Basic Human Rights

[commonsense]

The need for sanctions, or enforcement, of any kind underscores the fact that so called rights are nothing more than power plays conducted in such a way as to afford so called rights to the one with the most power. It’s power, not rights.

Yes, of course, and the reason for my question. I really would like to know what Sculptor's answer would be.

Perhaps you should not have been so silly

Sculptor, let’s you and I pretend that RC was not being silly, and you can tell me what support and sanctions the UDHR needs or should have. I’m interested in carrying this thread further, on an intellectual basis.

[commonsense]

I wonder if you ever have anything of significance to say.

Well, I would say that you don't know what rights are...and I would say the gap in your (historical, conceptual and etymological) understanding and your readiness to consider data is "significant."

Will that do?

IC, let’s drill down into what a historical, conceptual and etymological understanding would be. What I really mean is would you please offer your thoughts on this.

[henry quirk]

I’m interested in carrying this thread further, on an intellectual basis.

Okay, let's...

Let's say Mannie and me, we're wrong.

Let's say man is just matter (no spirit) and rights are merely we we say they are (there are no natural rights).

Why is slavery wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

I wonder if you ever have anything of significance to say.

Well, I would say that you don't know what rights are...and I would say the gap in your (historical, conceptual and etymological) understanding and your readiness to consider data is "significant."

Will that do?

IC, let’s drill down into what a historical, conceptual and etymological understanding would be. What I really mean is would you please offer your thoughts on this.

I have, several times before. But a quick pass will do.

The modern concept "rights" owes its origin to John Locke. Before him, the idea was always limited to an aristocracy, or kings, or priests, or perhaps particular races or only males of a certain age and propertied status. In Locke, we find the first and only rationale for a universal conception of human rights. And it's him that such documents as the American Constitution, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the UN Declaration of Human Rights quote, and it's his conception they borrow. Once Locke had said what he said, it was only a matter of time until not only males of a particular status, but all males, and females as well, of all races and cultures, were bound to have to be recognized as having full status as rights-bearing...at least in the basic three that Locke had demonstrated.

But if you read his "Toleration" essay or his "Civil Gov't" essays, you'll find that Locke's conception is totally grounded in the Protestant worldview. It is because God gives man life, liberty and property that man has any claim to these...or to any other rights we might add in, if we can. If God did not create mankind, then man has no particular claim to a right to life. If he is not accountable ultimately to God for his life, then he has no particular claim to a right to freedom. And if he is not a steward of creation, responsible also to God for that, then there is no right to property either.

The later declarations tended to overlook Locke's reasoning, and still to assume blithely that "rights" could stand on the same conception. They are wrong, however; and "rights" as we now speak of them lack a "why" that is capable of grounding them in reality. So the "rights" skeptics here are completely correct when they say "there's no such thing" -- but that's only IF the worldview that sponsored Locke's rationale is wrong. If it's right, then they are wrong.

[commonsense]

I’m interested in carrying this thread further, on an intellectual basis.

Okay, let's...

Let's say Mannie and me, we're wrong.

Let's say man is just matter (no spirit) and rights are merely we we say they are (there are no natural rights).

Why is slavery wrong?

But slavery isn’t wrong—to slavers.

So it’s wrong according to point of view. It’s wrong to those who don’t agree with the slavers. It’s wrong in the eyes of non-slavers because it’s evil from their point of view. It’s wrong from my perspective because it just is.

[Immanuel Can]

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law – by force – and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes."

--- Bastiat.

[Immanuel Can]

I’m interested in carrying this thread further, on an intellectual basis.

Okay, let's...

Let's say Mannie and me, we're wrong.

Let's say man is just matter (no spirit) and rights are merely we we say they are (there are no natural rights).

Why is slavery wrong?

But slavery isn’t wrong—to slavers.

So it’s wrong according to point of view. It’s wrong to those who don’t agree with the slavers. It’s wrong in the eyes of non-slavers because it’s evil from their point of view. It’s wrong from my perspective because it just is.

Problem: that would mean that for a Southern Democrat, slavery was not wrong. His point of view was that it was right. So would you be content to live in the North, and say, "Well, those Southern folk have their own way of doing things: live and let live"? Or would you fight for the rights of slaves?

But if you would fight for the rights of slaves, how would you justify it? Why is it okay for you to force your point of view on the Southern Democrats? Don't you think you owe it to them to respect their point of view, just as you would want them to respect yours?

Or would you agree that a higher principle is involved? But if it is, then it's not about point of view anymore. It's about truth.

[henry quirk]

I’m interested in carrying this thread further, on an intellectual basis.

Okay, let's...

Let's say Mannie and me, we're wrong.

Let's say man is just matter (no spirit) and rights are merely we we say they are (there are no natural rights).

Why is slavery wrong?

But slavery isn’t wrong—to slavers.

So it’s wrong according to point of view. It’s wrong to those who don’t agree with the slavers. It’s wrong in the eyes of non-slavers because it’s evil from their point of view. It’s wrong from my perspective because it just is.

Why is slavery wrong to you?

It just is is meaningless.

I think I'll trundle over to Common's and leash him up like a dog.

Why would you do that?

Why not? Sure as shit he ain't offered any reason why I shouldn't.

I'm comin', guy...convince why I shouldn't take you and use you as I like.

[Sculptor]

I wonder if you ever have anything of significance to say.

Well, I would say that you don't know what rights are...and I would say the gap in your (historical, conceptual and etymological) understanding and your readiness to consider data is "significant."

Will that do?

No, that will not do at all. You only want to comment on others. Ad hominems are not a valid argument.

I do know what rights are, but perhaps you would like to tell us what you think they are?

[commonsense]

The modern concept "rights" owes its origin to John Locke. Before him, the idea was always limited to an aristocracy, or kings, or priests, or perhaps particular races or only males of a certain age and propertied status. In Locke, we find the first and only rationale for a universal conception of human rights. And it's him that such documents as the American Constitution, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the UN Declaration of Human Rights quote, and it's his conception they borrow. Once Locke had said what he said, it was only a matter of time until not only males of a particular status, but all males, and females as well, of all races and cultures, were bound to have to be recognized as having full status as rights-bearing...at least in the basic three that Locke had demonstrated.

Thanks for your response.

I think that RC would say—and we’ll have to wait to find out if my guess is right—is something to the effect that he thinks Locke was wrong and that the American Constitution et al are based on something Locke identifies as “rights” but are really based on the power of enforcement.

But if you read his "Toleration" essay or his "Civil Gov't" essays, you'll find that Locke's conception is totally grounded in the Protestant worldview. It is because God gives man life, liberty and property that man has any claim to these...or to any other rights we might add in, if we can. If God did not create mankind, then man has no particular claim to a right to life. If he is not accountable ultimately to God for his life, then he has no particular claim to a right to freedom. And if he is not a steward of creation, responsible also to God for that, then there is no right to property either.

I can see it being argued by RC that God would be the one with the most power of enforcement and that rights are derived from power, God’s being the greatest.

The later declarations tended to overlook Locke's reasoning, and still to assume blithely that "rights" could stand on the same conception. They are wrong, however; and "rights" as we now speak of them lack a "why" that is capable of grounding them in reality. So the "rights" skeptics here are completely correct when they say "there's no such thing" -- but that's only IF the worldview that sponsored Locke's rationale is wrong. If it's right, then they are wrong.

Absolutely so.

[Sculptor]

Yes, of course, and the reason for my question. I really would like to know what Sculptor's answer would be.

Perhaps you should not have been so silly

Sculptor, let’s you and I pretend that RC was not being silly, and you can tell me what support and sanctions the UDHR needs or should have. I’m interested in carrying this thread further, on an intellectual basis.

It's a long list of rights, and so no easy to go through the whole thing and comment on various aspects.
In general those countries that are signatories to the declaration should be responsible for carrying out those rights in their own country.
Signatory countries should treat the signing as a treaty, and not simply a set of guidelines.
The trouble is, at the moment, sanctions seem to be imposed at the whims of the leadership of each country. What would be needed is that the UN had some real power to threaten economic or social sanctions.
Without this power the idea of "rights" is just an idea, not legally binding.
There could, however be specifc provision for individuals who have suffered abuses of their rights to appeal to a UN court. Sadly people who have suffered such abuses tend to have little in the way of resources to acquire legal representation.
RIght now the signatory countries of Europe commonly flaut the human rights os migrants and refugees. Who is there to support them?

And it si left to charity organisations like Amnesty International to act on their behalf.

[Sculptor]

"Socialism, like...

THe basis of the UN UDHR

[commonsense]

I’m interested in carrying this thread further, on an intellectual basis.

Okay, let's...

Let's say Mannie and me, we're wrong.

Let's say man is just matter (no spirit) and rights are merely we we say they are (there are no natural rights).

Why is slavery wrong?

But slavery isn’t wrong—to slavers.

So it’s wrong according to point of view. It’s wrong to those who don’t agree with the slavers. It’s wrong in the eyes of non-slavers because it’s evil from their point of view. It’s wrong from my perspective because it just is.

Problem: that would mean that for a Southern Democrat, slavery was not wrong. His point of view was that it was right. So would you be content to live in the North, and say, "Well, those Southern folk have their own way of doing things: live and let live"? Or would you fight for the rights of slaves?

But if you would fight for the rights of slaves, how would you justify it? Why is it okay for you to force your point of view on the Southern Democrats? Don't you think you owe it to respect their point of view, just as you would want them to respect yours?

Or would you agree that a higher principle is involved? But if it is, then it's not about point of view anymore. It's about truth.

In truth we should fight for human rights in North Korea and China as well as other countries, because (from our point of view, not theirs) we know what is wrong and they don’t.

[commonsense]

I’m interested in carrying this thread further, on an intellectual basis.

Okay, let's...

Let's say Mannie and me, we're wrong.

Let's say man is just matter (no spirit) and rights are merely we we say they are (there are no natural rights).

Why is slavery wrong?

But slavery isn’t wrong—to slavers.

So it’s wrong according to point of view. It’s wrong to those who don’t agree with the slavers. It’s wrong in the eyes of non-slavers because it’s evil from their point of view. It’s wrong from my perspective because it just is.

Why is slavery wrong to you?

It just is is meaningless.

I think I'll trundle over to Common's and leash him up like a dog.

Why would you do that?

Why not? Sure as shit he ain't offered any reason why I shouldn't.

I'm comin', guy...convince why I shouldn't take you and use you as I like.

My artillery will convince you why you shouldn’t.

[henry quirk]

But slavery isn’t wrong—to slavers.

So it’s wrong according to point of view. It’s wrong to those who don’t agree with the slavers. It’s wrong in the eyes of non-slavers because it’s evil from their point of view. It’s wrong from my perspective because it just is.

Problem: that would mean that for a Southern Democrat, slavery was not wrong. His point of view was that it was right. So would you be content to live in the North, and say, "Well, those Southern folk have their own way of doing things: live and let live"? Or would you fight for the rights of slaves?

But if you would fight for the rights of slaves, how would you justify it? Why is it okay for you to force your point of view on the Southern Democrats? Don't you think you owe it to respect their point of view, just as you would want them to respect yours?

Or would you agree that a higher principle is involved? But if it is, then it's not about point of view anymore. It's about truth.

In truth we should fight for human rights in North Korea and China as well as other countries, because (from our point of view, not theirs) we know what is wrong and they don’t.

Why do we know and they don't? What's the basis for that assessment?