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

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by chula *
****SenorBeef**You’re plain wrong - none of those things are crimes. But anyway, I don’t see how it matters whether it falls under criminal or contract law. In any case, you’d expect the government to expend resources to protect your rights.

**

I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure telling someone “scrub my toilet for a week and I’ll pay you $5”, and then, after they do the work, refusing to pay them, is a form of fraud.

I expect the government to enforce the law. What you’re trying to say here, still, is if the government spends one cent enforcing the law, and therefore ‘protecting my rights’, then that’s no different from buying everyone a yacht.

**
The Ryan
That has to be the most resounding endorsement of socialism possible!

**

Huh?

**
You’re definitely overreacting. How could my statement be a personal insult when 1) I don’t refer to anyone in particular and

**

Everyone in this thread that disagrees with my points is a big poopy head!!!

**
2) it is a factual observation? The UDHR defines the basic principles of “human rights,” and that definition has near universal acceptance.

**

Cite?

**

If you disagree with most of the provisions, then by definition you disagree with human rights. You can’t just use your own personal definition of a phrase in an argument, when an accepted definition already exists.

**

“Collective” human rights ‘granted’ by the Soviet Government were pretty well accepted in their own circle… therefore any disagreement you have with them is moot.

**
There is plenty of room for disagreement in how to implement them, but a consensus on general principles was reached more than 50 years ago.I said that the idea of “natural rights,” which is different than “human rights,” was discredited. It was discredited because it didn’t make any sense.

**

If rights aren’t innate, and natural, then they’re created and granted by a body of government. If the government is the source of these rights, then they have complete control over these rights - how to restrict them, to eliminate them, etc. These “rights” don’t make sense. They’re privileges.

**
I am truly baffled by everyone’s insistence that rights exist independent of any human society. Where are they? Who created them? (Everything that exists had to have been created by someone or something.) This religious/mythical position has no place in a rational debate.

**

What you seem to be saying is that there’s no such thing as rights, but whatever the government provides it’s serfs at a given time, at their discretion, should be called ‘rights’ to make everyone a happy little sheep.

**
You need the read the statement in its context. I was accused of bullshitting, so it seemed appropriate to cite some authorities on the subject. Yes, there is such a thing as an authority, and you don’t become was just by getting some degrees. You become one by spending your whole life over the course of decades researching, analyzing, writing about, and talking about the subject. You also have to gain the respect of your peers by coming up with original and reasoned ideas. One opinion is more valid than another when it is based on accurate information, logically sound, free from prejudices, etc. If you spend tremendous amounts of time analyzing the issue, you’re more likely to develop a more valid opinion. Do you really believe you are just as much as an authority as my professor?

**

And if someone with equal education disagrees, then the universe will implode.

**

Joe_CoolNo, it’s definitely not a “right.” It might be necessary to provide a fair hearing for someone accused of a crime, but it’s not a separate right.

**

That’s really screwed up. You think people have the right to be fed through handouts, but not the right to preserve their own life. And then you criticize us for having some supposed lack of concern for human rights. That’s odd.

**

Huh? I seem to find that word in my copy of the Constitution. There are numerous additional rights in the Constitution that are not explicitly called “rights.”

**

Sorry, I just wanted to make it clear that the Constitution does not grant any rights. It does mention rights, but only in the context of forbidding the government to take any actions to infringe them.

**
When did I say that? I did say: “States are not obligated to give people food, housing, health care, or anything else” and “human rights do not require a socialist system.”

**

Sorry, then what are you saying?
If you’re saying “the right to eat” is a right, and said person does not provide for themselves… then what?

If you’re saying “The people have the right to provide themselves with food, free from government interference”, then I’d agree with you. I sincerely doubt you’re saying anything of the sort.

So if not handouts, what?

**
Interesting that you propose these things are solutions to poverty. You actually advocate handouts. Both the actions you mention can only be done by the wealthy, and not all of us are wealthy.

**

Er… you seem to think we’re a bunch of Poor Hating Crazies. He opposes taking everyone’s money to support handouts, which is a FAR, FAR different thing than a private individual deciding to give their money or time to charity.

He opposes government mandated handouts, not helping the needy in general.

**

I think a better idea is to change the social structures that create poverty. I don’t feel like listing the sacrifices I make to help the poor, because I don’t do it so that I can brag about how noble I am. I put my money, and my life, where my mouth is. You’re really in no place to lecture me.

**

We’re not trying to say you don’t try to help the needy. You seem to be implying that about us. This debate has nothing to do with whether or not we’re good humanitarians. It’s about whether the government should be able to take everyone’s money by force to provide handouts for others. That has no bearing on private charities - other than the simple fact that if the government was forcibly taxing less to provide handouts through inefficient bureacracies, people would have more time and/or money to help the needy.

**
No special effort?! Tell that to the people who work in the criminal justice system! **

You seem to be forcing incorrect conclusions about us. A government is responsible for providing enforcement of the law. You’re either saying “If you have any government, you therefore can have all government”, or “Well, if you bar the government from doing anything, you might as well not have a government.”

In this particular case, you seem to be implying that since we don’t believe the government should be giving handouts, we don’t believe they should go through the effort to enforce the laws.