NationStates Jolt Archive

The immigrants are only coming for education and healthcare, and those are basic human rights.

Three cheers for the modern mindset! Anything good has to be a "right". Long way from Jefferson's three: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness". The question of course is - what is a right? What should a human, any human, have, the enforced lack of which is criminal?

Some we all agree on. Life. Assuming a person hasn't done anything majorly wrong, and maybe even then, he gets to live. Liberty. Again, assuming he hasn't broken the societal code, no one gets to tell him whether or not he gets spaghetti for dinner, or if he can go to the movies, or decide to stay home and make a bookshelf.

I believe those two are what people have called the "Natural Rights". But how far beyond this can we go? If one wants to institue a democracy, a true rule by the people, then either we have rule by the uneducated, or, better, education has to be a right - a societal right, but still a right. Any nation with large and/or vocal minorities has to grant right of religion, in order to keep the peace - again, a societal right. Any nation that wishes to have true rule by the people has to allow the people to be armed - another societal right. And so forth. But how far can you take this? I'd argue that a real "right", as in societal right, is something that ensures a particular liberty to the people of a country in order to preserve or create a certain order - democracy, on open forum of ideas, a tolerant culture, whatever.

Something like health care, though, is not a right in the same sense, chiefly because a person has little control over whether or not he or she contracts an illness, and the government has even less. The government can throw someone who assaults a convention speaker in jail. The government can oversee an educational system - and children will be there to be educated. A health care system secures what - health? We have a right to be healthy! Except, if we really had a right to be healthy, the only time we'd be damaged would be by the action of other people. That's right. There's a vast conspiracy that makes us come down with colds. Have I made the distinction there clear?

Well there IS this thing called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)



As gooder place to start as any..

The opposite of left settles it for me.

Well there IS this thing called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)



As gooder place to start as any..
No right to keep and bear arms. Another reason I hate the UN.

No right to keep and bear arms. Another reason I hate the UN.

Hard to allow people to have weapons in a place that is trying to create peace.

No right to keep and bear arms. Another reason I hate the UN.

Well I said it's a good place to start, anyway. Which of the rights listed do you disagree with?

Well I said it's a good place to start, anyway. Which of the rights listed do you disagree with?
None, just the omission of that one.

As far as freedoms go, they are merely a comodity from the Europeans, developed and possibly perfected by Greeks and Greeks alike. The modern version of Democracy has been changed to prevnet the spread of liberal and romantic revolts that demanded things such as greater representation. The problem with that, is the modern democracy is corrupted from the original Athenian democracy, which did not hold elections all the time. It could even be stated that today's democracy and rights are a direct response to the spread of Communism, in an attempt to preserve Capitalism and Democracy. Certanly all animals have rights, and all humans share those rights, but because of extra spare time, huumans have come up with plenty of reasons as to why they deserve more rights. I believe Hobbes and Locke explained government best, and Machiavellie explained, perhaps, that the government was its own evolving entity, with seperate rights. Equality still stands to not exist in some cases.

Well I said it's a good place to start, anyway. Which of the rights listed do you disagree with?

Mostly I agree... again, there's no right to bear arms, which is just dumb, considering human history. The UN is a more-or-less good thing, and a great idea, but they're not going to keep murders from happening, even if they do keep big wars from starting.

I also have issues with the language here:

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Which is saying approximately the same thing I said about societal rights above, I think, but I can't really tell what it's saying, and it can be extended to cover just about anything you want. The guy down the street has a boat! It's indispensable for my dignity that I get a boat too! Government, give me a boat!

And here:

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Just conditions? Yes. Favorable conditions? The UN, or anyone, can't do a thing about that. Protection from unemployment? *blank stare* Uh... if a guy's work isn't worth what he has to be paid, why should the company have to keep him on?

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Is it just, or favorable? They're not the same thing. And "other means of social protection" is just vague.

There are similar issues throughout. The language is so vague that it can be used to justify just about anything somebody could want for himself as a "right". Article 23 is big on employee's rights, but says nothing about employers. Article 25 says healthcare is a right, but it isn't - see my argument above. Article 26 says education is a right - but again as I argued above, this only holds for representative governments, because that's the only time it really matters. But I guess that works, because Article 21 has already said everyone has a right to democracy. Article 28 says we have a right to have these rights, which is just redundant.

But yeah, it's a good place to start thinking from.

The government can oversee an educational system - and children will be there to be educated. A health care system secures what - health? We have a right to be healthy! Except, if we really had a right to be healthy, the only time we'd be damaged would be by the action of other people. That's right. There's a vast conspiracy that makes us come down with colds. Have I made the distinction there clear?

By your own healthcare example, education doesn't fit either. Government cannot guarantee an education, it can only guarantee attendance. Also, by this definition, the government's only responsibility would be to keep others from stopping you from being educated.

Three cheers for the modern mindset! Anything good has to be a "right". Long way from Jefferson's three: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness". The question of course is - what is a right? What should a human, any human, have, the enforced lack of which is criminal?

Some we all agree on. Life. Assuming a person hasn't done anything majorly wrong, and maybe even then, he gets to live. Liberty. Again, assuming he hasn't broken the societal code, no one gets to tell him whether or not he gets spaghetti for dinner, or if he can go to the movies, or decide to stay home and make a bookshelf.

I believe those two are what people have called the "Natural Rights". But how far beyond this can we go? If one wants to institue a democracy, a true rule by the people, then either we have rule by the uneducated, or, better, education has to be a right - a societal right, but still a right. Any nation with large and/or vocal minorities has to grant right of religion, in order to keep the peace - again, a societal right. Any nation that wishes to have true rule by the people has to allow the people to be armed - another societal right. And so forth. But how far can you take this? I'd argue that a real "right", as in societal right, is something that ensures a particular liberty to the people of a country in order to preserve or create a certain order - democracy, on open forum of ideas, a tolerant culture, whatever.

Something like health care, though, is not a right in the same sense, chiefly because a person has little control over whether or not he or she contracts an illness, and the government has even less. The government can throw someone who assaults a convention speaker in jail. The government can oversee an educational system - and children will be there to be educated. A health care system secures what - health? We have a right to be healthy! Except, if we really had a right to be healthy, the only time we'd be damaged would be by the action of other people. That's right. There's a vast conspiracy that makes us come down with colds. Have I made the distinction there clear?

Here's the deal, Jefferson never said that those were the only human rights.

That among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

The thing about rights-talk is that people engaged in rights-talk very rarely have thought about what they mean by 'a right/the right/rights'.

"Natural rights" is basically a wish list and the items on any particular such list are usually argued on either religious/spiritual or 'human diginity/capacity' grounds.
Example
"Everyone has the absolute right to be free from torture"

Legal rights are rights generated and/or upheld by social institutions.
Example
The US 'right to freedom of expression'

Socio-moral rights are wish lists and or the socially generated expectations.
Example
A spouse has a right to expect their husband/wife will not be unfaithful

These 3 common usages of 'right/rights' are often used interchangably and perhaps without any awareness that they are 3 different concepts - in other words I think a lot of the time when people talk about 'rights' they are unclear as to what they themselves mean, or the person/s being communicated to are unclear on what the communicator means (by their use of the word), or both parties are unclear on what is meant/communicated.

Let's define "resposibility" first, then we can concentrate on "rights." There are some in society who have an entitlement mindset and think that it's the government's responsibility to take care of them from cradle to grave. That, IMHO, gives the government entirely too much control over the lives of its citizens. I have no desire to be ruled by "Big Brother," whether he's more or less benevolent.

Well there IS this thing called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)



As gooder place to start as any..

How's about not.

Our Rights are summed up by the Declaration of Independence and the Social Contract
1. Life
2. Liberty
3. Pursuit of Happiness (ie. to own things- property)

And they are further outlined by the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.

1. Freedome of Religion, Speech, Press, Peaceable Assembly, Petition.

2. Right to bear arms, and maintain a well regulated militia

3. Right to refrain from quartering troops

4. Protection from unwarrented search and siezure.

5. Life liberty nor property denied without Due Process, no double jeopardy

6. Right to speedy trial by jury of peers, etc.

7. Civil Trials by jury

8. Protection from cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bails

9. Protection of Common Sense rights, not listed in Bill.

10. That anything not expressly given the Feds to govern is governed by the states or people.


Anything with the label "entitlement" is NOT a right- it's a fluff thing that the government thinks it has business providing- housing, Social Security, food stamps, welfare, etc...

None, just the omission of that one.
That's like hating ice cream 'cause one vendor doesn't sell maple walnut.

Here's the deal, Jefferson never said that those were the only human rights.

On the contrary, our Bill of Rights covers everything. It's ability to be interpreted, amended, and its broadness cover anything you can think of. If it isn't, then figure it out in your own state.

No right to keep and bear arms. Another reason I hate the UN.

You said it brother (or sister)!

3. Pursuit of Happiness (ie. to own things- property)

More than just own property, but also to be allowed to do things that can potentially have an effect in bringing happiness.

By your own healthcare example, education doesn't fit either. Government cannot guarantee an education, it can only guarantee attendance. Also, by this definition, the government's only responsibility would be to keep others from stopping you from being educated.

Ah, good point. Actually, I like that last idea there... hmm.

Our Rights are summed up by the Declaration of Independence and the Social Contract...

*Our* rights, as US citizens, yes. But I'm concerned with a more universal idea... although as someone pointed out, the whole rights thing is more or less a Western concept. Meh.

More than just own property, but also to be allowed to do things that can potentially have an effect in bringing happiness.

Too true, and true too.

Ah, good point. Actually, I like that last idea there... hmm.[QUOTE]

You keep chewin' on that

[QUOTE=Koon Proxy]*Our* rights, as US citizens, yes. But I'm concerned with a more universal idea... although as someone pointed out, the whole rights thing is more or less a Western concept. Meh.

In a sense, we (the Americans) invented and carried out the idea of a right (in it's present form). We are the West. Thus making us right! (I'm such a pain when I want to be)


I happen to believe that the rights of Americans are the Rights of all men, and that All men should have them.

Two ways this can happen- either people make do like us, or they join the U.S. (I'd rather see the former)

In a sense, we (the Americans) invented and carried out the idea of a right (in it's present form). We are the West. Thus making us right! (I'm such a pain when I want to be)
Bit more than that.

The idea of a "right" is a western European idea, but it was put into practice initially by Anglophones, in the British Isles and it's colonies in the Americas. After the Americans developed their own independent government, based upon this concept of rights. The effects radiated outwards, starting with the French Revolution, although poorly executed, and it wound up being a failed revolution. The rest is history.

Bit more than that.

The idea of a "right" is a western European idea, but it was put into practice initially by Anglophones, in the British Isles and it's colonies in the Americas. After the Americans developed their own independent government, based upon this concept of rights. The effects radiated outwards, starting with the French Revolution, although poorly executed, and it wound up being a failed revolution. The rest is history.

I'll tell you why the Enlightenment and the French Revolution and Freedom hasn't worked for Europeans (who currently serve under oppressive Socialism, which is nothing more than elected Communism), and why it has for America.

But you'll never believe me.

The Enlightenment and French Revolution in Europe were Godless, and consequently made Europeans a Godless people.

The Enlightenment and Revolution in America were sustained by God, and we became a God-Fearing People, along with the ideals of Freedom, for we saw Him as the Author and sustainer of our Freedom. God has lifted our nation up, and will continue to so long as we serve Him.

But you'll never believe it, even though it's true.

I'll tell you why the Enlightenment and the French Revolution and Freedom hasn't worked for Europeans (who currently serve under oppressive Socialism, which is nothing more than elected Communism), and why it has for America.

But you'll never believe me.

The Enlightenment and French Revolution in Europe were Godless, and consequently made Europeans a Godless people.

The Enlightenment and Revolution in America were sustained by God, and we became a God-Fearing People, along with the ideals of Freedom, for we saw Him as the Author and sustainer of our Freedom. God has lifted our nation up, and will continue to so long as we serve Him.

But you'll never believe it, even though it's true.
It seems to me that freedom works better in many European places than it does in the US. As for the 'Enlightment and Revolution in American were sustained by God,'...I can only imagine that you simultaneously suffer from a tendancy to simplistic reductionism, and a lack of knowledge of the events you describe.

It seems to me that freedom works better in many European places than it does in the US. As for the 'Enlightment and Revolution in American were sustained by God,'...I can only imagine that you simultaneously suffer from a tendancy to simplistic reductionism, and a lack of knowledge of the events you describe.


I told you you wouldn't believe me.

No, not really.

I do tend to simplify though. Saves time and energy.

You also forget Europe isn't free. Socialism is elected Communism. The only difference is it's elected. That's it. They are otherwise the same, and I don't see anything free about that.

You will say "that's Democracy". Democracy isn't freedom, it's mob rule. The only thing Democratic in the U.S. is the way we elect our leaders. We are a Constitutional Republic, nothing else. We are bound to the Constitution. It is higher than any being, institution, law, or office in the nation. Our founders studied history to see the blunders of past societies, then set out to remedy that to create the most perfect union known to man.

I would say that a basic human right is anything that you'd probably get even if there was no government. I don't mean a bad government, even rulership by gangs and warlords is a government.

I mean if you were living in the old stone age, or even the neo-lithic. Would you have healthcare? Sure, you'd go out into the woods and an old lady of the tribe would tell you which herb was good for what problem. Is it modern medicine? No, but it's healthcare. The government paves over those woods, and is obliged to replace their benifits.

If you're too sick to go hunting, or work on your farm, a neighbor or relative will do it for you, so that when you're better you can do it for them. Workman's comp, and unemployment insurance. The government rearranges the social structure and is obliged to replace its security.

You aren't born knowing how to hunt, but someone will show you if you're willing to learn. Someone will tell you how to plant seeds in the spring and cut it down in the fall. Not because they're charitable, or even your relative, but because the food you grow might be the food they need to eat someday. Education system. Social structure... Obligation.

Food? If there wasn't a government giving away housing rights and zoning permits it would grow on its own. Yes population pressures make that impractical, but government is supposed to deal with the problems of population, not act like they're the fault of the population and dismiss them. Again, woods... obligation.


As for what you're allowed to do? It's all rights. If there was no government, there'd be no one to tell you what to do or not to do.

I told you you wouldn't believe me.

No, not really.

I do tend to simplify though. Saves time and energy.

You also forget Europe isn't free. Socialism is elected Communism. The only difference is it's elected. That's it. They are otherwise the same, and I don't see anything free about that.

It's elected is what makes it free you idiot. France had a socialist government under Mitterand. Then they voted Jacques Chirac in. It's free because if you don't want it you can get rid of it.


You will say "that's Democracy". Democracy isn't freedom, it's mob rule. The only thing Democratic in the U.S. is the way we elect our leaders. We are a Constitutional Republic, nothing else. We are bound to the Constitution. It is higher than any being, institution, law, or office in the nation. Our founders studied history to see the blunders of past societies, then set out to remedy that to create the most perfect union known to man.

And boy would their faces be red today.

And if you think the constitution is our highest law you're forgetting about the two greatest forces in modern american politics. Ignorance and apathy. Those are the forces that allow for the detention of thousands of innocent people in Cuba, A Supreme Court that has recently ruled that the government (the people) have no right to keep some lands out of the hands of private developers, and allow us to pretend that George W. Bush won two presidential elections.

It's elected is what makes it free you idiot. France had a socialist government under Mitterand. Then they voted Jacques Chirac in. It's free because if you don't want it you can get rid of it.



And boy would their faces be red today.

And if you think the constitution is our highest law you're forgetting about the two greatest forces in modern american politics. Ignorance and apathy. Those are the forces that allow for the detention of thousands of innocent people in Cuba, A Supreme Court that has recently ruled that the government (the people) have no right to keep some lands out of the hands of private developers, and allow us to pretend that George W. Bush won two presidential elections.


Yep. That's the way it works. This nation wasn't supposed to function on "Popularity". But many forget that, and keep talking of "Popular votes" and "Polls" and "Favoritism". It isn't supposed to work that way. The wisdom of our Fathers cautioned against "Democracy" as it is truly defined. Now Favoritism, that's something that needs to be dealt with. But overall, it's how the system works.

I'll tell you why the Enlightenment and the French Revolution and Freedom hasn't worked for Europeans (who currently serve under oppressive Socialism, which is nothing more than elected Communism), and why it has for America.

But you'll never believe me.

The Enlightenment and French Revolution in Europe were Godless, and consequently made Europeans a Godless people.

The Enlightenment and Revolution in America were sustained by God, and we became a God-Fearing People, along with the ideals of Freedom, for we saw Him as the Author and sustainer of our Freedom. God has lifted our nation up, and will continue to so long as we serve Him.

But you'll never believe it, even though it's true.
It fysically hurts my brain to read this. How the hell can socialism be oppressive when we keep electing it? Oh wait, let me guess, it's oppressive to make rediculously rich people pay more and give this money to the poor. Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think the universal declaration of human rights is alright. Now all the world has to do is actually live by it.

It fysically hurts my brain to read this. How the hell can socialism be oppressive when we keep electing it? Oh wait, let me guess, it's oppressive to make rediculously rich people pay more and give this money to the poor. Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think the universal declaration of human rights is alright. Now all the world has to do is actually live by it.

The explanaition is rather simple. Europeans have different values than Americans. We have our rights we believe in- Reaping the fruits of one's labor and the right to property being among them. Europeans don't value that as highly. To us, that would drive us berzerk. To you, our system would drive you insane. To each his own. And most of us don't buy the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". We have declared our own rights ourselves, thank you very much. We don't nee the UN telling us what to do. We govern ourselves (another thing we value highly).

I told you you wouldn't believe me.
I dont think so. Why would you even suspect that I didnt already hold the same or a compatable opinion?

No, not really.
No, not really what?

I do tend to simplify though. Saves time and energy.
In some cases it may provide some efficiency benefits, in many cases however it renders efficiency impossible. This particular case has all the hallmarks of the latter.

You also forget Europe isn't free.
I do not forget any such thing. In the first place I dont percieve that all of Europe is 'free', in the 2nd place whether any part of Europe is 'entirely free' is not the point, the point rather is about the comparison between some European places and the US.

Socialism is elected Communism.
No it isnt, clearly another example of that simplistic reductionalism and lack of knowledge that was refered to earlier in our discourse.

The only difference is it's elected. That's it. They are otherwise the same, and I don't see anything free about that.
I dont believe that the existence of freedom is ruled out by the circumstance of your failure to see it.

You will say "that's Democracy". Democracy isn't freedom, it's mob rule.
Will I? Do you know when this will occur? It's certainly news to me...

The only thing Democratic in the U.S. is the way we elect our leaders. We are a Constitutional Republic, nothing else. We are bound to the Constitution. It is higher than any being, institution, law, or office in the nation.
'Higher than'? I dont know quite what you think you mean by that, but the fact is the document you refer to is subject to alteration. More to the point it is subject to interpretation and is only upheld in accordance with whatever particular interpretations are in force at a particular time.

Our founders studied history to see the blunders of past societies, then set out to remedy that to create the most perfect union known to man.
That may be true, however I suggest that the remedy has not been entirely succesful and that one factor in its failing is the widespread and unfortunate tendency towards simplistic reductionistic reasoning...

I dont think so. Why would you even suspect that I didnt already hold the same or a compatable opinion?

No, not really what?

In some cases it may provide some efficiency benefits, in many cases however it renders efficiency impossible. This particular case has all the hallmarks of the latter.


I do not forget any such thing. In the first place I dont percieve that all of Europe is 'free', in the 2nd place whether any part of Europe is 'entirely free' is not the point, the point rather is about the comparison between some European places and the US.


No it isnt, clearly another example of that simplistic reductionalism and lack of knowledge that was refered to earlier in our discourse.

I dont believe that the existence of freedom is ruled out by the circumstance of your failure to see it.

Will I? Do you know when this will occur? It's certainly news to me...


'Higher than'? I dont know quite what you think you mean by that, but the fact is the document you refer to is subject to alteration. More to the point it is subject to interpretation and is only upheld in accordance with whatever particular interpretations are in force at a particular time.


That may be true, however I suggest that the remedy has not been entirely succesful and that one factor in its failing is the widespread and unfortunate tendency towards simplistic reductionistic reasoning...


The only thing our nation lacks fundamentally, and you'll hate it when I say it,

Is Christ at the Head of our Nation. Other than that, it's complete. Now we just need the King of this Land to come back.

In order to understand what I just said, you would have to understand my religion. But that takes a long time. My religion isn't something that can be nit-picked on a forum. It takes a lifetime, or at least an in depth learning of it, which could take months at the very least. So, read it, and dismiss it, because you don't believe it and I literally don't have time to explain it.

The only thing our nation lacks fundamentally, and you'll hate it when I say it,
Will I, when will that effect kick in? Tomorrow, next week....?:rolleyes:

Is Christ at the Head of our Nation. Other than that, it's complete. Now we just need the King of this Land to come back.

In order to understand what I just said, you would have to understand my religion. But that takes a long time. My religion isn't something that can be nit-picked on a forum. It takes a lifetime, or at least an in depth learning of it, which could take months at the very least. So, read it, and dismiss it, because you don't believe it and I literally don't have time to explain it.
Right...nice attempt, but to me it translates as 'I cant support my assertions with so much as a single sound argument, but trust me I'm right, as you'd well know if you were as enlightened as myself'...unfortunately I have difficulty simply trusting the word of someone who is demonstratably (and admittedly) prone to simplisitic reductionalism, and who has a habit of asserting (and worst still apparently believing) things that they themselves dont believe they can construct a single sound argument to support...:rolleyes: