Article 31 - -everyone has the right to use bold type
Article 31 - -everyone has the right to use bold type
"you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos
I had to think for a long time and read the list over several times before voting "no". There are a lot of items on this list that are, if not rights, admirable goals for any civilized society to strive for. There are also, however, a number of items I object to.
The first statement is correct in so far as we are all born equally bloody, naked, screaming and utterly helpless. We are utterly dependent upon our families for everything we need to survive, so to claim that we are born free is ridiculous.Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
I also object to the notion that we are born with rights. Our rights, whatever they consist of, are bestowed upon us by our membership and place in society, and our reason and our conscience are traits that we develop as we learn our place in society and the obligations that it bestows upon us.
This also forms my basis for objection to Article 2.
All of which can and should be restricted, infringed, or even revoked for the good of the nation. Indeed, it is impossible to enforce any other rights without the ability to do so.Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
It is the law which determines who and what a person is. It is not only a violation of national sovereignty to dictate otherwise, it is a violation of common sense.Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
This is a wonderfully vague declaration. Who decides what is arbitrary, if not the laws of the jurisdiction to which a person is subject?Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Everyone shall be protected against attacks upon his honor or reputation? First, I would say that such attacks are often warranted, and second I would say that the defense of a man's honor is his own responsibility-- in fact, I would say that, with the exception of his family's welfare, it is his highest responsibility.Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
This is perhaps the grossest violation of national sovereignty in this document. Each State has the right and the obligation to determine who shall be allowed to reside within, and the right not only to prohibit specific people from leaving but to prohibit those who have left the country, voluntarily or otherwise, from returning if they pose a threat to the security or order of the State.Article 13: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.
It is the legitimate prerogative of any nation to determine its own membership.Article 15: 1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
As above, it is the prerogative of the State to determine who may reside within the State and the prerogative of the nation to determine who may belong to that nation. And, thankful as I am for the freedom of religion in my own nation, the relationship between Church and State is a matter to be determined by the churches and the states concerned. There is no legitimate reason that a State cannot be chartered as a religious State if that is the will of its people.Article 16: 1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
This is also my objection to Article 18.
These rights are subject to restriction in the interest of the security and order of the State and the pursuit of its interests, and are directly contradicted by other Articles of this document detailing matters of discrimination.Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
This would seem to prohibit mandatory national service, which is practiced in many of the member-states of the United Nations and widely regarded as a positive practice therein. This also violates the right, expressed above, of States to constitute themselves along religious lines.Article 20: 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
The will of the people is the basis of authority for any State, whether it is democratic in nature or not. Any State which does not enjoy the consent, if not the enthusiastic support, of its people is incapable of supporting itself.Article 21: 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
This is, as I mentioned above, an admirable goal but not one that any State can effectively guarantee. The State, no matter how noble its intentions, is as subject to the effects of economic forces as any other organization or institution. The ideal State should of course act to protect the economic and social security of its citizens, but this is primarily the responsibility of individuals and their families.Article 22: 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.
This is also the basis of my objection to the majority of Articles 23 and 25.
This is, once again, subject to the State's interest in economic security and order.Article 23: 4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
First, I would point out that sub-articles 26.1, 26.2 and 26.3 contradict each other. If parents have a prior right to determine what kind of education their children shall receive, not only can the State not enforce compulsory elementary education, but the State cannot guarantee that the education shall promote "respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms" nor "understanding, tolerance, and friendship among all nations, [and] racial and religious groups".Article 26: 1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Second, I would argue that the purpose of education within the State is to cultivate within students those qualities that are beneficial to the State. The UN's demand that the State educate its students to service the goals of the UN is unwarranted and unreasonable.
Perhaps most galling, after dozens of "rights" which trample on national sovereignty and national security, the UN concludes by stating that none of the enumerated rights apply-- either to States or individuals-- unless it suits the interests of the UN for them to do so. On the whole, a ridiculous and irrelevant declaration from a ridiculous and irrelevant organization.Article 29: 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Furthermore, since the UDHR is a document to the Nations of the World it incumbent that the nations involved protect the right to possession (at least) and furthermore given that we exist in a material plane and need a "territory" both to exist and to be secure in it is again that the nations involved need also to protect that sort of property. Given that we need to gain substance by some means to continue to exist and given that this can cause conflict it is necessary for those nations involved to facilitate means to limit said conflict. There is basically two was to do this we share the same "pot" which subsumes the individual thus person-hood or we have a way of diversifying the means of production or utility of the group which each individual is in which contributes to person-hood.
This is basically what I meant.
An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson
occasional is not crap
etc all good and NEEDED programs if regulated and not abused
where did you say welfare recipients, oh thats right you didnt, guess i was supossed to assume and read you mind lmao
What part of I don't support 99.99% of social programs including unemployment are you not understanding?
You are reading what I am posting correct?
Maybe understanding my statements or asking for clarity would go along way to not making irrelevant assumptions about statements I have made.
I voted yes as I didnt see any reason what so ever to vote no <------- You said yes to the question. So you agree all country's should follow this.
I read it and see a perfect way to provide equal rights for all with no unfair discrimination - O_Guru
Need I go on?
I am done with you.
Have a good evening.
Last edited by Black Dog; 05-18-10 at 08:36 PM.
No Lives Matter
As an example, take this selection from the document posted in the OP:It does not restrict anyone or thing from infringing on those rights, it simply states that they exist.Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
In my mind, if this were a proper "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", it would say instead something like the following:Note that I personally consider those rights to be in descending order according to priority."No entity may infringe on an individuals right to life, liberty, and (this last bit always seems to cause discussion, but I prefer this option) property.
Simply stating that everyone has X does not protect it in any way.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller