Universal Declaration of Human Rights (moral, choice, worship, marriage)

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by Pah

It's a statement. Enforcement is meant to be within the member countries.

This thread deal with the rights and not a political agenda periphery.

Well, rights are arbitrary. They are whatever the authorities say they are. If the rights can’t be enforced than they don’t really exist. They aren’t rights, but ideas. The UN declaration is a set of ideas about what some people wish national rights should look like.

[mr.guy]

no real political philosophy or idealism behind it.

They aren’t rights, but ideas.

bwah?

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Well, rights are arbitrary. They are whatever the authorities say they are. If the rights can’t be enforced than they don’t really exist. They aren’t rights, but ideas. The UN declaration is a set of ideas about what some people wish national rights should look like.

You confuse rights with freedoms and liberties.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by Pah

You confuse rights with freedoms and liberties.

Pah, is one not the subset of another? If no, what is the difference?

signed,


confused

[Pah]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

Pah, is one not the subset of another? If no, what is the difference?

signed,


confused

Oh yes, a subset is right. Rights are the property of everyone. Freedoms are what the governing authority recognizes. Liberties are those exercised freedoms.

At least in my mind.

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by Pah

You confuse rights with freedoms and liberties.

How so? I see freedom as simply the absence of authority. Liberties are specific and protected through rights (granted by governments). I see freedom and rights to be antagonistic to one another. Rights come with government and depend up authority.

Anyway, no one has a right to rights. You have to create your own rights as individuals, as groups, as political parties, as nations, and as world bodies. The UN has done nothing to earn universal rights. Simply stating them is meaningless.

[Pah]

It's my fault. This was to be a discussion - express an opinion with no contentions. I violated that rule and some others followed. So this thread is moved to General Debate

[CaptainXeroid]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Well, rights are arbitrary. They are whatever the authorities say they are...

Not quite correct. Rights come from God, and governments are instituted among men to protect those rights. Sound familiar? Hint...John Hancock signed his name really big.

You are correct that with no 'enforcement mechanism' to back up this Declaration, it amounts to little more than a flower-languaged suggestion.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

How so? I see freedom as simply the absence of authority. Liberties are specific and protected through rights (granted by governments). I see freedom and rights to be antagonistic to one another. Rights come with government and depend up authority.

Anyway, no one has a right to rights. You have to create your own rights as individuals, as groups, as political parties, as nations, and as world bodies. The UN has done nothing to earn universal rights. Simply stating them is meaningless.

Now you seem to confuse rights, freedoms, liberties and anarchy.

I had possession of rights the very moment I was born. Sorry you missed out on that for yourself.

The UN doesn't earn or possess human rights. "The UN has done nothing to earn universal rights" makes no sense. The UN's rights and obligations are those granted by the member states.

There is a police power within the UN and that has been exercised, at times, against egregious violations of rights

[Ardent Listener]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Quite true... plus, the UN doesn't even believe in this stuff. It's just a lot of pretty language and no real political philosophy or idealism behind it. Politics produces more and more empty rhetoric every year.

All fine and dandy, but let's not start cutting down trees so we can produce paper to print it on. It's really not worthy of re-cycled paper either.