Article

2006-12-31 International-UN-NGOs

How human rights always lead to human wrongs

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-12-31 02:08|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 You can have my inalienable rights when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-12-31 03:21|| 2006-12-31 03:21|| Front Page Top

#2 Quoting from Robert Heinlein, Starship troopers,

Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about `life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"
"Ah, yes, the `unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that
magnificent poetry. Life? What `right' to life has a man who is drowning in
the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What `right' to life
has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save
his own life, does he do so as a matter of `right'? If two men are starving
and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is
`unalienable'? And is it `right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that
great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty
is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of
patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called `natural human rights'
that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is
never free of cost.
"The third `right'? -- the `pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed
unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which
tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn
me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can `pursue happiness' as long as
my brain lives -- but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs,
can insure that I will catch it."

Fight for them as legal rights? Sure. But don't expect nature or your enemies to respect them.

Posted by Bunyip 2006-12-31 04:53|| 2006-12-31 04:53|| Front Page Top

#3 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are born equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that amongst these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These statements are not self-evident. They are not even true. They are gobbledygook. Yet they inspired the Constitution of the United States, one of mankinds great achievements.

Excuse me, but . . . not even true? Gobbledygook? With all due respect, Ms. Whyte, the only gobbledygook in the above is your commentary. For one thing, you forgot to quote the whole Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.* That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

(Emphasis and footnote added.) The sentence you didn't bother quoting is critical. It's a key point--maybe even the key point--and it's one that goes back to at least St. Augustine's The City of God. It's this: governments have as their purpose, and their moral duty, to protect and secure the fundamental rights of their citizens. The government itself is not the source of those rights, and the government is answerable to God (as we all are) and to its citizens for how well it carries out this duty.

If all rights come from the state, and the state is answerable to no higher power, then you are the property of the state. The state is your master, not your servant. The state can take away your private property, your life, anything it wants, and you have no complaint. The "utilitarian" philosophy of your hero, Jeremy Bentham, is practiced today by Peter Singer, who will cheerfull tell you that if you become disabled, the state should be able to snuff you out to advance the greater good.

Look, I agree that private property is fundamental to liberty, and you've actually done a pretty good job of explaining why, in practical terms, this is true. Where you go wrong is in your expectation that godless utilitarianism is going to protect private property, or anything else that has anything to do with liberty. Just look at history. Why do you think that the first objective of every totalitarian and every social engineer is to discredit religion? The state (or maybe even the head of state**) is a jealous god, and there can be no other gods before it. Once the state is god, and the source of all rights, and accountable to no one, private property will be the least of your worries.

[/rant]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*In the original draft, "pursuit of Happiness" was phrased as "pursuit of Property;" the Declaration is then best understood as saying that the right to own private property is among those rights which come from God.

**E.g., Kim Jong Il.

Posted by Mike 2006-12-31 09:11|| 2006-12-31 09:11|| Front Page Top

#4 It's been 'em a long time between J Bentham posts, I get weepy.

Posted by Shipman 2006-12-31 10:32|| 2006-12-31 10:32|| Front Page Top

#5 Life? What `right' to life has a man who is drowning in
the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What `right' to life
has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save
his own life, does he do so as a matter of `right'? If two men are starving
and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is
`unalienable'? And is it `right'?

Ayn Rand rightly debunked this sort of reasoning as being based on "emergency ethics": while rights are of no use to a drowning man, he wasn't drowning for his entire life. I daresay 99.999% of the time there ARE NO EMERGENCIES, so basing your laws, morality, and ethics on something that happens only 0.001 % of the time is patently unrealistic.

The most common threat nowadays to human life in the West does not come from natural disasters but from other humans. And don't talk to me about Katrina: that was a natural disaster made worse by foolish humans.

I have heard philosophers, who should know better, state that political systems do not matter because they cannot affect the ability of a man to think as he chooses. That's true, but only if a man confines himself to just thinking. If his thinking makes him believe that he must act, then the political system will make a great difference in whether he will be permitted to act or not.

The American idea of human rights as being inalienable because they are granted by God is based on the fact that the document was intended to justify the actions of the American people with specific regard to the Crown of England, who asserted that ITS right to rule over other men was granted to it by God. It was a specific document, written within a specific context, and directed at a specific audience: ripping it out of context, like Heinlein's devious instructor did, does it a misservice.

One of marx's greatest faux-pas was his statement that "religion is the opiate of the masses". Wrong: Religion is the amphetamine of the masses. It's one thing for a tyrant to try and talk a man out of his rights if that man believes that the tyran granted those rights to him in the first place. It's a different kettle of fish to talk a religious fanatic out of his rights if that fanatic believes those rights came from God: "Who the F*ck do you think you ARE, mortal infidel, taking rights away that GOD gave me?"

I'm a religious man, and so know what the potential is within religion to motivate people, which is why I believe the true threat to Western civilization is imperialistic Islam.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-12-31 16:04|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-12-31 16:04|| Front Page Top

#6 Islam is the PCP of the masses.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2006-12-31 21:00|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2006-12-31 21:00|| Front Page Top

23:51 Barbara Skolaut
23:18 tu3031
23:17 Free Radical
23:10 ed
22:41 CrazyFool
21:53 bruce
21:50 Zhang Fei
21:47 Frank G
21:39 Frank G
21:17 Chuck Darwin
21:17 twobyfour
21:10 gromgoru
21:08 Elmert Crosh5077
21:04 gromgoru
21:04 Frank G
21:00 Jackal
20:59 gromgoru
20:58 Jackal
20:58 Mike N.
20:54 Frank G
20:48 Mike N.
20:48 Sherry
20:43 Barbara Skolaut
20:38 49 Pan