• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So where does the US stand now on basic human rights?

Should the US call for scrapping the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

  • Yes. It is an obsolete document.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No. It is a hallmark of modern civil societies.

    Votes: 2 100.0%
  • Total voters
    2
  • Poll closed .
A

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
48,197
Reaction score
25,452
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Through WWII and after, the US and its Allies spearheaded an idea that all humans, by virtue of a certain dignity which should be afforded to being human, should have certain rights which should not only NOT be violated by their governments, but actively protected. After the war, these ideas were presented before the UN and signed by almost all nations. It became a cornerstone of American foreign policy in the cold war period, because it was believed by the US and NATO that nations which protected such rights for their citizens would not only be more just, but economically, politically, and geopolitically more stable countries. It became one of the criteria by which a country was judged to be "developed" or not.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (text) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of what many people believe to be the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled...

The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly by a vote of 48 in favour, none against, and eight abstentions (the Soviet Union, Ukrainian SSR, Byelorussian SSR, People's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, People's Republic of Poland, Union of South Africa, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).[13][14] Honduras and Yemen—both members of UN at the time—failed to vote or abstain.[15] South Africa's position can be seen as an attempt to protect its system of apartheid, which clearly violated any number of articles in the Declaration.[13] The Saudi Arabian delegation's abstention was prompted primarily by two of the Declaration's articles: Article 18, which states that everyone has the right "to change his religion or belief"; and Article 16, on equal marriage rights.[13] The six communist nations abstentions centred around the view that the Declaration did not go far enough in condemning fascism and Nazism.[16] Eleanor Roosevelt attributed the abstention of the Soviet bloc nations to Article 13, which provided the right of citizens to leave their countries

The Declaration consists of thirty articles which, although not legally binding, have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, economic transfers, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions, and other laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966, the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights. In 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill has become an international law, to be followed by all..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

So what were these rights? These included things like that all citizens should have the right to food, clean water, shelter, a basic education, and access to healthcare.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

But looking at such rights through the perspective of 2017 USA, they seem positively archaic. Education, healthcare, food, clean water, guaranteed by government? It sounds like Marxist socialism, and I have heard it called that by many more contemporary conservatives. In condemning such basic safety nets in a civil society, the vision they have seems to be more of a survival of the fittest social Darwinism- where if someone hits hard times, there should be no guarantees for the individual or their family and absolutely no safety net. It makes people too comfortable and lazy, the argument goes. And it is tyrannical to have the force of law making people provide such safety nets to others in their society. People should be free to do what they want. If they want to help people, let them do it through their churches and charities. Government should have no role in trying to guarantee such positive rights.

So is the UN Declaration of Human Rights now just an archaic and obsolete document? Should Nikki Haley, in presenting the tough new look of the US in the UN, just ask that the agreement be scrapped?
 
Last edited:
1 - 10
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.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
 
Why stop at #10?

"Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

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.

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 his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

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.

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.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

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.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
 
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(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.

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.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(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.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

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.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

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.

Article 30.
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."
 
How successful has the UN been in seeing that these rights are secured across the globe?
 
ataraxia said:
Through WWII and after, the US and its Allies spearheaded an idea that all humans, by virtue of a certain dignity which should be afforded to being human, should have certain rights which should not only NOT be violated by their governments, but actively protected. After the war, these ideas were presented before the UN and signed by almost all nations. It became a cornerstone of American foreign policy in the cold war period, because it was believed by the US and NATO that nations which protected such rights for their citizens would not only be more just, but economically, politically, and geopolitically more stable countries. It became one of the criteria by which a country was judged to be "developed" or not.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (text) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of what many people believe to be the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled...

The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly by a vote of 48 in favour, none against, and eight abstentions (the Soviet Union, Ukrainian SSR, Byelorussian SSR, People's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, People's Republic of Poland, Union of South Africa, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).[13][14] Honduras and Yemen—both members of UN at the time—failed to vote or abstain.[15] South Africa's position can be seen as an attempt to protect its system of apartheid, which clearly violated any number of articles in the Declaration.[13] The Saudi Arabian delegation's abstention was prompted primarily by two of the Declaration's articles: Article 18, which states that everyone has the right "to change his religion or belief"; and Article 16, on equal marriage rights.[13] The six communist nations abstentions centred around the view that the Declaration did not go far enough in condemning fascism and Nazism.[16] Eleanor Roosevelt attributed the abstention of the Soviet bloc nations to Article 13, which provided the right of citizens to leave their countries

The Declaration consists of thirty articles which, although not legally binding, have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, economic transfers, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions, and other laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966, the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights. In 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill has become an international law, to be followed by all..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

So what were these rights? These included things like that all citizens should have the right to food, clean water, shelter, a basic education, and access to healthcare.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

But looking at such rights through the perspective of 2017 USA, they seem positively archaic. Education, healthcare, food, clean water, guaranteed by government? It sounds like Marxist socialism, and I have heard it called that by many more contemporary conservatives. In condemning such basic safety nets in a civil society, the vision they have seems to be more of a survival of the fittest social Darwinism- where if someone hits hard times, there should be no guarantees for the individual or their family and absolutely no safety net. It makes people too comfortable and lazy, the argument goes. And it is tyrannical to have the force of law making people provide such safety nets to others in their society. People should be free to do what they want. If they want to help people, let them do it through their churches and charities. Government should have no role in trying to guarantee such positive rights.

So is the UN Declaration of Human Rights now just an archaic and obsolete document? Should Nikki Haley, in presenting the tough new look of the US in the UN, just ask that the agreement be scrapped?
Click to expand...

The US should not call for scrapping the Charter other maybe as a negotiating tool. But it is quite clear at the same time that the Charter is negligently poorly enforced and as it stands possibly more dangerous than it is worth. A well meant rule that is only selectively enforced or bad rules can do more damage than no rules. Both are problems that apply to the Charter.
 
Fletch said:
How successful has the UN been in seeing that these rights are secured across the globe?
Click to expand...

And how exactly does the UN "see to that these rights are secured across the globe"? Got a UN police or military force?

And lets not forget that the US, the founding member, was in breach of this accord for the first 20 years.. ups!
 
Fletch said:
How successful has the UN been in seeing that these rights are secured across the globe?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. The question here is whether the ideals are ideals that we value anymore. Implementation is another topic entirely. We have not been able to eradicate Human trafficking around the world either., That's different than asking whether it's a goal worth pursuing- or even being antithetical to our values today.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
How successful has the UN been in seeing that these rights are secured across the globe?
Click to expand...

Forget the world. Those ideals and values are under siege right here at home, right now. Do you really think that the idea that government should see to it that all of its citizens have access to food, water, education, or healthcare as a right is very popular one here? They have been rebranded to be communist Marxist ideals Actifed a call to real American values of freedom, liberty, and hard work. If anyone hits hard times, cannot provide those things for themselves and their family, they are dismissed as just being stupid and lazy.
 
Last edited:
TheGoverness said:
They've certainly been successful about doing nothing about it.
Click to expand...

That is not a fair or accurate observation. Much of the work the un does that comes to the attention of the world can be put down to decisions made by the permanent five of the un of which america has been just as guilty as the others for using its seat for personal gain. But there is also work being done that has saved many lives and improved conditions that does get done because it falls beneath the radar of the permanent five.
 
ataraxia said:
Forget the world. Those ideals and values are under siege right here at home, right now. Do you really think that the idea that government should see to it that all of its citizens have access to food, water, education, or healthcare as a right is very popular one here?
Click to expand...
You cannot be said to have a 'right' to something that belongs to someone else, by right. You cannot have a 'right' to the labor, product or services of another. So no, you don't have a 'right' to food, water, education or healthcare.
They have been rebranded to be communist Marxist ideals Actifed a call to real American values of freedom, liberty, and hard work. If anyone hits hard times, cannot provide those things for themselves and their family, they are dismissed as just being stupid and lazy.
Click to expand...
No, you are free to help them. You are not free, however, to force me to do so.
 
ataraxia said:
Doesn't matter. The question here is whether the ideals are ideals that we value anymore. Implementation is another topic entirely. We have not been able to eradicate Human trafficking around the world either., That's different than asking whether it's a goal worth pursuing- or even being antithetical to our values today.
Click to expand...

Why are you asking this?

What has changed?
 
ataraxia said:
Forget the world. Those ideals and values are under siege right here at home, right now. Do you really think that the idea that government should see to it that all of its citizens have access to food, water, education, or healthcare as a right is very popular one here? They have been rebranded to be communist Marxist ideals Actifed a call to real American values of freedom, liberty, and hard work. If anyone hits hard times, cannot provide those things for themselves and their family, they are dismissed as just being stupid and lazy.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute! Using fear tactics to push your argument is going to far. The kind of socialist ideas being tried today are nothing to do with marxism, which is nothing more than a particular sect of communism more valued for its historic perspective than its ideology. The word has more value to many americans because a mccarthyist nature still exists there. The use of the word marxist or communist evokes an automatic anti america response.

The kind of socialist ideology today embraces capitalism as a mechanism for creating profit. The only difference is the distribution of that profit. Where as marxism and communism from his era is about creating a violent revolution to overthrow capitalists and monarchy.

The argument should be how the ideology of socialism can integrate with the values held by the culture. Not what can we do to stop the marxist hordes.

As well it is nothing more than patriotism, flag waving, to imply that "real" ..... "values " are american. "Freedom, liberty, and hard work". There are not to many social or economical philosophies that really disagree with that. If you favour the writings of the marquis de sade then perhaps.
 
Fletch said:
You cannot be said to have a 'right' to something that belongs to someone else, by right. You cannot have a 'right' to the labor, product or services of another. So no, you don't have a 'right' to food, water, education or healthcare. No, you are free to help them. You are not free, however, to force me to do so.
Click to expand...

The purpose of of enforceable law and justice in civilization, as opposed to the freedom found in the jungle, is to watch out for the most weak and vulnerable. Otherwise, it is survival of the fittest. So when you make a law to, say, protect orphans, the handicapped, systematically discriminated minorities, or those who may have just lost a job, you are forcing people to do certain things that either they did not know they were supposed to do, or wouldn't do if left on their own. So the question is, should society be allowed to do so? And if not, how is the freedom in that society different then the freedom of the jungle, where are the strong and advantaged survive and thrive, and the weak and vulnerable are crushed and left behind? Is this the model of freedom, The freedom that exists naturally out in nature, that we want to implement in civil society?
 
Last edited:
soylentgreen said:
Wait a minute! Using fear tactics to push your argument is going to far. The kind of socialist ideas being tried today are nothing to do with marxism, which is nothing more than a particular sect of communism more valued for its historic perspective than its ideology. The word has more value to many americans because a mccarthyist nature still exists there. The use of the word marxist or communist evokes an automatic anti america response.

The kind of socialist ideology today embraces capitalism as a mechanism for creating profit. The only difference is the distribution of that profit. Where as marxism and communism from his era is about creating a violent revolution to overthrow capitalists and monarchy.

The argument should be how the ideology of socialism can integrate with the values held by the culture. Not what can we do to stop the marxist hordes.

As well it is nothing more than patriotism, flag waving, to imply that "real" ..... "values " are american. "Freedom, liberty, and hard work". There are not to many social or economical philosophies that really disagree with that. If you favour the writings of the marquis de sade then perhaps.
Click to expand...

You are being to nuanced and sophisticated. There are many who see any social safety net as Marxism, and will use the full McCarthyist overtones of that word to argue against it. This includes things like the declaration of human rights, welfare, even public education, as some tea partiers have talked about.
 
ataraxia said:
The purpose of a sense of enforceable law and justice in civilization, as opposed to the jungle, is to watch out for the most weak and vulnerable. Otherwise, it is survival of the fittest. So when you make a law to, say, protect orphans, the handicapped, systematically discriminated minorities, or those who may have just lost a job, you are forcing people to do certain things that either they did not know they were supposed to do, or wouldn't do if left on their own. so the question is, is the society allowed to do so? And if not, how is the freedom and that society different then the freedom of the jungle, where are the strong and advantaged survive and thrive, and the week or crushed and left behind? Is this the model of freedom, The freedom that exists naturally out in nature, that we want to implement in civil society?
Click to expand...
You cant use a word like "rights" on one hand then talk about forcing people to do what you think they should do on the other. One of the rights I have is to do what I want, not what you want.
 
ataraxia said:
You are being to nuanced and sophisticated. There are many who see any social safety net as Marxism, and will use the full McCarthyist overtones of that word to argue against it. This includes things like the declaration of human rights, welfare, even public education, as some tea partiers have talked about.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is my point. It is a false accusation generated by a macarthyst belief. As long as that exists then socialist ideology that is being practiced and discussed in other countries is failing in america. Nearly every debate on introducing universal systems gets watered down to a level where ideology that no socialists are suggesting is being held up as examples of what socialists want.
 
ataraxia said:
But looking at such rights through the perspective of 2017 USA, they seem positively archaic. Education, healthcare, food, clean water, guaranteed by government? It sounds like Marxist socialism, and I have heard it called that by many more contemporary conservatives. In condemning such basic safety nets in a civil society, the vision they have seems to be more of a survival of the fittest social Darwinism- where if someone hits hard times, there should be no guarantees for the individual or their family and absolutely no safety net. It makes people too comfortable and lazy, the argument goes. And it is tyrannical to have the force of law making people provide such safety nets to others in their society. People should be free to do what they want. If they want to help people, let them do it through their churches and charities. Government should have no role in trying to guarantee such positive rights.
Click to expand...

There is a right to be prosperous but no right to prosperity. Simply put, your rights end where mine begin. Your right to something does not include a right to force me to give it to you. The same can be said for all rights.

A person has a right to be prosperous, pursue that prosperity, and has a right for me to not infringe on that. But if they are not prosperous, there is no right that forces another individual to make that person prosperous. That would be theft.
 
soylentgreen said:
Yes, that is my point. It is a false accusation generated by a macarthyst belief. As long as that exists then socialist ideology that is being practiced and discussed in other countries is failing in america. Nearly every debate on introducing universal systems gets watered down to a level where ideology that no socialists are suggesting is being held up as examples of what socialists want.
Click to expand...

Yes. Those McCarthyist overtones are exactly how the Republican Party can get such large portions of the population to vote against their own interests.
 
Fletch said:
You cant use a word like "rights" on one hand then talk about forcing people to do what you think they should do on the other. One of the rights I have is to do what I want, not what you want.
Click to expand...

A neighborhood may have a law that you cannot blast your stereo after a certain hour in the evening. That is of course an infringement on your rights to do as you please with your property on your property. But it is done to protect the rights of others to some peace and quiet and a good nights sleep. Similarly, having enforceable laws and safety nets to make sure than an orphaned child still has access to food and a basic education may be an infringement on your freedom, but not if you realize that one day that child could be yours in that situation.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes. Those McCarthyist overtones are exactly how the Republican Party can get such large portions of the population to vote against their own interests.
Click to expand...

That at least answers that question. i was not sure if yours was a tongue in cheek support for an alleged american way or for real.

It really is an example of beating your head against the wall to discuss socialism with americans because of this. Already the replies against this demonstrate mccarthyeism propaganda rather than any consideration of socialist practices.
There's really is a case of create the worst possible way of doing something and then waste peoples time insisting that it has to be done that way. Such things as preventing prosperity or implying force by coercion are nothing more than simple minded cliches, not any actual representation of what they argue against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom