5 ms·

I can't answer this question, but just to put it in context, the United Nation'a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, put together after World War II, is a tr

by Top19 9y ago

I can't answer this question, but just to put it in context, the United Nation'a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, put together after World War II, is a truly beautiful document. I had never read it or really knew anything about it, but if you read through it, it's an absolutely inspiring vision of humanity and of a world that one day might exist. It's wording is concise, clear, and beautiful. Here's the foreword from the most recent published copy: "The Universal Declaration promises to all the economic, social, political, cultural and civic rights that underpin a life free from want and fear. They are not a reward for good behaviour. They are not country-specific, or particular to a certain era or social group. They are the inalienable entitlements of all people, at all times, and in all places — people of every colour, from every race and ethnic group; whether or not they are disabled; citizens or migrants; no matter their sex, their class, their caste, their creed, their age or sexual orientation." And here is the original document: "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." Sorry not to hijack this thread and I know you technically said Bill of Rights, which is also very inspiring, but I feel like less well known in the US."

ams6110 9y ago
Theoretically beautiful, like most utopian visions. The reality is that most places that the UN is involved in are human rights hellholes.
- Top19 9y ago
  You make a good point actually. It made me think and I'd even take it a step further and say most of the places the US (military) is involved in are not great like Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Uganda, Haiti, etc. which is interesting because this thread originally asked about our (US) Bill of Rights. Obviously the UN (and thus all of its mistakes) is typically supported by Democrats... But also Paul Wolfowitz, neoconservative extraordinaire and also the world's worst human being and the only person I know who can be singularly blamed for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq and now Syria, was a Republican idealist who was going to spread human rights values by attacking Iraq and paying for the $50 billion dollar war (turned out to be $3 trillion) with captured oil revenues from the temporary, "month long" occupation of southern Iraq... So, the question is, do good inspiring rights-based documents cause disastrous foreign policy decisions when countries try to implement them in real life? The opposite of all this by the way is realpolitik, advocated by Henry Kissinger. But then again that was during Vietnam...a war of comparable brutality to Iraq. In the end...I would say since everything seems to fail...go with the inspiring, come up with a list of actions that will never be justifiable so that "going to far" and "failure" is never a matter of debate but only a matter of proof, and get good leaders.
- Top19 9y ago
  And to answer OP's original question... Right to Birth Control: we're never going to agree on abortion but can we at least get this? A long time ago women would usually stop getting their periods after 20...because they were constantly pregnant until 50 when menopause started. Having larger amount of children might very well be unsustainable in a world with less jobs and that demands a lifetime of learning (by both spouses) to stay employed and take care of yourselves, let alone 3, 4, 5+ children. If male birth control ever comes out I think this would become even more viable too. Right to Internet: I don't have great reasons for this but can anyone think of a bad one for this? Like birth control could be found to have terrible side effects, perhaps some welfare plan might cause mass dependency, but literally is there any bad reason for guaranteeing internet?
  - talmand 9y ago
    Why stop with right to Internet? Why don't we just stop this silly game and declare that everyone has a right to anything that they could possibly want? Someone creates a technology in the future that may help people's lives in some significant, or even small, way? I declare I have a right to it and demand someone else pay for it to provide to me.
    - Top19 9y ago
      Initially, your point was "grinding my gears" lol. My reasoning was "'x is good". You took that (and this next part could be wrong so please accept my apology if it is but I tried to break it down into concrete math terms) and said "no it's not, because '20x' is bad, and if we do 'x' then that means we almost certainly will commit ourselves to '20x'". But......You do have a point though. When extremist interpretations can be made...haha they almost certainly will (Islam, the Bible, anything related to communism, capitalism, etc). How do you get around that? No contract is really bulletproof, there is a spirit to every law and document. That spirit I like to think is applied through good systems, common sense, and good leadership.
      - talmand 9y ago
        Yes, it's a tough one. I consider many different ways of possibly dealing with it. I start with the notion that no matter how well a system is designed, it will eventually fall apart and requires a reboot. Sometimes actions prolong the system, sometimes they hasten its demise. These days I'm wondering if an automatic and irreversible sunset clause on every rule in the system might help. To force the people to rethink things from time-to-time. That way the rules don't slowly degrade over time as people "tweak" them for their own benefit. New people have an opportunity to contribute to the rules as opposed to being dictated by rules created by people long dead. It would have to have term limits on the people involved in making the rules for the system as well. Everything would have to be staggered though, can't have everything up for renewal at the same time. Too easy to cause chaos of which some people will take advantage. But, most likely, it won't matter in the long run because my thoughts are around the idea of trying to prevent the always inevitable violent upheaval of the status quo to "make things better". Which only means get rid of all the crappy rules we've forced on ourselves to return to a time the rules were fair and made sense. Which, of course, eventually goes downhill again.
vivekd 9y ago
When you know you don't have to enforce them you make make your declaration say anything you want. Real, worthwhile documents like the United States Constitution mean something because you can take it into a courtroom and enforce it. These things aren't real declarations because they don't provide any real rights that you can enforce, just fancy PR documents. Things like >Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Sound great until you realize that most of the planet lives in poverty - how realistic is it to fight for paid holidays on a planet where most people don't even get paid enough to live? Plus the U.N. has done exactly nothing to ensure people get paid holidays. . . as a matter of fact, they've done nothing to enforce or even advocate for many of the rights in their declaration. These people don't understand that rights were meant to be limitation on government power to secure freedom, not expansions of government power to chase pipe dreams
- xg15 9y ago
  The purpose is different. The declaration of human rights is not a concrete, enforceable document but a common moral and philosophical base line that people commit to and that can e.g. influence making (or applying) laws. It's less about where we are and more about where we want to go. There are always people who bring in extreme cultural relativism to argue for all kinds of ethical transgressions: "Hey, who says child labor is exploitation? Maybe some people are fine with working 24/7 without pay and selling their children. What do we know?" Human rights can be used to find arguments against stuff like that.
  - afarrell 9y ago
    > that people commit to The parent is arguing that people haven't actually committed to them because they clearly haven't paid the cost actually involved in that commitment.
skocznymroczny 9y ago
It uses transphobic wording such as "sex" instead of "gender". I wouldn't use it as an example of a good rights declaration.

by Top19 9y ago

ams6110 9y ago

Theoretically beautiful, like most utopian visions. The reality is that most places that the UN is involved in are human rights hellholes.

Top19 9y ago
You make a good point actually. It made me think and I'd even take it a step further and say most of the places the US (military) is involved in are not great like Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Uganda, Haiti, etc. which is interesting because this thread originally asked about our (US) Bill of Rights. Obviously the UN (and thus all of its mistakes) is typically supported by Democrats... But also Paul Wolfowitz, neoconservative extraordinaire and also the world's worst human being and the only person I know who can be singularly blamed for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq and now Syria, was a Republican idealist who was going to spread human rights values by attacking Iraq and paying for the $50 billion dollar war (turned out to be $3 trillion) with captured oil revenues from the temporary, "month long" occupation of southern Iraq... So, the question is, do good inspiring rights-based documents cause disastrous foreign policy decisions when countries try to implement them in real life? The opposite of all this by the way is realpolitik, advocated by Henry Kissinger. But then again that was during Vietnam...a war of comparable brutality to Iraq. In the end...I would say since everything seems to fail...go with the inspiring, come up with a list of actions that will never be justifiable so that "going to far" and "failure" is never a matter of debate but only a matter of proof, and get good leaders.
Top19 9y ago
And to answer OP's original question... Right to Birth Control: we're never going to agree on abortion but can we at least get this? A long time ago women would usually stop getting their periods after 20...because they were constantly pregnant until 50 when menopause started. Having larger amount of children might very well be unsustainable in a world with less jobs and that demands a lifetime of learning (by both spouses) to stay employed and take care of yourselves, let alone 3, 4, 5+ children. If male birth control ever comes out I think this would become even more viable too. Right to Internet: I don't have great reasons for this but can anyone think of a bad one for this? Like birth control could be found to have terrible side effects, perhaps some welfare plan might cause mass dependency, but literally is there any bad reason for guaranteeing internet?
- talmand 9y ago
  Why stop with right to Internet? Why don't we just stop this silly game and declare that everyone has a right to anything that they could possibly want? Someone creates a technology in the future that may help people's lives in some significant, or even small, way? I declare I have a right to it and demand someone else pay for it to provide to me.
  - Top19 9y ago
    Initially, your point was "grinding my gears" lol. My reasoning was "'x is good". You took that (and this next part could be wrong so please accept my apology if it is but I tried to break it down into concrete math terms) and said "no it's not, because '20x' is bad, and if we do 'x' then that means we almost certainly will commit ourselves to '20x'". But......You do have a point though. When extremist interpretations can be made...haha they almost certainly will (Islam, the Bible, anything related to communism, capitalism, etc). How do you get around that? No contract is really bulletproof, there is a spirit to every law and document. That spirit I like to think is applied through good systems, common sense, and good leadership.
    - talmand 9y ago
      Yes, it's a tough one. I consider many different ways of possibly dealing with it. I start with the notion that no matter how well a system is designed, it will eventually fall apart and requires a reboot. Sometimes actions prolong the system, sometimes they hasten its demise. These days I'm wondering if an automatic and irreversible sunset clause on every rule in the system might help. To force the people to rethink things from time-to-time. That way the rules don't slowly degrade over time as people "tweak" them for their own benefit. New people have an opportunity to contribute to the rules as opposed to being dictated by rules created by people long dead. It would have to have term limits on the people involved in making the rules for the system as well. Everything would have to be staggered though, can't have everything up for renewal at the same time. Too easy to cause chaos of which some people will take advantage. But, most likely, it won't matter in the long run because my thoughts are around the idea of trying to prevent the always inevitable violent upheaval of the status quo to "make things better". Which only means get rid of all the crappy rules we've forced on ourselves to return to a time the rules were fair and made sense. Which, of course, eventually goes downhill again.

vivekd 9y ago

When you know you don't have to enforce them you make make your declaration say anything you want. Real, worthwhile documents like the United States Constitution mean something because you can take it into a courtroom and enforce it. These things aren't real declarations because they don't provide any real rights that you can enforce, just fancy PR documents. Things like >Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Sound great until you realize that most of the planet lives in poverty - how realistic is it to fight for paid holidays on a planet where most people don't even get paid enough to live? Plus the U.N. has done exactly nothing to ensure people get paid holidays. . . as a matter of fact, they've done nothing to enforce or even advocate for many of the rights in their declaration. These people don't understand that rights were meant to be limitation on government power to secure freedom, not expansions of government power to chase pipe dreams

xg15 9y ago
The purpose is different. The declaration of human rights is not a concrete, enforceable document but a common moral and philosophical base line that people commit to and that can e.g. influence making (or applying) laws. It's less about where we are and more about where we want to go. There are always people who bring in extreme cultural relativism to argue for all kinds of ethical transgressions: "Hey, who says child labor is exploitation? Maybe some people are fine with working 24/7 without pay and selling their children. What do we know?" Human rights can be used to find arguments against stuff like that.
- afarrell 9y ago
  > that people commit to The parent is arguing that people haven't actually committed to them because they clearly haven't paid the cost actually involved in that commitment.

skocznymroczny 9y ago

It uses transphobic wording such as "sex" instead of "gender". I wouldn't use it as an example of a good rights declaration.