Since this has become a GD/IMHO, I might as well weigh in.
Many U.S. citizens believe the UN is a danger to our national sovereignty (me included). We don’t want it telling us how to live our lives. Furthermore, the U.N. does not recognize natural rights, which automatically makes it an evil entity.
Most people don’t want anyone telling them how to live their lives but because people will not behave ethically or morally in the absence of incentives and punishments we need social contracts/ constitutions to lay down the law. The UN could work on the same principle on a larger scale. Nation states can’t be trusted to behave ethically or morally so their activities should be monitored and restricted. The UN has the legislature and the judiciary to do this but no executive to enforce its decrees. You don’t have to tell me how unlikely a functioning “world constitution” is anytime soon, but I think that should be seen as a problem.
Its true that political self-interest motivates many if not most UN interaction right now, but some decrees truly exist for the greater good of society. I think documents detailing the rights of children fall under that category, and its a shame that it will be a long time if ever that the UN receives the power it lacks to enforce laws like these.
I’m struggling to guess what this might mean. “Natural rights” (at least in the usage I’m familiar with) refers to a specific theory that was popular with philosophers some time ago and was the predecessor to the modern human rights movement. One still hears arguments in favor of human rights based on natural rights theories, but modern thinking on human rights encompasses a bit more. How does subscribing to a more modern version of an old philosophy make you evil?
What kind of Hogwash are you trying to sling here Crafter_Man ?
From the Columbia Encyclopedia, entry on Natural Rights
Here’s the text of the declaration
Perhaps you meant to say that you feel the UN is evil because it does not back your particular version of Natural Law ? While this thread is in GQ, it’s considered polite to at least make some effort to check your facts before blatting out your opinions.
My apologizes. Move to GD please.
The “Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations” is nothing more than an ode to socialism, and in no way realizes Locke’s description of natural rights. It goes without saying that some of the rights listed therein incidentally happen to be natural rights, but so what? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Consider some of the so-called “rights” listed in the Declaration:
Right to unemployment pay
Right to a minimum wage
Right to a welfare check
Right to food
Right to clothing
Right to housing
Right to medical care
Right to social services
Right to free education
Right to social security
These are “natural rights”? Then why am I paying for food & clothing? If I have a right to such things, these should be provided to me at no cost.
And where is my right to keep and bear arms? Suspiciously missing, isn’t it? This omission alone renders it to the trash heap.
I reiterate that the UN is an evil organization.
Since when is Locke the final authority on what is good and evil? Also, just because you have a right to something doesn’t mean it’s going to be handed to you on a silver platter. You have a right to food; if you can’t afford any there are private and public institutions that will help you out. Unlike say in Somalia, where a despotic regime tried to actively starve its people. Last, you think you have a “natural right” to a gun and any government that doesn’t allow you free access to one is evil?
So if I understand correctly, your “non-evil” world government would not have to provide education, healthcare, or a minimum wage, but everyone gets a gun? Ooooh, where do I sign? :rolleyes:
According to this article infant mortality is defined differently in the US which may cause the statistics to look larger than in other countries.
The site unfortunately does not provide a link to the source for this.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think the image of the UN pushing this toothless declaration at the Americans is comparable to Bart Sibrel chasing Buzz Aldrin with a bible? “If you don’t perform this purely ceremonial act, then you’re evil and have something to hide and we have the right to act holier than thou.”
Bart Sibrel is just a crackpot chasing after his own delusions, he is not in any way, shape, or form analogous to the UN which is chasing after very real and at times very lofty goals. But, in all fairness what exactly does Aldrin risk by humoring some nut? 30 seconds of his time? Well, he didn’t feel like humoring an ass who made a whole film saying his greatest accomplishment was a hoax. Completely understandable.
What does America risk by supporting a symbolic gesture that may eventually help children? Its sovereignty? Highly doubtful. I think the bottom line is America is the biggest kid in the sandbox and he’s gonna play by his own rules no matter what.
It should be noted that the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed in 1948, far from being “pushed” on America, was was chiefly WRITTEN by Americans, who lobbied extensively for its passage.
Lest we forget, the UN itself was largely an American creation. Why do so many of us American hate it so passionately, I wonder, when we have a veto power over anything it does?
I agree, this thread should go to GD.
A brief history of the UDHR is here.
Or, conversely they’re fluffy, feel-good timewasters that allow the signatories to have orgies of smarmy self-congratulation without actually doing anything.
Any country that should sign the document either won’t sign it at all or will and not mean it and won’t enforce it.
Since the U.N. is incapable of actually doing anything to enforce the treaty (what if, say, England (after signing) said “I say, old beans. That whole child slavery thing? Ruddy stupid. We’re selling our children to coal mines, cheap.” What could the U.N. actually do other than sputter helplessly in outrage and send strongly worded letters?) what good would it actually do??
Um…and on preview, what Bryan Eckers said.
Fenris
Fenris, If Bush can make a case for a response to Iraqi violation of UN arms resolutions, someone else could do the same to the UK if they so severely and publicly violated children’s rights. The UN isn’t entirely incapable of doing anything, it just normally doesn’t act or acts too late because of the competing interests and sensitive politics of its member states.
I don’t know if you’ve seen what goes on at World Summits, but it doesn’t exactly go down like that. World Summits are very heated events where delegates fight, sometimes bitterly, over every minor detail of a document. Each and every person there grasps the importance of getting his or her nation or NGO’s interest represented. If and when a consensus is finally reached it’s only after years of work and lobbying. In this particular case they managed to get down on paper in words everyone could agree to, restrictions and requirements for the treatment of children. It isn’t meaningless, it’s the most official record we have of progress in human rights. It’s a law without a policeman, but its better than nothing.
Once again, I think people are caught completely in the myth of large relative differences of small numbers, and the complete unawareness of how large and diverse the US is on many fronts.
Let’s look at some other 1997 data. State by State. Mind you, many States in the US are quite a bit larger than many entire countries in Europe.
1997 Utah Data:
http://hlunix.hl.state.ut.us/matchiim/main/infntdth/home.htm
Utah: 5.8 per 1000.
Wait - Utah too small for you? Let’s try California.
http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/vssdata/2000data/00Ch4Excel/1Reorg.xls
Oh, I see they were at 5.9 per 1000 in 1997. The same number as England in that year. And California is pretty close to equivalent population too.
And both of those States are larger (one physically, the other in both population and area) than Ireland, and both have a lower rate in 1997.
But how can that be?
Sure, there are lots of States with high rates. Some that exceed 9.0 per 1000, which is higher than most European countries. But…surprise! This is a big place, with a wide variation in demographics, poverty levels, climate, ethnic background, and history. The fact that I have to explain this again and again, especially to people who allege they are in the US, is most disturbing.
I do not think many understand the fact that we have, at least roughly, a Federalized nation. Our States are not in the least bit akin to counties in the UK - Kansas is not even close in its sovereignty and powers to Hertfordshire, say. Kansas, like most States, is effectively a country within a country. And the sooner people come to grips with that fact, the sooner they can start to talk intelligently about the US and its internal policies.
But let’s look at 2000 figures:
California: 5.8
England: 5.6
Ireland: 5.62 (2000 est)
Northern Ireland: 6.4 (1999 figures)
Texas: 6.4
I would say California compares well with England and Ireland, which are both enlightened countries which do not neglect their children like the US is alleged to do so. And even Texas in 2000 compares with the 1999 estimate of 6.4 for Northern Ireland. Imagine - Texas, the land of Bush the Evil, comperable with part of Western Europe on the subject of child mortality.
Note I called out what was an estimate and what was a different year. That’s because I’m trying to be as accurate and truthful as possible here. You don’t address or solve problems by pretending they aren’t there.
But is there a “problem”?
And admittedly, I am picking and choosing some key States to make a point. So let’s look at the range in 2000.
And bringing up the front for the US, is:
New Hampshire: 4.3. Gee, that’s pretty good, don’t you think? They must be doing something right.
and in last place, is:
Mississippi: 10.4 Wow - that really sucks. That’s a shitty rate, and one which says something is seriously wrong there.
I am still waiting for those cites on how the quality of the US health care system is comperable to Cuba’s. How long should I wait again?
Nowhere in this thread have you requested a cite on the Cuban health care system, so expect to keep waiting. The only cite I have handy is the one you posted from the CDC, which shows that Cuba has the same infant mortality rate as the Unites States. Given the the U.S. per capita GDP is $31,500, and Cuba’s is $1,560, Cuba’s success in improving public health is impressive. The whole point of comparing the U.S. rate to other countries that are nearly as wealthy is to show that a large number of these deaths are preventable. Anyway, I just mentioned the infant morality rate as an example of something the Committee might bring up as a possible violation if the U.S. were a party to the treaty. Take for example this excerpt from the Committee’s Concluding Observations on Spain from this year:
Nearly the same statements would be true if directed at the United States.
So what’s the point? If they can’t (for whatever reason) act in time to do any good, what does it actually acomplish in the real world. What tangible good comes out of these smarm-fests? To use your own example: Saddam is grossly violating the inspections rules and the U.N. sits on it’s thumb and rotates. I can’t imagine they’d react any different if the English suddenly started selling babies on the open market. There’d be bluster, and strong letters of protest sent, but nothing would be done (which is fine by me. Keep the U.N. toothless and impotent. That’s MY motto. 
) But let’s not fool ourselves that they’re actually accomplishing anything of value or substance.
**
Yeah, and when I played Dungeons and Dragons we used to debate for weeks about nuances of the rules. The debates were heated and every word was relentlessly analyzed. But y’know what? When all was said and done, none of us could cast “Magic Missle” in the real world.
When I was talking about arm-breaking self-congratulation and smarmy-feel goodery, I was referring to the aftermath. They can quibble about the nuances of useless pieces of paper for years, then have ogasmic preening as they yammer about how this useless document is a great step forward…and then go back to not DOING anything about the violations of the document.
Fenris
I just don’t understand why so many US people are against the UN - you manage to find problems with a document regarding the rights of children?!?
On a purely superficial level, can’t you see how silly it looks that the only two countries not to sign are the US and Somalia? It’s not like this is a unique - there are several cases where this has happened.
This is where many of the problems on the US’s side in the growing gap between Europe and the US is coming - this attitude that they need not get involved on anything on an international level, whilst everyone else should do what they say.
Yes, I understand, that some of it may go deeper than that, but to people that don’t bother to read up very far on world issues, that’s how it looks.
**
Cute.
No. I have a problem with not signing a document that is meaningless feel-goodism that accomplishes nothing but promises a bunch of stuff that we’re already doing.
**
**
See, I stopped basing my actions on what others thought somewhere back in junior high school. Perhaps people with this mindset (“But the whole WUUUURRLLLDDD’s signed up? Don’cha wanna be coool?”) should try to gain similar perspective. Regardless of the merits of the document, there’s no merit to the “But everyone ELSE is doing it!” argument. (Besides, didn’t your mom tell you the standard rebuttal to this? “Well, if everyone else jumped off a bridge…” 
)
My post must have been eaten, although I swear I saw it later on. It was, I think, the only post I managed to get through in nearly 10 hours of trying. I guess not. :mad:
Really, I don’t even know if I can reply to this until several hours from now. The SDMB is becoming unusuable to me, and yet somehow, many others can post…
Care to address any of my other points on how child mortality of a place like the US is not a meaningful metric, and rather it should be divided by States? That was after all the vast bulk of my post…
You cannot rely on my own cite - one of one, single, solitary metric which is questionable anyhow - to make the broad statement that Cuba has impressive success in improving public health. Whether or not they do or have, that’s a claim that cannot be made if you have not even tried Google to find some statistic.
Or, it perhaps it really shows that money cannot be directly tied to infant mortality rates. Possible?
MrThompson - did you read this thread, or just the OP? The reasons have been explained here. And you’re right - it is superficial. Entirely, totally, and utterly superficial. This should be a clue…
That’s funny too - most of the complaints about the US are that they are too involved on the International level. You know, the old “America is evil, America is a bully, America is a bunch of hateful child-killer warmongers, Americans should go take their McDonlads and their Coca Cola and cram it with walnuts” bullshit that is allowed to be posted here again and again. Either we’re too involved, or not involved enough. You cannot have it both ways.
The real answer is - “The US does not make itself exactly like Europe, and fall into line with all of Europe’s policies and standards, and thus it is bad. For shame!” Ironic, when all I am subjected to whilst in the UK are papers and the telly airing their Whinge O’ the Day about the latest “Completely daft proposal from Brussels, which there is no chance we will knuckle under to!”. Remember “Stop the leaky EuroLoo!”? I sure do.
This is especially distressing to me, as I live a dual life between the US and the UK. I see little wrong with either the US or the UK, and yes, Ireland as well, and tend to feel that all of these countries are equally great in their own ways. I tire of hearing the anti-American bullshit here, to precisely the same extent as I tire of hearing the anti-European (or anti-UK, or anti-Irish) bullshit here. Funny though, I don’t seem to hear much of that last sort at all.
A few thoughts, as I read over the treaty itself…
It appears to be simply a load of crap which I would refuse to sign based on its own merits, even if it wasn’t an attempt to wrest sovreignty from both parents and from signatory nations. I see a lot about “an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,” “peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity,” “special safeguards and care and legal protection, before as well as after birth” [a statement against abortion?], but nothing about discipline or obedience.
It appears to be saying that children have the right to be happy all the time, get what they want all the time, and occupy the central position in the family, without any of the responsibilities that children traditionally bear, such as obeying the parents and receiving punishment when disobeying.
They seem to believe that the child has many rights such as expression and exposure to ideas, that cannot be restricted except for matters of national security. Again, I strongly disagree. My child can speak and be exposed to ideas to the degree that I, the parent, see fit. And nobody, especially the UN, will override my authority as the parent.
Wrong again. The child has the right to such privacy as granted by the parents. And the right of association? My child associates with such people as I see fit. Period.
The parent’s job is to mold the child into a responsible and productive human being. And the UN evidently wants government - either itself or those of its signatory nations - to usurp that authority and responsibility.
So yes, I am 100% behind a refusal to sign this piece of garbage.
You are corrent, Anthracite.
Newsflash for my fellow U.S. citizens: We do not have a national government. We have a federal government.