Write down how many human rights you know of? Spefically, the human rights you have per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [link], which has been ratified by just about every nation on Earth (how well they follow through is a different question, but most nations have said they believe in them).
How many did you get right?
How many did you put on your list, but aren't actually rights?
How many did you not have on your list?
Here's my list:
Freedom to travel (your rights to travel shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted, including travel to foreign nations)
A right to a nationality (every person has a nationality. You cannot be exiled from your home nation without your consent)
I remember there's something about marriage (namely that you can't force people to marry)
Right to work (people have the right to work and get paid as appropriate)
Write down how many human rights you know of?
Human whats?
• Right to live without fear
• Right to worship as I see fit
• Right to express myself
• Right to a fair trial when accused
• Right to protect my life, my property, my rights, and those of others
ing rights, Okay? All right. You know about it. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: "Right this way" into the internment camps!
Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away! And rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter.
You see all, sooner or later. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a
about them! The government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. It simply does not give a about you! It's interested in its own power. That's the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.– George Carlin
It honestly just adds to the idea of "anything different from the Western world's current thinking is wrong".
Stupid UN.
This is what springs to mind…Now if you think you do have rights, one last assignment for you. Next time you're at the computer, get on the internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in "Japanese Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious
All right. You know about it. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: "Right this way" into the internment camps!
Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away! And rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter.
You see all, sooner or later. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a
– George Carlin
It honestly just adds to the idea of "anything different from the Western world's current thinking is wrong".
You might want to look into who actually worked on that list, then. It wasn't just Western countries that did so.
Article 17 states that everyone has the right to own property! I guess the Communist nations didn't read that one or something.
Article 21 even shocked me after a quick glance earlier. It states that everyone has the right to take part in the government either directly or by choosing representatives! So non-democracies/republics are violating human rights.
So just those two articles mean that all nations have to be some sort of capitalistic republic/democracy. If you look into other articles, it states that there'll be separation of church and state, insures trade unions, free of assembly, etc.
I've only scratched the surface and it appears to restrict nations into very narrow bands. But luckily the UN is a joke and can't enforce anything.
Nothing good can ever come from people working together to try and make the world a better place. That's just insane.
Well, there's a whole lotta people over in Iraq right now tryin' to make it a better place. Jus' sayin'.
And don't forget Afghanistan.
Or Haiti. Or most of Africa.
And nothing bad ever results from ignoring the basic human rights of others. Certainly not wars or anything. And Germany and Japan would still be our friends if we hadn't insisted that their governments be democratically elected, wouldn't they? Sure they would! Totalitarian regimes have a looong history of peaceful coexistence with their neighbors. Makes one wonder what all this fuss about "freedom" and "democracy" is all about.
Yep, forcing your beliefs on other groups and requiring them to use the same government and economic system as you is the best way to promote freedom.
Rights are a construct of man and wholly dependent upon man to exist. In other words, your rights only exist as far as your fellow man allows them to. No document can change this fact. It's just some happy words on some happy paper. It doesn't mean a thing beyond some stuff we should maybe think about when interacting with other human beings.
Yep, forcing your beliefs on other groups and requiring them to use the same government and economic system as you is the best way to promote freedom.
Pretty sure that was the argument the South made in the American Civil War. "You have no right to infringe on our freedom to enslave others!" You're in good company.
Other countries may have had part in drafting it (and subsequently signed it), but its clear that the articles are drawn from a Western ideal.
... So you are, essentially, saying that despite having China, Chile, Russia, Lebannon and so-on on the drafting commitee, that despite that just about every line, word and punctuation mark was debated (and voted on) by the entire UN, and despite every country willingly signing and ratifying it, that this document is somehow "drawn from a Western ideal", as if all that non-Western influence didn't matter?
Well, can't argue with that logic.
Pretty sure that was the argument the South made in the American Civil War. "You have no right to infringe on our freedom to enslave others!" You're in good company.
The South was part of the United States, hence its subject to US laws and whatnot. Communist dictatorship country X is its own sovereign state. They should be allowed to dictate their own laws.
Additionally, even if the South was a separate country, there are plenty examples of "bad" countries which try to force their political and economic system on others. You can look to the rise of Communism.
So you're in good company too!
... So you are, essentially, saying that despite having China, Chile, Russia, Lebannon and so-on on the drafting commitee, that despite that just about every line, word and punctuation mark was debated (and voted on) by the entire UN, and despite every country willingly signing and ratifying it, that this document is somehow "drawn from a Western ideal", as if all that non-Western influence didn't matter?
Well, can't argue with that logic.
First of all, the process of voting on something via majority rule does not mean the minority is represented. So just because "the entire UN" voted on and debated the resolution, it doesn't mean the entire UN influenced the document. So unless it requires a unanimous agreement, it doesn't mean the document reflects all the members of the assembly.
Next, if you actually look at the document, you can see that it clearly supports certain types of government and economic systems. Then when you take what is typically considered "Western ideals", you see they line up pretty well. Two clauses which I pointed out earlier show how the document is written with Western ideals (democracy/republic and capitalism) as human rights. So while China or the USSR may have been in the committee, it is clear that their form of government by definition is a violation of human rights.
While there is no excuse for those governments signing the document, can you honestly say that the document expresses their form of government (for example) in a similar fashion as it does ours?
While there is no excuse for those governments signing the document, can you honestly say that the document expresses their form of government (for example) in a similar fashion as it does ours?
Yeah, actually, I would. Like just about anything that comes out of the UN but not from the Security Council, it's toothless, and an idealistic piece of paper that has never and probably will never be realized anywhere in the world. Are Russia and China not in compliance? Not to my knowledge. Is the US? Nope, we ain't either.
But if you are saying that no one is in compliance, then again, it is useless and a waste of time and resources which I typically complain about the UN. But it is still trying to force Western values on the rest of the world even if it is just by suggestion. It gives room for arguments of "you shouldn't do this or that" because you signed this stupid declaration.
So again, its a bad document drafted by a horrible institution. It is powerless and preaches the values of the West instead of different values from around the world (the UN is supposed to be some sort of world community, right).
Sorry, I'm confused by what you are saying. Are you saying that no one is in compliance or is no one not in compliance?
All the major countries that I can think of are in violation in some way or other.
And frankly, you've yet to demonstrate just how it's a document of "western values". You've claimed this several times, but other then the government stuff, you haven't shown how or why it is philosophically at odds with thinkers from other parts of the world.
And is it idealistic toothless rubbish? Of course. But the day people stop trying to fight for an ideal is the day we might as well all just lay down and die, becuase things won't get better if you don't try.
And frankly, you've yet to demonstrate just how it's a document of "western values". You've claimed this several times, but other then the government stuff, you haven't shown how or why it is philosophically at odds with thinkers from other parts of the world.
So systems of government and economic systems are not important to this document which was signed by and designed to regulate governements?
Requiring certain government and economic systems is philosophically at odds with supporters of other governments and economic systems. Requiring a representative government is philosophically at odds with non-representative governments. How can that be complicated?
Since I've yet to hear of people gaining, or retaining their rights in a nice quiet way, I don't actually see the problem.
That's true. But the people that created this document aren't people that are concerned about getting or retaining their rights. They've already got them. It would appear that they're speaking for the common man when, in reality, they're speaking to him in order to further solidify their own standing. Again, nobody is trying anything noble here. It's just noise.
Additionally, even if the South was a separate country, there are plenty examples of "bad" countries which try to force their political and economic system on others. You can look to the rise of Communism.
So you're in good company too!
I'm sorry, but do my eyes deceive me, or did you just morally equate trying to spread the ideas of freedom and self-determination, and freeing slaves, with a omnicidal regime which used propaganda and terrorism to destroy other sovereign states and assimilate them into its whole?
...Really?
You sir lose the debate. You must turn in your pass and must leave the thread at once. If you remain I suggest everyone ignore you. You obviously have some serious issues, starting with the issue of evaluation. Once you have an objective crieterion for making the judgements your so fond of, come back and we'll talk.
...
Now that that's done with, I'd say the only fundamental right humans have is the right to determine the course of their own lives. This is predicated by their own nature. Humans have free will and reason and need to be able to exercise it to live. This is, therefore, the right to life. All other rights, free speech, property, self-determination, follow from that.
...Anyway, I though we weren't allowed to discuss politics anymore?
Yes, even in communist or socialist countries, people already had the right to own property. Maybe they didn't have as much of it as other people did, but people still owned stuff. To think otherwise is to turn the countries into caricatures and ignore the reality.
Same with elections. Soviet Russia and China were both republics at the time.
So yeah... just where are western values being forced, and on who?
It's just noise.
If you like to think to think so, I doubt there's anything I could do to dissuade you.
If you like to think to think so, I doubt there's anything I could do to dissuade you.
And if you like to think otherwise ...
But that's of little import. It's not a bad thing so what-evs. I'm all good with shuttin' up about it.
I'm sorry, but do my eyes deceive me, or did you just morally equate trying to spread the ideas of freedom and self-determination, and freeing slaves, with a omnicidal regime which used propaganda and terrorism to destroy other sovereign states and assimilate them into its whole?
I am equating forcing owns own beliefs on political and economic issues on to others. While you may believe one is better than the other, it is still forcing certain values over other values.
...Really?
Yes. I don't believe there is a universally correct way of doing things. That which is right for you may not be right for someone else.
You sir lose the debate. You must turn in your pass and must leave the thread at once. If you remain I suggest everyone ignore you. You obviously have some serious issues, starting with the issue of evaluation. Once you have an objective crieterion for making the judgements your so fond of, come back and we'll talk.
But if you ignore me, how can you know if I have whatever criterion you are looking for in the discussion?
Now that that's done with, I'd say the only fundamental right humans have is the right to determine the course of their own lives. This is predicated by their own nature. Humans have free will and reason and need to be able to exercise it to live. This is, therefore, the right to life. All other rights, free speech, property, self-determination, follow from that.
According to that document, there's many more universal human rights. I never knew the right to create unions was there or the right to have holiday off of work. Its actually kind of interesting what they think universal human rights are.
The document just came off as too specific (also too vague in the earlier articles) for some sort of universal document that all humans are supposed to follow.
...Anyway, I though we weren't allowed to discuss politics anymore?
We aren't, but the general concensus is that if we don't report each other, the mods won't start locking threads.
Ya know what, I just went back to check, and yeah, you're full of it.
Yes, even in communist or socialist countries, people already had the right to own property. Maybe they didn't have as much of it as other people did, but people still owned stuff. To think otherwise is to turn the countries into caricatures and ignore the reality.
I know that the Soviets could own certain types of property, but I don't think they could own any sort of land or means of production. So I assume you could own personal items, but I don't know specifically what was allowed to be own.
But the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bans systems which there is no ownership of property. I guess its good to know that a hippy commune infringes on Universal Human Rights.
Same with elections. Soviet Russia and China were both republics at the time.
Wait, are you arguing that the USSR was free elections to determine their leadership? And that these elections were free to everyone since they were a Universal Human Right? According to some very quick and cursory Wikipedia information, the USSR was a one party system which had membership consisting of less than 10% of the adult population. And this party held all the positions of power.
So how does that conform with 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 community.
(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 voting procedures."
So yeah... just where are western values being forced, and on who?
To quote Wikipedia (since I don't have better sources at hand):
"Despite the Western empires in the past, concepts of democracy and an emphasis on freedom has been seen as distinguishing Western peoples from non-western neighbors." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture)
Therefore, I will posit that the "Right" any member of Humanity has is the pursuit of happiness. No matter what happens to me, or what I might be doing, I can pursue happiness until the day some mega-asteroid hits me in my
eye and kills me dead. You can't stop me, nor can the Government. Nothing I can do, ever, will enable or guarantee the ability to catch it, however. Any and everything else is *granted* by the Government, and can be taken away at the stroke of a pen, or a vote from the rest of the masses.
Period.
Just to pull an example from thin air(and their idiotic list), the right to a non-violent existence. Barring the obvious, like being a soldier in open warfare, everything that happens anywhere in the world is by act of violence. Even the selection of a Leader, or the enactment of laws requires that one group force their will on another. By the Sword or the Vote, one exercises individual power as an expression of naked force, not for the good of the Body Politic, but to forward one's own agendas.
Admittedly, one requires a larger group of personae in agreement (one's Army) to vote some concept/rule into existence, than one does by more direct means (The Military), but ultimately, it amounts to the same thing. I'm still being FORCED to do what you want me to, whether I think it's a good idea or not. I'll not go into my personal favorite examples, you get the idea by now.
-Sarena
But if he knows it's idealistic toothless rubbish and you know it's idealistic toothless rubbish and I know it's idealistic toothless rubbish, isn't it pretty safe to assume that those what drafted it are also fully aware that it's idealistic toothless rubbish? If that's the case (which I suspect it is), nobody is trying to do anything. It's only so much noise.
It sounds like a gentlemen's agreement more than anything kinda like the unspoken agreement that you won't play the exact same race/class combo as someone else at your table.
It sounds like a gentlemen's agreement more than anything kinda like the unspoken agreement that you won't play the exact same race/class combo as someone else at your table.
... which only works until someone decides to play the exact sme race/class combo as the other party. Meaning, of course, that it does nothing. Nice sentiment, no teeth.
Wait, are you arguing that the USSR was free elections to determine their leadership?
Nope. I'm claiming that they claimed that the ideals were in-line with their own. And just like everywhere else, that didn't always line up with reality.
You can claim to believe in an ideal without upholding it, ya know.
So how does that support the idea that representative governments are non-Western ideals? Unless you are saying that the people in countries like the USSR and China believe that their country is a democracy and they have real power, it doesn't seem relevant.
There's pretty much no history of representative government in China (for example). You have thousands of years of an emperor then the dictatorship of Communism. I haven't looked closely at Russia history, but isn't it similar with the Czar to Communism type change?
Soviet Union, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, and Yugoslavia all abstained from voting while it was in the committee. In the General Assembly, 6 communist countries along with Saudia Arabia and South Africa abstained.
Also, the China that voted for it was the Republic of China, otherwise known as Taiwan and not the People's Republic of China, or mainland China.
If you really think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not based upon Western ideals (just compare it to the Declaration of Independence or the French equivalent), then I ask you, what do you consider Western ideals?
Rights, by definition, are things that cannot be taken away.
Therefore, I will posit that the "Right" any member of Humanity has is the pursuit of happiness. No matter what happens to me, or what I might be doing, I can pursue happiness until the day some mega-asteroid hits me in my
You can't stop me, nor can the Government. Nothing I can do, ever, will enable or guarantee the ability to catch it, however. Any and everything else is *granted* by the Government, and can be taken away at the stroke of a pen, or a vote from the rest of the masses.
Period.
Just to pull an example from thin air(and their idiotic list), the right to a non-violent existence. Barring the obvious, like being a soldier in open warfare, everything that happens anywhere in the world is by act of violence. Even the selection of a Leader, or the enactment of laws requires that one group force their will on another. By the Sword or the Vote, one exercises individual power as an expression of naked force, not for the good of the Body Politic, but to forward one's own agendas.
Admittedly, one requires a larger group of personae in agreement (one's Army) to vote some concept/rule into existence, than one does by more direct means (The Military), but ultimately, it amounts to the same thing. I'm still being FORCED to do what you want me to, whether I think it's a good idea or not. I'll not go into my personal favorite examples, you get the idea by now.
-Sarena
I like this post.
BUT. I'd like to add that you cannot truly force anyone to do anything. The only thing you can do is hurt or kill him, but everything else you can refuse. It might be hard, it might be so hard people call it impossible, but you cannot truly make someone do something against his will other then hurt or kill him.
So I think there should be a Right to Refuse in addition to the Right to pursue Happiness.
At least until we get a mind control chip... then you get to the question of "Am I still me, if I don't control me?"
If you had been listening, you would have heard that the ideals you're claiming as "western ideals" aren't as "western" as you think. Are they ideals held in the west? Yes. Are the exclusive to the west? Hell no.
They were originated in the West and they were spread/perpetuated by the West. The major forms of resistance have been from areas of the world not considered the West. They are not exclusive to the West, but they are a Western philosophy. (Compare it to Western religions. They are not exclusive to the West, but are spread by the West and resisted by the non-West, etc.)
So you've been saying stuff like representative governments are not Western ideals, but you provided very little support. You stated that certain non-Western countries have "Republic" in their names, but acknowledged that they aren't republics. And you've stated that non-Western countries were in the council which drafted the document, but many of those countries either voted against or abstained from voting on the document.
Honestly, just read the Universal Declaration of Human Right and compare it to the Declaration of Independence or the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.
They were originated in the West and they were spread/perpetuated by the West. The major forms of resistance have been from areas of the world not considered the West. They are not exclusive to the West, but they are a Western philosophy. (Compare it to Western religions. They are not exclusive to the West, but are spread by the West and resisted by the non-West, etc.)
Would you mind naming some non-Western ideals you would like expressed?
There's pretty much no history of representative government in China (for example). You have thousands of years of an emperor then the dictatorship of Communism. I haven't looked closely at Russia history, but isn't it similar with the Czar to Communism type change?
Russia had a incompetent yet Democratic Government for a few months between the death of the Czars and Stalin finishing the line "Peace, Land, Bread!"
The Russian Federation is some 20 years old now and it does hold the odd election.
The Republic of China claimed to support and strive for true democracy. It just didn't do anything about it.
None. Humans, people, have no rights. Except possibly in the sense Alan Dershowitz sometimes argues for their existence, in that they spring for negative experiences in human history and we behave in a way to avoid repeating those errors. However, I feel it is probably a mistake to call them rights because then people assume they happen automatically, like gravity or something. Rights happens because someone makes them happen. But they should be called something else, not rights. Perhaps "matters of practicality."
None. Humans, people, have no rights. Except possibly in the sense Alan Dershowitz sometimes argues for their existence, in that they spring for negative experiences in human history and we behave in a way to avoid repeating those errors. However, I feel it is probably a mistake to call them rights because then people assume they happen automatically, like gravity or something. Rights happens because someone makes them happen. But they should be called something else, not rights. Perhaps "matters of practicality."
We have a word, and someone seeks to better define that word, and then says "Lets change the word we use to talk about what im defining".
Odd.
Words have power. Words like freedom, government, war and Shazam! all carry power of connotation and meaning. Using the term rights in this context implies something automatically part of the social landscape and something inherently owed. As such, people’s emotional response is very distinct when it comes to something called a right. For example, I do not know anyone who had made a case for the post office being a right, that tax payers have a right to have their letters delivered and so the government has a responsibility to deliver the mail. But the existence of the post office is a matter of practicality. Therefore responses to successes and failures of the post office are different than they are successes and failures of law enforcement, because on some level people are taking their personal security for granted because they have a right to lead a secure life. Matters of practicality have to be maintained through work and sacrifice, while rights are believed to be automatic and self perpetuating. If we used the term matters of practicality (or some similar terminology) instead of rights there would be a response that appreciated everything required to attain and maintain it, where as with rights people are usually only interested when their perceived rights have been violated.
OleOneEye:
I would prefer less values or ideals expressed than more. Well, actually I'd prefer no document, but if a document had to exist, I'd prefer as little rights placed in them as possible. Therefore, individual nations would be able to govern how they see fit.
My comments on them representing Western values is primarily because I believe there are too many specifics in the current document.
Drogom:
Yep, very little history of representative governments. And the docuement was created and signed in the 40s. So Russia was communist.
Also, the Republic of China is what we refer to as Taiwan. What most people refer to simply as China is the People's Republic of China. So are you refering to China or Taiwan?
If you are refering to China, then again, if its only stated but nothing is done, I don't see how those are values. Unless, the people of China believe that they are a democracy and are being fooled.
If you are refering to Taiwan, its current government only existed a few years before the document was drafted and signed in the 40s (I believe).
OleOneEye:
I would prefer less values or ideals expressed than more. Well, actually I'd prefer no document, but if a document had to exist, I'd prefer as little rights placed in them as possible. Therefore, individual nations would be able to govern how they see fit.
My comments on them representing Western values is primarily because I believe there are too many specifics in the current document.
Drogom:
Yep, very little history of representative governments. And the docuement was created and signed in the 40s. So Russia was communist.
Also, the Republic of China is what we refer to as Taiwan. What most people refer to simply as China is the People's Republic of China. So are you refering to China or Taiwan?
If you are refering to China, then again, if its only stated but nothing is done, I don't see how those are values. Unless, the people of China believe that they are a democracy and are being fooled.
If you are refering to Taiwan, its current government only existed a few years before the document was drafted and signed in the 40s (I believe).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guomintang
The Nationalist Party has existed since the early 20th century. They are the ones who formed the modern government of Taiwan.
Drogom:
Yep, very little history of representative governments. And the docuement was created and signed in the 40s. So Russia was communist.
Also, the Republic of China is what we refer to as Taiwan. What most people refer to simply as China is the People's Republic of China. So are you refering to China or Taiwan?
If you are refering to China, then again, if its only stated but nothing is done, I don't see how those are values. Unless, the people of China believe that they are a democracy and are being fooled.
If you are refering to Taiwan, its current government only existed a few years before the document was drafted and signed in the 40s (I believe).
In the 40's the Republic of China was China. It was still a few years before they where exiled to Taiwan.
And saying you are reaching for Democracy to appease the masses, is acknowledging something has value.
Words have power. Words like freedom, government, war and Shazam! all carry power of connotation and meaning. Using the term rights in this context implies something automatically part of the social landscape and something inherently owed. As such, people’s emotional response is very distinct when it comes to something called a right. For example, I do not know anyone who had made a case for the post office being a right, that tax payers have a right to have their letters delivered and so the government has a responsibility to deliver the mail. But the existence of the post office is a matter of practicality. Therefore responses to successes and failures of the post office are different than they are successes and failures of law enforcement, because on some level people are taking their personal security for granted because they have a right to lead a secure life. Matters of practicality have to be maintained through work and sacrifice, while rights are believed to be automatic and self perpetuating. If we used the term matters of practicality (or some similar terminology) instead of rights there would be a response that appreciated everything required to attain and maintain it, where as with rights people are usually only interested when their perceived rights have been violated.
Words have meanings, and those meanings give them power. If you take all the things people currently call "Rights" and somehow force everyone to refeer to them as "Matters of Practicality" you will in no way change the way people feel about 'those things', you would instead change the meaning of "Matters of Practicality" to the current meaning/usuage of the word "Rights". If anything the meaning of the word 'Practicality' will shift over time.
Better to take steps to change the definition/connotation of "Rights" than try to supplant it.
None. Humans, people, have no rights. Except possibly in the sense Alan Dershowitz sometimes argues for their existence, in that they spring for negative experiences in human history and we behave in a way to avoid repeating those errors. However, I feel it is probably a mistake to call them rights because then people assume they happen automatically, like gravity or something. Rights happens because someone makes them happen. But they should be called something else, not rights. Perhaps "matters of practicality."
We have a word, and someone seeks to better define that word, and then says "Lets change the word we use to talk about what im defining".
Odd.
For once, I agree with TA. It sounds like you don't think the word 'rights' means anything, because you don't think the concept, as you define it, exist, so instead, you want to make up another word to be used about the exact same concept. Why not just stick to rights? It works for the rest of us.
I am not making a suggestion about public policy. This is a thread about what rights, if any, we believe in, not what the government needs to do. And I simply disagree about what terminology is most appropriate to most of these battles.
I am not making a suggestion about public policy. This is a thread about what rights, if any, we believe in, not what the government needs to do. And I simply disagree about what terminology is most appropriate to most of these battles.
And I disagree with the notion that simply changing the terminology somehow effects the conversation in a helpfull or meaningfull way.
(In this instance.)
Or in other words: The only people I've ever seen define rights as something that can't be taken away, are people who already had a problem with the term. I don't know what came first, if their definition of the word caused them to be against it, or if their opposition to the word made them come up with a suitably silly definition for it, but the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people for whom this is not the definition of rights.
You claim that because your definition of the word is meaningless (which it is), we need a new word for the same concept most of us have described with the word 'rights'. That's like saying that the word 'sun' really means a 'pencil', and that we need to come up with a new word to describe the huge ball of fire in the sky. It might not be your definition, but for many other people the word works fine.
No, I understand that rights are lost and when they are lost it is usually permanently. But too many people rely on the false assumption that they are permanent. Which is why I feel the term rights is deceptive and a poor choice.
No, I understand that rights are lost and when they are lost it is usually permanently. But too many people rely on the false assumption that they are permanent. Which is why I feel the term rights is deceptive and a poor choice.
But people didn't see them as permanent because they were called rights, since that word does not in itself describe something permanent, except perhaps in religious context (and if that's problematic, we shouldn't use the word 'law' either), so what makes you think a different name would change anything?
I could understand of they were called the irreversibles, because that word in itself describes something permanent, but rights doesn't. In fact, considering how much we talk about rights being violated and denied, people seem to be constantly confronted with this information, just like they know laws can be broken (and considering phrases such as 'laws of nature', which are supposed to be unbreakable, that's a much more confusing term). That's why nobody claims rights can't be taken away. The only people who ever mentions that concept (rights that can't be taken away) are people arguing that since rights can be taken away, they're not really rights, which is confusing, because no one else have claimed rights can't be taken away.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guomintang
The Nationalist Party has existed since the early 20th century. They are the ones who formed the modern government of Taiwan.
In the 40's the Republic of China was China. It was still a few years before they where exiled to Taiwan.And saying you are reaching for Democracy to appease the masses, is acknowledging something has value.
According to my bad understanding of Chinese history (they don't even try to teach you it in school), China was under the control of an emperor until about 1900. After the last emperor there was civil war/upheaval until about 1912 where the Republic of China peeps came to power. In 1916, their leader died and China entered another period of civil war and fragmentation. The Republic of China is technically considered the ruler even though its more accurately described as a time with various warlords taking control. I'm not sure how long this period remained, but around 1926, the Communist started to rise and fight with the Republic. So the Communist and Republic of China fought for a while and after the war, the Republic was pushed to Taiwan and the Communist took over.
So even if you assume all that time was the control of the Republic of China, it was roughly 35 years which mainly consisted of civil war, fragmentation, and warlord control... and World War II so you also have Japan invading.
So let me know if that timeline has gross mistakes since I primarily tried to piece it together through talking to random people and reading Wikipedia (because again US schools do a bad job at teaching history).
Erato: I agree. It seems like the only people who ever use the definition of rights as "something that can't be taken away" only do it to say the definition is meaningless. Talking to Boraxe, I believe he got it from George Carlin, but I don't know if he's the source.
So let me know if that timeline has gross mistakes since I primarily tried to piece it together through talking to random people and reading Wikipedia (because again US schools do a bad job at teaching history).
Think it's about right. Truly interesting times.
The Clash
This is a public service announcement
With guitar
Know your rights all three of them
Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a CRIME!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights
And Number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation
Know your rights
These are your rights
Wang
Know these rights
Number 3
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.
Know your rights
These are your rights
All three of 'em
It has been suggested
In some quarters that this is not enough!
Well..............................
Get off the streets
Get off the streets
Run
You don't have a home to go to
Smush
Finally then I will read you your rights
You have the right to remain silent
You are warned that anything you say
Can and will be taken down
And used as evidence against you
Listen to this
Run