Basic Human Rights - Define them?
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
SJP
You were questioning the order of these rights and implying that the order they were written denotes their importance - I disagree - But for discussion why not place them in the order you think they should be.
Oh, they are in the right order, Goober. I think people confuse rights with needs. Rights are something granted by the state, it is in state’s power to grant a right. Rights do not cost any money. It may not be in the state’s power to grant a need, the state may just not have the resources.
That is why freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion etc. are regarded as basic rights, but food, water etc. are not. With freedoms, we can unequivocally say that every nation must grant these rights to their citizens. With food, water etc. we have to say that a nation must grant these ‘rights’ if they can afford it. What kind of right is that?
That is why if somebody’s freedom of speech, or freedom of religion is threatened, he can go to the courts, he has recourse in Charter of Rights or Bill of Rights. If somebody is hungry, can he go to the court, claiming that government must give him food? Or if somebody doesn’t have shelter can he go to courts demanding that government give him shelter?
People were literally starving during the depression era (remember ‘Brother, can you spare a dime?”). But nobody implied that government must give adequate food to everybody.
It doesn’t work that way. That is why needs (which require financial resources) are not considered fundamental right, while freedoms (which do not require any financial resources) are considered the basic rights.
I think they are listed in pretty much the right order. What the declaration says is that the rights listed at the top of the list, the various freedoms, must be granted. When you approach the bottom of the list well, if nation has resources, it may grant them. I think the order is about right.
In this respect, it is also striking that nations are taken routinely to task for denying freedom of speech, freedom of expression etc. No nation has yet been taken to task for not providing adequate food or water to its citizens.
YJ
Are you a fan of Heinlein -
Perhaps Starship Troopers would be appropriate - are you familiar with the book - movie?
Absolutely- You don't think a person who is thumping his fist on the counter demanding rights is worried about all that other sh*t, do you? :lol:
If you don't know then you shouldn't be commenting on the topic, but I'll give one hint, observing and obeying the laws of the land. I don't know if printing false information is outlawed, but one who does it shouldn't be demanding too many rights.
You evidently are not familiar with the concept of freedom of press. False information is very much allowed, 90% of what we see on internet is either false or gross misrepresentation.
The only recourse the aggrieved part has is a lawsuit for slander or defamation of character, and they are very difficult to win. But no, printing of false information is definitely not outlawed, it is outlawed only in dictatorships (and of course, the dictator decides which information is true and which is false).
As to obeying the laws, I did mention that in my post and if you had bothered to read my post properly, you would know that.
But again, I don't see any responsibilities associated with freedom of speech or freedom of press (except obeying the laws which may put reasonable restrictions on them).
What is a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech or freedom of press, as long as the speaker can prove what they are saying or writing anything goes. Even divulging state secrets is part of that right. Of course local espionage and spying, laws come into effect which can get you hung. As Judge Napolitano said, some Homeland Security regulations violate court orders.
YouTube - Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural rights Patriot Act - Part 3 of 3
YouTube - Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural rights Patriot Act - Part 3 of 3
I think basic human rights are changeable according to any particular society's desires. And not all societies denote the same rights.
Personally I am pretty content with the UN's version: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
BTW, it doesn't matter which order rights are listed in, as people with a half ounce of intelligence can figure out that the right to life and the things that support life is a bit more important than the right to freedom of marriage or freedom of thought. Insisting on an order is just being pedantic and trivial at best.
Personally I am pretty content with the UN's version: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
BTW, it doesn't matter which order rights are listed in, as people with a half ounce of intelligence can figure out that the right to life and the things that support life is a bit more important than the right to freedom of marriage or freedom of thought. Insisting on an order is just being pedantic and trivial at best.
A reasonable restriction would be not being able to shout fire in a crowded theatre. When freedom of speech causes demonstrable harm to a human being, that is where freedom of speech ends. There is a saying, you right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Right to safety is the only right that can sometimes override freedom of speech.
But such instances are very rare and in practice, there really are no restrictions on freedom of speech (and rightly so).
The minute anyone talks or writes about free speech, some twit is sure to pop up and say that there’s no absolute freedom of speech. They usually can’t resist adding that no one is free to shout “Fire!” in a crowded movie theatre.
They’re quite right. The only thing wrong with those who keep insisting there are no absolutes is they do it to restrict some particulars that irk them.
Everyone knows free speech isn’t “absolute.” If it were, it would be legal to defame people, counsel murder, or impersonate a police officer. No one disputes that being free to use hand gestures doesn’t entitle anyone to signal a truck to back over a toddler. Our freedom to gesticulate isn’t “absolute.” It’s enough, though, to give censors the finger.
Now that I got this off my chest, let me turn to a different topic. Well — maybe not entirely different. It is another facet of the complex syndrome that prompted Charles Dickens to have Mr. Bumble call the law an “ass.”
As saying goes exceptions do arise - My rights do not end at the tip of your nose - depends upon what is coming out of your mouth - Then I can lawfully use violence to prevent further harm -
Sorry, assaulting somebody for something they said ("depends upon what is coming out of your mouth") ) is never permitted by law. You will very likely be charged, convicted and sentenced for assault and battery, no matter what the other fellow said to you.
Deny everything after you kick the poop out of him, and say you did not hit that person, in fact you chased away a tall person in a black robe, never saw their face. In fact you helped the person by helping them up off the ground. :lol:
Perjury is a greater charge than assault, why not just take the fine over you giving a Judge the line you suggest and have some vid from a phone prove you a liar.
Wrong
Inciting a crowd to commit violence against a person - You as a citizen can arrest that person - using as much force and only as much as is required.
Threatening to harm a person - you believe that this person is going to harm you or kill you - You as a citizen can arrest that person or defend yourself- using as much force and only as much as required
Yelling Fire in a crowded Theater - Causing a high probability that others will be harmed - You as a citizen can arrest that person - using as much force and only as much as required.