SenorBeef though I fully understand the argument against “positive rights”, I honestly cannot seem to find where it can be read into the UDHR and other such documents that consider “the state is the source of any rights and these can be arbitrarily redefined by the state as desired”. From what text does it flow?
SenorBeef though I fully understand the argument against “positive rights”, I honestly cannot seem to find where it can be read into the UDHR and other such documents that consider “the state is the source of any rights and these can be arbitrarily redefined by the state as desired”. From what text does it flow?
Does anyone doubt that if the US were to ratify this treaty, the UN would spend 90% of its time trying to get the US to abide by it, and none at all trying to get (for instance) North Korea to abide by it?
Regardless of the relative seriousness of the violation?
Regards,
Shodan
I sure wouldn’t mind if the UN pressured the US to stop trying children as adults.
I’ve heard that it’s a matter of Constitutional Law that treaties can only be entered into with states or countries, and that since the UN is not a state or country, the Constitution doesn’t provide for making treaties with it.
I’ve been digging for a cite for this, and I can’t find it, so if anyone else can fill me in, I’d appreciate it.
But Mr2001, would you rather the UN spend time pressuring the US to stop trying children as adults, or spend time pressuring some nation to stop employing child slave labor, or to start going after child prostitution rings, or something? It’s a matter of priorities, and I share Shodan’s opinion that the UN’s priorities would be greatly misplaced - they’d rather make an example of the US on some relatively trivial matter than go after some real abuser of children’s rights, because the US is an easier target.
Jeff
You’re right - I just read over the whole thing. I thought I read it before and the language was something like “Member states shall hereby grant such and such rights to its citizens”, but I can’t find anything like that. Perhaps I was thinking of another UN declaration, I’m not sure.
The wording does seem to suggest it’s granting rights, rather than recognizing pre-existing right, but it’s subtle enough that it’s not clear. “X has the right to Y” is ambiguous as to whether it refers to a pre-existing right, in comparison to “The right to Y shall not be infringed”, which is fairly clear.
On a philosophical level, I think this is a bunch of socialist dreck. Articles 23 through 26, and possibly 22 - I’m not quite sure what it means - are pure socialist garbage. They’re also philosophically contradictory to Article 4 (prohibitions against slavery).
If one is to provide the services garunteed in 23(22?)-26, one must enslave some portion of the population to some degree - that is, take their wealth (and hence, time) by force to provide ‘entitlements’ to the rest of society.
Additionally, the preamble recognizes the need for revolution against tyranny, but excludes any rights to arms.
And while some of it is novel, I think, as a whole, it’s garbage. Any “list of rights” which does not provide for arms automatically concedes a monopoly of force to the State. Even without the socialist garbage, I would never want to live in a State that felt it’s citizens weren’t worthy of arms, and that insisted that only it, the State, should have a monopoly on force.
From your and Amazon’s descriptions, it sounds like this book answers the question: “Do Christian fundamentalist groups want to have freedom to raise their children as they wish?”
However, the actual question asked was “Are people who want to have freedom to raise their children as they wish mostly Christian fundamentalist groups?” This is a completely different question.
My own experience, anecdotal as it is, is that there are people on both ends of the political spectrum which feel that way. The couple I know with the strongest feelings like this are actually quite liberal. They are home schooling their child because they believe, among other things, that the local school board is too CONSERVATIVE.
Ed
The U.N. doesn’t enter into treaties - it provides a forum for states to enter into treaties with each other.
Fair enough, Beef. In any case, a lot of the declaration gets self-crippled by section © of Article 29, and by Article 8 (which admits that the courts of each nation may only rule based on their own constitution and laws.)
Interestingly, I have been comparing the Spanish and English texts of the UDHR, and I notice that while Article 8-English speaks of legal protections as “granted” by national constitutions and laws, Article-8-Spanish speaks of them as “recognized” by constitutions. Trust me, the difference between “reconocidos” and “concedidos” is quite clear in español.
Aaargh… friggin’ A, I meant to Preview…
… anyway as I was saying, it conveys a different meaning in principle, but has the same practical effect: national courts rule on national law.
Anyway, in the US a treaty is the law of the land, except where it conflicts with the US Constitution. There, the Constitution (as interpreted by the US courts) takes precedence.
So you are right in that they seem to be deliberately murky as to the language, probably in an attempt to be “acceptable” to the maximum number of potential subscribers. But then again that’s common lawyerly practice around the world.