4 ms·

I appreciate the sentiment, but how can that ever be enforced? Are high house prices a violation of my human rights? Can I take the Australian Government to c

• jltsiren 2y ago
  Your idea of rights sounds much like classical liberalism. Which had, at the time the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written, failed in very obvious ways. Classical liberals got some things right, but their ideas did not lead to a peaceful and prosperous society where everyone's rights would be respected. Instead, the countries where liberalism was the strongest also believed in imperialism. They divided the world among themselves and took advantage of everyone else. And when liberalism failed to deliver the promised prosperity to common people, those people turned to nationalism and communism. Which led to two destructive world wars and many other wars. When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written, the failure of liberalism was as obvious as the failure of communism was a few decades later. Liberalism was an insufficient foundation for a civilized society. Something more was needed, and the United Nations wrote up their vision of the future. Which they, as the winners of WW2, had every right to do according to the natural law. After all, nothing is more natural than the strong ruling over the weak. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a legally binding document. But it is a morally binding one. Particularly to the 48 countries, including Australia, that originally voted to adopt it. Then there is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is a legally binding treaty signed and ratified by 172 countries. Including Australia (but not including the US). It contains many of the same ideas about the rights to an adequate standard of living, health, education, and so on.
  • snapplebobapple 2y ago
    You appear to be mixing up a bunch of timelines: The universal declaration of human rights was drafted in 1947 and 1948 and adopted in 1948, so fascism had already spectacularly failed on the human rights front, as had communism, we just didn't know about communism's failures for a few decades because anyone who tried to tell us had their rights violated via death or gulag. Liberalism had not failed at this time (or arguably at any time. The places doing the nasty things were pretty clearly not liberal, as they pretty fundamentally don't recognize the individual and provide autonomy to the individual (as one of many reasons they weren't liberal). Instead this document is a reaction to the atrocities committed by the nazis (and would be a reaction to the atrocities committed by the communists had they been known).
    • jltsiren 2y ago
      The reality of Soviet communism was well known in the aftermath of WW2. The USSR had not been an isolated state between the world wars, but there was widespread migration between it and the West. Despite that, many people still believed in communism and that it would lead to a better future. They didn't stop believing until decades later. And you don't get to apply double standards to ideologies. The places doing nasty things were liberal exactly in the same way as the USSR was communist. It wasn't liberalism in the sense the ideologues said it would be, but it was what liberalism became in the real world. In particular, classical liberalism was the dominant ideology in the 19th century British Empire.
      • snapplebobapple 2y ago
        yes the british empire that ended slavery at great personal expense because it was against their liberal values... It had warts for sure but compared to any of its contemporaries it was the best place to be a citizen of or colony of. Also you are incorrect about the ussr and knowing the atrocities. Hearing unsubstabtiated reports and having a mountain of evidence so high even the western communists had to concede communism wasnt working in the ussr are two very different things
        • jltsiren 2y ago