quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard By human rights I mean those enshrined in both the UN Charter regarding the same and in our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms (despite the fact that our courts have been very poor in balancing conflicting rights/freedoms as of late). Essentially the rights to life, security of the person, freedom of belief/conscious/expression, freedom of thought, freedom of association, freedom of movement, right to private property, etc. There are many places where these freedoms and rights have not yet taken hold. I think that Canada should act as an example to the world of how these rights should be granted and safeguarded. I do not think that we should force these ideals on anyone (as that would essentially violate many of the rights we are seeking to protect), however, I also do not feel that we should support those that do not respect these rights. Ideally, I would like to see us use our economic and foriegn aid policies structured toward "influencing" countries to adopt internal practices in fitting with the UN Charter... i.e. no more free grain to China, no aid to third world despots, no trade with North Korea, etc. With regard to the environment I couldn't agree with you more. We should focus our efforts on developing environmentally friendly technologies or at least implementing the green technologies that already exist. Granted, this would cost a lot in R&D funding but in the end would create a stronger economy as we would become leaders in designing and building the technologies that will be standard in the global marketplace 25 years from now.

If you actually study UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you'd think it farfetched as it talks about stuff like guaranteed jobs, right to housing, etc which sounds nice, but rather impractical to apply in today's world.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree If you actually study UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you'd think it farfetched as it talks about stuff like guaranteed jobs, right to housing, etc which sounds nice, but rather impractical to apply in today's world.

I can certainly say I have not read the entire thing and had no clue that those were in there. That said, depending on how you interpret things those rights aren't too far fetched as they could be considered part of the right to security of the person. Regardless, I wouldn't fault a state for failing to provide a right as it may not be possible or feasable (for instance it is impossible to actually guarentee someone the right to life as whether or not someone continues to live is often out of the state's control). I would, however, fault any state that actively violates those rights.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

Well Moral Hazard, needless to say I think you've been slightly misled as to what the U.N. is preaching, but other than that I think we're on the same page.

Although there is one beef I have, which is that I sense you're going down the path of synonymizing "rights" with "guarantees". Rights - at least the way the "founding fathers" and our earliest pioneers envisioned them - are declarations of freedom, not lifestyle, and exist to protect the people from potentially oppressive government.

Obviously we can't guarantee that no other member of society will put a gun to your head. And we can't guarantee that you won't drink poison or smoke too many cigarettes. So the "right to life" isn't a guarantee. It just means that the government (a) may not institute any laws that would deprive a person of his/her life, and (b) will not *willingly* allow one member of society to kill another (i.e. it is illegal to do so and that law is enforced). The same logic applies to security of the person, too.

The right to private property means that the government cannot confiscate your private property, and must take reasonable steps to ensure that other members of society do not steal it. And the right to freedom of expression means that the government cannot make laws restricting what you can say or do (as long as it isn't violating anyone else's rights).

Those are "fundamental" rights... it all makes such beautiful sense that way. They're independent and do not conflict with one another. They're simple. They're enforceable. They're essentially black-and-white.

When we talk about the "right" to a job, though, what does that really imply? Well, it makes sense if we define it as a "right to work", in the sense that no law and no other member of society should prevent you from working. But then you have people who want to define it as a guarantee. The government should make sure everybody is EMPLOYED! There is absolutely no way to guarantee that without creating oppressive laws that violate other people's rights, such as the freedom of an employer to choose who to hire and what to do with their own private property (money). Suddenly all these "rights" have to juggled around, you can't enforce one without throwing another out the window.

It's the same sticky situation with the right to life or security of the person. If we try to define this as a guarantee rather than a freedom, then suddenly it becomes the government's responsibility to protect people from their own self-destructive behaviour. How can we do this without restricting their other freedoms? And how can we pay for it without confiscating part of their private property?

Anyway, that's my rant for tonight. I know I've veered way off topic. And now back to your regularly scheduled programming!

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Well Moral Hazard, needless to say I think you've been slightly misled as to what the U.N. is preaching, but other than that I think we're on the same page. Although there is one beef I have, which is that I sense you're going down the path of synonymizing "rights" with "guarantees". Rights - at least the way the "founding fathers" and our earliest pioneers envisioned them - are declarations of freedom, not lifestyle, and exist to protect the people from potentially oppressive government. Obviously we can't guarantee that no other member of society will put a gun to your head. And we can't guarantee that you won't drink poison or smoke too many cigarettes. So the "right to life" isn't a guarantee. It just means that the government (a) may not institute any laws that would deprive a person of his/her life, and (b) will not *willingly* allow one member of society to kill another (i.e. it is illegal to do so and that law is enforced). The same logic applies to security of the person, too. The right to private property means that the government cannot confiscate your private property, and must take reasonable steps to ensure that other members of society do not steal it. And the right to freedom of expression means that the government cannot make laws restricting what you can say or do (as long as it isn't violating anyone else's rights). Those are "fundamental" rights... it all makes such beautiful sense that way. They're independent and do not conflict with one another. They're simple. They're enforceable. They're essentially black-and-white. When we talk about the "right" to a job, though, what does that really imply? Well, it makes sense if we define it as a "right to work", in the sense that no law and no other member of society should prevent you from working. But then you have people who want to define it as a guarantee. The government should make sure everybody is EMPLOYED! There is absolutely no way to guarantee that without creating oppressive laws that violate other people's rights, such as the freedom of an employer to choose who to hire and what to do with their own private property (money). Suddenly all these "rights" have to juggled around, you can't enforce one without throwing another out the window. It's the same sticky situation with the right to life or security of the person. If we try to define this as a guarantee rather than a freedom, then suddenly it becomes the government's responsibility to protect people from their own self-destructive behaviour. How can we do this without restricting their other freedoms? And how can we pay for it without confiscating part of their private property? Anyway, that's my rant for tonight. I know I've veered way off topic. And now back to your regularly scheduled programming!

No, there is no confusion here with regard to rights vs. guarentees. This is why I stated that I would not fault any state for failing to provide a right or freedom because they are often beyond the state's control. The role of the state would be to put in place the framework for rights and freedoms to exhist and refrain from violating them by their own action(unless it is necessary in order to balance conflicting rights and freedoms). This is to say that while the state cannot guarentee employment they can and must create an environment where one cannot be denied employment for grounds other then a lack of merit, while they cannot guarentee that every citizen will have life and security they must provide the infrastructure to allow people to have life and security if they so choose. There are no guarentees but the state must take all reasonable steps to ensure that rights and freedoms are both possible (through establishing order) and protected (through legislation and enforcement of the same). I think you would agree with me on this.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

pretty selfish of you guys to pick the "concentrate on issues at home" option, we have it pretty sweet here and shouldn't so easily turn our backs on the rest of the world....attitudes like that fuel terrorism.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard No, there is no confusion here with regard to rights vs. guarentees. This is why I stated that I would not fault any state for failing to provide a right or freedom because they are often beyond the state's control. The role of the state would be to put in place the framework for rights and freedoms to exhist and refrain from violating them by their own action(unless it is necessary in order to balance conflicting rights and freedoms). This is to say that while the state cannot guarentee employment they can and must create an environment where one cannot be denied employment for grounds other then a lack of merit, while they cannot guarentee that every citizen will have life and security they must provide the infrastructure to allow people to have life and security if they so choose. There are no guarentees but the state must take all reasonable steps to ensure that rights and freedoms are both possible (through establishing order) and protected (through legislation and enforcement of the same). I think you would agree with me on this.

Hmm... You're concentrating on what should the govt do in terms of rights, but what about the society? Because the govt control the society, at least in Canada it seems.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded