standard procedure when the government acts. Denying me the process of law due me is action, because it interrupts the normal flow of procedure. Of course, now you might say that recognition of my rights was what prompted the necessity for due process, to which I answer: It is unjust for a government to seize property without good reason. The seizing of property is the action. Due process of law is simply the act of ensuring that the seizure is fair and justified.
• Providing me with counsel (Gadarene) if I cannot afford representation also seems like the government acting to provide me with a privilege. However, this also falls under the umbrella of fairness and justice. Failure to provide an indigent with representation (knowing that the prosecution will have an attorney) is economic discrimination. The normal flow of procedure in a criminal case is that there are two attorneys: One prosecuting, and one representing the accused. Eliminating half of that is stepping outside the bounds of normal procedure (and almost guaranteeing a conviction), and is therefore the action.
• Denying me a speedy trial is an interruption of procedure, which requires special action. If all things are equal, I will be tried on schedule the same as any other person accused of the same charge.
• Failing to deny me the right to arm and defend myself does not require special action. It requires only that you stay out of my business. The natural state of any being is to defend itself, and the human being is no exception. If we were not able to arm ourselvles, we wouldn’t have risen to the state of being where we are able to sit around and debate whether we are entitled to be armed. The special action is taken when trying to DISarm me.

Failure to interfere is not affirmative action (literal sense).

Did you read your own quote? The clauses may be “declaratory” (like in the UDHR) or “restrictive.” However, I don’t disagree with your basic conclusion, that the guys who wrote it conceived of them as limitations on government power. That’s one way of framing the issue, but it’s not necessarily the most accurate way, so who cares?

Yeah, I’ve read it many times. The reason for the Bill of Rights was to prevent the government from misconstruing and abusing its powers. So (we agree that) the Bill of Rights was drafted to limit the power of the government, in order to DENY it the power to violate rights that pre-existed the government, simply by virtue of the fact that we are human. The fact that it says “these are rights” does not mean they were granting rights to us, but rather recognizing that we already possess them. Whether other governments recognize them doesn’t change whether they exist.

However, basic needs for survival are not rights (beyond what I said above - the government cannot deny these, but is not obligated to provide for them, either), and are not something that should be granted by governments. That’s like saying you have the right to breathe. That’s not a right; you simply do it, or you die. There is no legislating that, and therefore, no need to. Same goes for food. You have the right to eat as much as you can forage, kill, or buy.

These due process rights are actually a pretty typical example. It’s just a matter of how you phrase it. For example:
An individual’s right to a fair and speedy trial -> The government’s obligation to create and maintain a fair and efficient judicial system.

The judicial system, with its processes procedures and protections, already exists. Any country already has some method for trying accused criminals. It doesn’t take any special effort to run suspects through it.

**An individual’s right to vote -> The government’s obligation to create and maintain a functioning electoral system.
**

The individual right to vote wasn’t recognized at all in the Constitution, until it became necessary to say that because white people are entitled to vote, all races must be extended this privilege equally. The original mechanism for the election of the President was this:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

No mention of an individual right to vote. The president was elected by the states, not the people. In the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the only mention of voting is with respect to Congress when passing laws and electors voting on the Presidency. Personally, I really think voting was a granted privilege that has grown into being perceived as a right, but is not a right as such.

An individual’s right to free speech -> The government’s obligation to create and enforce laws that protect and promote this right and reasonably balance it with other rights (such as the right to privacy).

Disagree. The right to free speech requires only noninterference. The government doesn’t need to create laws to protect the right, it needs only not violate it.

An individual’s right to be free from slavery -> The government’s obligation to punish those who attempt to keep slaves.

Here, I agree. I think this is the only right that actually demands special action on the part of the government in order to protect it. But that is only because of the corrupt nature of mankind to attempt to enslave the weak.

**All rights create a corresponding duty on the state to act. It is not simply a matter of “denying” the right.

But the government does this all the time. If you try to take the things you need, you are punished by the criminal system. I’m not saying that stealing and squatting are the best way to solve this problem; I’m just pointing out that the government does not take a neutral stance on how people may acquire basic necessities.

Funny, you say you don’t want the government to “hand you” anything, and yet you do expect it to hand you all kinds of things in order to protect your other rights. **

Nope. I don’t demand a lot of the government. Only that it enforce the (just) laws of the land (I’d prefer that it eliminate a lot of wasteful, stupid, and unjust laws) and defend the borders. Oh, and pick up the trash. I am a firm believer in minimalist government, and do not collect handouts. In fact, I’m perfectly willing to provide for my own safety and defend my own rights. But the government seems to think it can do that better than I can, and so I could be arrested for defending my own home here in New Jersey.
Reading over my preview, I know I sound kind of disjointed. But it’s getting late, so I’m not going to copy-edit. Hopefully you can drag my meaning out of what I wrote.

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by Gadarene *
**Joe: Do you believe that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel to indigent defendants is wrongheaded? **

The government is placing the burden on you of arrest and trial. They are obligated to make sure you have a fair trial, this is a premise of the forming of a government. As such, if they choose to place the burden on you, they must provide you with legal defense as to garuntee a fair trial.

The individual in question, the trial lawyer, is not forced to be there - he is a voluntary civil servant, performing his civil service.

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
**Actually, I’ve a poster printed for this 50th anniversary pinned on a door on my left.

And I definitely believe that " a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services" is a right, not a priveledge.

**

Do you believe money and resources come from the magic money machine in the sky? That the government gets it’s resources from some faceless entity?

What you’re saying is that I should have to work extra hours every week, that I could be spending with my family, or the betterment of my family, to earn enough money to write a check to you, so that you have all of your needs taken care of.

With automatic tax withholding, and social money coming out of the “general” fund, we don’t have to think about this. We can just delude ourselves that the big magic resource machine in the sky is providing for the Poor Oppressed People.

But it basically comes down to this: I have to take resources that my labor has earned, that is meant to go to my family, the ones I love, and write a check out to you, because you have some notion that you have the RIGHT to force me to work for your existance.

You have some pretty screwed up views.

**

Actually, food and shelter are in my opinion much more basic rights than for instance the right to vote. Who care if you can vote, if you aren’t even able to feed yourself? Who, having to choose with food and shelter and no right to vote and no food and no shelter but the right to vote (assuming there’s a vote before you die from starvation, that is), would choose the later?

**

I think my right to own a yacht is far more important than my right to vote. Please go get a second and third job to get these for me.

Our government is set up on a premise that it will represent and serve the people. Part of this is, of course, determining a way for the people to determine their representation. Voting, naturally, seems the logical choice.

In general, the government is set up to provide an environment free from interference or oppression that will allow people to provide for themselves. To spoon-feed everyone everything they need is to rob from the productive to give to the unproductive.

**

By the way, several of these social rights are constitutionnal rights, here. Though the issue never arise, a law totally suppressing both unemployment benefits and social security would most probably be unconstitutionnal . I guess the poster who said the document mix real rights and priviledge has only the US constitution, and the US conception of “rights” in mind.

**

If a government is formed on the premise of forcing everyone to labor to support others, I guess that’s just reality. A government can be formed on the premise of everyone having the right to rape babies.

**

This has been a permanent issue between the east and the west during the cold war. When western countries pointed at the lack of civil rights in USSR and China, such countries would respond (and IMO, rightly so), that the said western coutries didn’t even guaranteed basic necessities of life. Stressing a right to a due process of law without any guarantee that one will receive food or medical care if needed is putting the cart before the horses. We’re talking basically about the right to live, here. Having a right to free speech without a right to live makes no sense.

**

Having a right to free speech, self determination, and all the others, but having the obligation to be forced to labor for other people makes no sense to me. It strikes me as some form of slavery, with some nice window dressing.

**
The fact that a country is happy with a constitution which guarantee civil rights but don’t care about the right to receive food if needed seems objectively weird to me. The right to vote, to a due process of law and to free speech without the right not to die from starvation, cold or curable disease? :rolleyes: Please, give me a break…

**

The right to free speech, and the right to make another person labor for your benefit? :rolleyes: Please, give me a break.

**
Of course, our western and affluent societies wouldn’t leave someone starve. But if you’re going this way, they wouldn’t remove our right to vote, either. So, if you believe that a constitution is really necessary concerning civil rights, it’s as necessary concerning food.

**

“So if you believe a constitution is really necesary concerning civil rights, it’s just as necesary concerning someone’s right to make you labor for them.”

**

The UN declaration off human rights is relatively well known here, and quite often refered to, by the way. **

Whee.

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by Hazel *
**I first heard of this declaration in an article that cited it to back up the assertion that we (in the US) should not trust the UN; that the UN, if it could, would wipe out our traditional liberties in a second. The article made the claim that it was untrue that the UN declaration was a sort of super bill of rights, garanteeing most of the same basic rights as does the US Bill of Rights – and more! Additional rights! According to the article, the key difference was that the UN declaration said, in effect, “we, your wise and benevolent government, are giving you these rights; you have them because, and only because, we are confiring them upon you”. Whereas, the US Bill of Rights is basically a list of things government is not allowed to do, so as not to interfear with the rights we just inherently have as human beings. **

This is true. The “rights” that the UN created are - and the document admits it - arbitrary and made up by the government. This means that they are not innate. They are subject to arbitrary change at the hands of the government.

The US government cannot arbitrarily decide or change rights, because they simply exist. They’re innate. Natural. Now, Congress can commit treason and try to “change” the rights by suppressing them, but the UN can arbitrarily decide what are rights and what aren’t.

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
**That’s an interesting distinction, **hazel[/z], but couldn’t someone read the bill of right as something like

we, your wise and benevolent government, we’ll refraining from these actions; we will refraining from doing them because, and only because, we have decided so "

That seems to me to be mostly an “UN is evil whatever it does because I said so” argument… **

You can read anything as you wish. The US government was set up by people who were very aware of the ability of government to suppress natural rights. They formed the government with a primary goal of protecting these rights (from government infringements).

Our representatives are saying “We will refrain from violating your rights because we are your servants, and the specific protection from infringement of your natural rights set up in the Constitution prevent us from doing so.”

In theory, anyway. If they violate that principle, we’re supposed to kill them.

The UN document, however, reads “We can change whatever it means to be a right, and you can’t do shit about it.”

[clairobscur]

Do you believe money and resources come from the magic money machine in the sky? That the government gets it’s resources from some faceless entity?

Yes. I’m utterly stupid, and I suppose hospitals are build with money falling from the sky :rolleyes:

What you’re saying is that I should have to work extra hours every week, that I could be spending with my family, or the betterment of my family, to earn enough money to write a check to you, so that you have all of your needs taken care of.

If I’m unable to take care of my needs myself (ill, unemployed, too old, etc…) I certainly expect it. Not form you, but from my fellow citizens. They also expect me to work extra hours to provide for their needs in the same situation.

And actually, you already work extra hours to provide for the need of other people, since your public hospitals don’t send packing people who can’t afford healthcare or are old, provide food tickets, provide free lawyers for people who can’t pay them.
I assume you have a major problem with that?

With automatic tax withholding, and social money coming out of the “general” fund, we don’t have to think about this. We can just delude ourselves that the big magic resource machine in the sky is providing for the Poor Oppressed People.

I already admitted it : I’m utterly stupid, and can’t figure out I pay taxes to fund healthcare. Other people in my country are similary stupid, since they overwhelmingly support this policy.

But it basically comes down to this: I have to take resources that my labor has earned, that is meant to go to my family, the ones I love, and write a check out to you, because you have some notion that you have the RIGHT to force me to work for your existance.

Exactly. That’s what you’re already doing each time someone receive medical care for free in a public hospital. Perhaps you didn’t realize it?

Weird that you always notice only one side of the issue and always refer to you working for free for the benefit of others. Would your argument be less convincing if you were complaining that other people would have to work for free for your benefit?

You have some pretty screwed up views.

Extremely commonplace view here. A politician who would defend your position in my country would have zero chance of being elected. But of course, it easily explained by the fact we all are screwed up idiots.

By the way, this screwed up concept is usually called “solidarity”, here. Don’t know what name you would give it.

I think my right to own a yacht is far more important than my right to vote. Please go get a second and third job to get these for me.

Can you defend rationnally the idea that owning a yacht is more important for a human being than feeding himself? Can you expect a majority of rational people to agree with this statement?
I don’t think so. Hence your comparison doesn’t hold water

Right aren’t defined on the basis of some weird individual can think at a given moment, but on the basis of what a society, as the sum of its individual members, believe is in the best interest of its members, collectively or individually.

Our government is set up on a premise that it will represent and serve the people. Part of this is, of course, determining a way for the people to determine their representation. Voting, naturally, seems the logical choice.

I’ve no issue with that. And of course since our society is also based on solidarity between its members, part of it is of course determine a way to take care of its members temporary (unemployed) or definitely (elders) unable to take care for themselves.

In general, the government is set up to provide an environment free from interference or oppression that will allow people to provide for themselves. To spoon-feed everyone everything they need is to rob from the productive to give to the unproductive.

Actually, most societies, even the most “primitive” hunter-gatherers ones will take of they elders, wounded, etc…if they can do so. It’s one of the main point of living in a society. I’m sorry in your society, people are left to die when they’re too old or to ill. Pretty much a fucked society, me think.

But of course, you’re going to respond that your society acutally don’t leave ill or old people die in the streets. So, probably, the concept of solidarity on a national level isn’t totally alien to you, nor as fucked up as you seem to believe.

Your real issue is with including this real facts in your theorical rights. I’ve no such issue. Since I think solidarity is not only right, but also a basic element of any society, it seems fine and natural to me it should be included in the constitutionnal rights.

If a government is formed on the premise of forcing everyone to labor to support others, I guess that’s just reality

I guess I already answered that. It’s called solidarity. You can call it “being forced to labor to support others” if you want. You must be very unhappy in your country where you actually have to do that on a regular basis, as I already pointed out. I’m sorry for you.
.

A government can be formed on the premise of everyone having the right to rape babies.

Probaly. It would certainly happen if say, 75% of the population of a country thought that one of the natural basis of a society is enabling its members to rape babies. If it was the case in the US, I suppose the constitution would be amended and would include something about the right to rape babies.

Of course, if you believe that you’ll never find 75% of the population to agree that raping babies is not only OK but one of the natural human rights and a basis of human society, your comment is just ludicrous and totally irrelevant.

Having a right to free speech, self determination, and all the others, but having the obligation to be forced to labor for other people makes no sense to me. It strikes me as some form of slavery, with some nice window dressing.

I guess I already understood your point and adressed it. I’m sorry to know you feel enslaved by all these people benefitting from Medicaid and Medicare.

The right to free speech, and the right to make another person labor for your benefit? Please, give me a break.

How many times will you repeat this argument. I got it right the first time, I believe…

“So if you believe a constitution is really necesary concerning civil rights, it’s just as necesary concerning someone’s right to make you labor for them.”

See above…

[clairobscur]

The US government cannot arbitrarily decide or change rights, because they simply exist. They’re innate. Natural.

Pure ideology, or should I say propaganda, at work, here. If they’re so natural, if they “simply exist” why different democratic societies have different definitions of these rights?
How this “natural” rights have been defined? Already (and naturally) engraved on some stone? Or could it be that a group of people have thought about them, argued about them and finally written down their best guesses at what exactly is to be considered a “right”, with the agreement, active or passive, of their constituents?

[clairobscur]

The US government cannot arbitrarily decide or change rights, because they simply exist. They’re innate. Natural.

Pure ideology, or should I say propaganda, at work, here. If they’re so natural, if they “simply exist” why different democratic societies have different definitions of these rights?
How this “natural” rights have been defined? Already (and naturally) engraved on some stone? Or could it be that a group of people have thought about them, argued about them and finally written down their best guesses at what exactly is to be considered a “right”, with the agreement, active or passive, of their constituents?

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
**

Yes. I’m utterly stupid, and I suppose hospitals are build with money falling from the sky :rolleyes:

**

I didn’t say you were stupid. Most people are mildly delusional about this. They refuse to really think about it.

It’s analogous to meat eating. Almost everyone eats meat, but no one actually thinks about eating an animal. If you show them the reality of it, show them a slaughterhouse, they’ll often change their minds quickly because they’ll be forced to think of the origin of that meat.

With welfare, since taxes are automatically withheld, and welfare money is taken from the general fund (meat is in the grocery store), you don’t have to think about the idea that you’re actually working to support another, random person. If you made people write checks to those they support (show them the slaughter house), they might begin to feel differently. Even though nothing has changed, except the sugar coating that allows delusions has been removed.

**
If I’m unable to take care of my needs myself (ill, unemployed, too old, etc…) I certainly expect it. Not form you, but from my fellow citizens. They also expect me to work extra hours to provide for their needs in the same situation.

**
Well, to the people of this country, I AM the ‘fellow citizens’, and I don’t want to work more than I have to to write checks to random people.

**
And actually, you already work extra hours to provide for the need of other people, since your public hospitals don’t send packing people who can’t afford healthcare or are old, provide food tickets, provide free lawyers for people who can’t pay them.
I assume you have a major problem with that?

**

Yes, as a general rule, the US government spends entirely too much money on free medical care.

**

I already admitted it : I’m utterly stupid, and can’t figure out I pay taxes to fund healthcare. Other people in my country are similary stupid, since they overwhelmingly support this policy.

**

I think people would feel differently if they had to write checks out to these people, instead of hiding behind the automatic withholding which allows them to go blissfully ignorant.

**

Exactly. That’s what you’re already doing each time someone receive medical care for free in a public hospital. Perhaps you didn’t realize it?

**

I realize it entirely. Where did I advocate free medical care for everyone?

**
Weird that you always notice only one side of the issue and always refer to you working for free for the benefit of others. Would your argument be less convincing if you were complaining that other people would have to work for free for your benefit?

**

Only to those who feel they’re entitled to the labor of others. I have no such feeling of entitlement. It’s the same thing, from either side of the argument.

**
Extremely commonplace view here. A politician who would defend your position in my country would have zero chance of being elected. But of course, it easily explained by the fact we all are screwed up idiots.

**

Where is “here”, anyway? You may very well be a bunch of screwed up idiots.

**
By the way, this screwed up concept is usually called “solidarity”, here. Don’t know what name you would give it.

**

A word created by Marxists, I believe. Take of that what you will.

I’d give the name incremental slavery, if it’s a matter of public funding.

**

Can you defend rationnally the idea that owning a yacht is more important for a human being than feeding himself? Can you expect a majority of rational people to agree with this statement?
I don’t think so. Hence your comparison doesn’t hold water

**

Can you defend rationally the idea that forcing a person to labor for your benefit is more important than their ability to have their own free will and self determination? Etc.

**
Right aren’t defined on the basis of some weird individual can think at a given moment, but on the basis of what a society, as the sum of its individual members, believe is in the best interest of its members, collectively or individually.

**

Maybe where you come from, but not in a Republic. Such concepts are generally called “mob rule”. If people wish to trade their self determination for the benefit of being well-cared-for herd animals, that’s their business, I suppose.

**
I’ve no issue with that. And of course since our society is also based on solidarity between its members, part of it is of course determine a way to take care of its members temporary (unemployed) or definitely (elders) unable to take care for themselves.

**

Hey, it’s a valid way to govern yourselves if your populace is meek enough to accept it. Worked so well for the soviet union, and all.

**

Actually, most societies, even the most “primitive” hunter-gatherers ones will take of they elders, wounded, etc…if they can do so. It’s one of the main point of living in a society. I’m sorry in your society, people are left to die when they’re too old or to ill. Pretty much a fucked society, me think.

**

In such societies, families take care of their own, and people volunteer to take care of their own. There isn’t a governmental body forcing people to do anything. You do realize that families will take care of their members, and people might even volunteer (gasp) to help people, without inefficient government programs, don’t you?

Have you ever considered that perhaps people are responsible for providing for themselves for retirement? Insurance in case they’re ill? A society where government doesn’t put it’s hand in everything is a society where people aren’t so burdened with taxes that they can easily provide for their own retirement.

Government can help set up a secure environment in which people will be able to provide for themselves. Those who are completely incapable of surviving, in a fair system, have no special privilege to live on the benefit of those who aren’t.

**
But of course, you’re going to respond that your society acutally don’t leave ill or old people die in the streets. So, probably, the concept of solidarity on a national level isn’t totally alien to you, nor as fucked up as you seem to believe.

**

It doesn’t, but I wouldn’t think that taking government’s hand out of the situation is going to leave people in the streets. Without all these ridiculous taxes, people could build meaningful savings instead of living paycheck to paycheck. Hell, they’d even have more money to fund charitable organizations - their choice. Government would protect a market in which everyone had a fair chance to survive and prosper.

If people die because they’re so incapable of being productive for their entire lives that they can’t survive in a fair system, I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing.

**

Your real issue is with including this real facts in your theorical rights. I’ve no such issue. Since I think solidarity is not only right, but also a basic element of any society, it seems fine and natural to me it should be included in the constitutionnal rights.

**

So we burden everyone to provide for the minority - with a generally inefficient, wasteful government. So many are left living paycheck to paycheck when they could prosper.

**
I guess I already answered that. It’s called solidarity. You can call it “being forced to labor to support others” if you want. You must be very unhappy in your country where you actually have to do that on a regular basis, as I already pointed out. I’m sorry for you.

**

Yes, I am not happy with the increased tendency to burden everyone with increasingly oppressive taxes to allow the government to keep a dependent class. Government doesn’t do this out of the goodness of their heart, they benefit from a dependent class who will be complacent, defend them, and vote for them.

**
.

Probaly. It would certainly happen if say, 75% of the population of a country thought that one of the natural basis of a society is enabling its members to rape babies. If it was the case in the US, I suppose the constitution would be amended and would include something about the right to rape babies.

Of course, if you believe that you’ll never find 75% of the population to agree that raping babies is not only OK but one of the natural human rights and a basis of human society, your comment is just ludicrous and totally irrelevant.

**

Well, I guess I’ll do my best as one small part of society who does not wish, like the rest, to be a herd animal, taken care of by the Benevolent Government.

**

I guess I already understood your point and adressed it. I’m sorry to know you feel enslaved by all these people benefitting from Medicaid and Medicare.

**

I do. What right do they have to my money? my time?

**
How many times will you repeat this argument. I got it right the first time, I believe…

**

I was making a specific criticism to the statement it responded to by forming it in the same manner.

**

See above… **

You too.

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by SenorBeef *
**Well, I guess I’ll do my best as one small part of society who does not wish, like the rest, to be a herd animal, taken care of by the Benevolent Government.
**

Senor Beef, you’ve made all my points before my browser finished loading the page, and you’ve done it with style.

So I’ll just add a fable of Aesop as a comment on this one sentence:

The Dog and The Wolf
(Better starve free than be a fat slave.)

A gaunt Wolf was almost dead with hunger when he happened to meet a House-dog who was passing by. “Ah, Cousin,” said the Dog. “I knew how it would be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get your food regularly given to you?”
“I would have no objection,” said the Wolf, “if I could only get a place.”
“I will easily arrange that for you,” said the Dog; “come with me to my master and you shall share my work.”
So the Wolf and the Dog went towards the town together. On the way there the Wolf noticed that the hair on a certain part of the Dog’s neck was very much worn away, so he asked him how that had come about.
“Oh, it is nothing,” said the Dog. “That is only the place where the collar is put on at night to keep me chained up; it chafes a bit, but one soon gets used to it.”
“Is that all?” said the Wolf. “Then good-bye to you, Master Dog.”

http://tomsdomain.com/aesop/id123.htm

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
Of course, if you believe that you’ll never find 75% of the population to agree that raping babies is not only OK but one of the natural human rights and a basis of human society, your comment is just ludicrous and totally irrelevant.

Just because you’re unable to understand the point of a comment, that doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant. Your response implies that the immorality of raping babies lies solely in what other people think about it, and there is nothing inherently evil about raping babies. Is that really what you think?

[perspective]

re:the dog and the wolf
By your analogy would you be free because you won’t be helping other people to get medical care or food?
You’re still working a job just like any other dog (unless of course you own enough capital to allow you not to work).

There are plenty of people who work very hard in the world who cannot afford their own medical care. In the US we seem to assume that people have a right to exploit others this way. A few people make a lot of money off of it, and the middle class is left to foot the bill. You have a right to feel indignant ,but you seem to forget who is really doing the enslaving.

[Ottto]

So being down on your luck, or flat out incompetent, allows you to raid my personal coffers (in the form of increased taxation)?

People do not have a 'right; to work, or to have medical care, or to education, or to any other right, apart from the right to ‘Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’.

Socialism, which is what the UN declaration of stupidity advocates, is deeply flawed at the social, economic, and moral levels.

Economically:
Socialists view the world as a ‘zero-sum’ game. There is finite wealth, and they must strive to distribute it ‘fairly’. Of course, this is an assinine view of economics, as history has proven that free markets expand the given economy.
It is up to the INDIVIDUAL, not the state, to redistribute that generated wealth. Want a better job? Get better skills. Want to purchase product A? Purchase it. Don’t have enough money? Get a better job. Have money, want to make more? Hire people to work for you. Et cetera.

Socially:
Handouts generate lazy bums. Most western nations have a permanent welfare-class. Why work when you can just get on the dole?
Immigrants to the United States have been and are the hardest working people in this nation, because they understand that hard work=money. However, there is an increase in the amount of immigrants coming here for the handouts, who don’t even make an attempt at ‘making it’. Yay for welfare.

Morally:
It is WRONG to take my money and give it to someone else. Just as it would be WRONG for me to go ‘redistribute a little wealth’ down at my local bank using a rifle, it is morally corrupt for the state to rob one segment of its population for the benifit of another.
I worked hard throughout college and my early career days to get to a good position. If someone else does not want to work hard, or does not have the gumption to work hard, or is not bright enough to realize that they must work hard, screw em. Let them starve.

[chula]

This topic of this discussion has become socialism, rather than human rights. As I pointed out, human rights do not require a socialist system. I knew that there were many people who disagree with certain social policies designed to implement human rights, but I am shocked to hear such vehement opposition to the fundamental concept of human rights. The ICCPR and ICESCR have been ratified by an overwhelming majority of states. Many national constitutions incorporate similar provisions. There is a consensus on this issue, and you guys who oppose human rights are in the minority.

The theory of “natural rights” enjoyed brief popularity in the 17th and 18th century and has been totally discredited. I suppose the fact that posters here subscribe to it has something to do with the fact that people like Thomas Jefferson was influenced by it and thus we see its perspective reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

SenorBeef, you’re kidding about Marxists having invented the word “solidarity,” right? Even if this assertion had some basis in reality, the implication that Marxists are a bunch of raving lunatics is way off base. No rational person who is familiar with Marx’s writings would claim that all his ideas are wrong.

Ottto’s proposed solution to world suffering (“Get better skills… Get a better job,” etc.) show such a profound lack of comprehension of the conditions under which the vast majority of people live that it is difficult to respond. Let’s state the obvious: You cannot get a job if there are no jobs available and you cannot get skills if there are no schools. Being malnourished or sick also impedes your ability to do these things.

[chula]

This topic of this discussion has become socialism, rather than human rights. As I pointed out, human rights do not require a socialist system. I knew that there were many people who disagree with certain social policies designed to implement human rights, but I am shocked to hear such vehement opposition to the fundamental concept of human rights. The ICCPR and ICESCR have been ratified by an overwhelming majority of states. Many national constitutions incorporate similar provisions. There is a consensus on this issue, and you guys who oppose human rights are in the minority.

The theory of “natural rights” enjoyed brief popularity in the 17th and 18th century and has been totally discredited. I suppose the fact that posters here subscribe to it has something to do with the fact that people like Thomas Jefferson was influenced by it and thus we see its perspective reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

SenorBeef, you’re kidding about Marxists having invented the word “solidarity,” right? Even if this assertion had some basis in reality, the implication that Marxists are a bunch of raving lunatics is way off base. No rational person who is familiar with Marx’s writings would claim that all his ideas are wrong.

Ottto’s proposed solution to world suffering (“Get better skills… Get a better job,” etc.) show such a profound lack of comprehension of the conditions under which the vast majority of people live that it is difficult to respond. Let’s state the obvious: You cannot get a job if there are no jobs available and you cannot get skills if there are no schools. Being malnourished or sick also impedes your ability to do these things.

[Ottto]

You miss my point: (Not that I neccesarily got it across properly!)

I don’t care about the poor masses, and I don’t want to spend my money making them not-poor or less-poor. If you do, great, spend YOUR money doing do.

As for objecting to the UN declaration, it is not that I object to people having rights. Far from it. It is what I consider to be peoples inalienable rights.

The right to freedom of speech…
The right to keep and bear arms…
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered…

The US Constitution, and related Amendments, are true rights. What the UN proposes is handouts and forced wealth redistribution. Socialism.

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by perspective *
**re:the dog and the wolf
By your analogy would you be free because you won’t be helping other people to get medical care or food?
You’re still working a job just like any other dog (unless of course you own enough capital to allow you not to work).

There are plenty of people who work very hard in the world who cannot afford their own medical care. In the US we seem to assume that people have a right to exploit others this way. A few people make a lot of money off of it, and the middle class is left to foot the bill. You have a right to feel indignant ,but you seem to forget who is really doing the enslaving. **

Ok, I’ll play. I normally don’t like “point out the logical fallacies”, but you’re making it seem like so much fun. Let’s see…

I see a straw man: I quoted a well-known fable to illustrate the distaste that I have being taken care of by the government. You responded by saying “Oh, you think helping the poor is enslavement?”

I see an appeal to emotion: Implying that my aversion to enslavement means that I think helping the poor is a bad thing.

I see an appeal to pity: There are people who work hard but cannot afford medical care. Therefore, my income should be forcibly taken from me and given to welfare programs.

I see a red herring: You respond by saying that it’s wrong for people in the US to exploit people by charging high rates for medical care.

Yes, I’m stuck working at a job just like any other dog. So? Does that mean that some lazy ass who doesn’t want to work should be entitled to a chunk of my income? (actually, for the record, I’ve been unemployed for 2 months, and I am not pursuing unemployment. Instead, I’m searching really hard for a job. Because I don’t want to collect a piece of your paycheck.)

By my analogy, I’m free because I don’t depend on a government handout for my survival. I do not exist on welfare. I do not collect a check for not working. I do not scream about my right to food or pay - I receive what I earn, and I eat what I buy.

That is why I’m free.

Oh, and since you want to judge me, I’ll respond. I do help the poor. I donated money to shelters when I was working. I give money to homeless people. I regularly buy meals for people who cannot feed themselves. I do not, however, approve of the government taking 25% of my income to put into the pockets of people who WON’T work, simply because it’s easier to collect welfare.

You do have a right to eat. You don’t have a right to be fed at my expense.
You do have a right to a livelihood. You don’t have a right to have that livelihood handed to you at my expense.
You have a right to live in any housing you can provide. You do not have the right to have housing be provided for you at my expense.
You have the right to get a job. You do not have the right to force me to hire you.

You have the right to provide for yourself, and you have the right to do and have pretty much whatever you want, until it interferes with my rights. Such as my right to keep what I earn and what belongs to me.

[chula]

I do not scream about my right to food or pay - I receive what I earn, and I eat what I buy.

And, if you did not receive payment for your work, you would demand the right to sue your employers for your wages, would you not? And if you paid for something and the seller refused to give it to you, you would expect a remedy. You would expect the government to pay (with tax dollars, of course) for the courts that provide you with the forum to do so. In other words, you would expect the government to expend resources to protect your “freedom.” Because in a pure capitalist system, with no government involvement, the capitalists aren’t going to hand over their money voluntarily - you need the government to enforce the rules.

[Crusoe]

*Originally posted by Ottto *
**The US Constitution, and related Amendments, are true rights. What the UN proposes is handouts and forced wealth redistribution. Socialism. **

Quick question: why are those enshrined in the US constitution ‘true’ rights? I’m genuinely interested; off-hand, I can’t think of any reason other than because you believe them to be so. That’s not a bad reason, of course, but it hardly trumps any alternative interpretation. Personally, I believe in a mix of positive and negative rights, but I’m happy to admit that it’s only my belief and probably unpalatable to you.

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by chula *
**And, if you did not receive payment for your work, you would demand the right to sue your employers for your wages, would you not? And if you paid for something and the seller refused to give it to you, you would expect a remedy. You would expect the government to pay (with tax dollars, of course) for the courts that provide you with the forum to do so. In other words, you would expect the government to expend resources to protect your “freedom.” Because in a pure capitalist system, with no government involvement, the capitalists aren’t going to hand over their money voluntarily - you need the government to enforce the rules. **

I don’t believe he advocated complete anarchy at any point. You seem to be operating from the premise that he did.

Are you saying that government has no valid purpose in enforcing laws? Or are you saying that enforcing the law where someone has been victimized (by robbed of their work) is equivelant to government stealing from the productive to give to the non-productive?

So we don’t draw any wrong assumptions, please clarify your intentions.