Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:15:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1798 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm
>
> Just to name a few flaws, not claiming this is an exhaustive list.
>
> Article 1. Is it mandatory that we act in a spirit of brotherhood?
> Twaddle, linguistic filler, or wrongheadedness?
>
> Article 12. Do we ban the National Enquirer? I think the common law
> prohibition of slander and libel is good enough.
>
> Article 16. Only Man-Woman? What about other compatible partnerships?
> Why recognise this person to person voluntary act as meriting special
> treatment??
>
> Article 17 (2). So deliberate deprivation of property is OK?
>
> Article 22. The whole article is flawed. What exactly are cultural
> rights indispensible to dignity? Sounds like free goods to me.
>
> Article 23. The whole article is flawed but (3) especially is way out
> there. Free goods again.
>
> Article 25. How is this different from 23? It isn't. Free goods again.
>
> Article 26. Now we spell out a particular kind of free good. No one has
> a right to a free education. (3) I can choose the kind but I have to pay
> for the kind I don't choose??
>
> Article 27. So what about patent laws? Those are null and void so I can
> "share in scientific advancement"???
>
> Article 28. Who bells the cat?
>
> Article 29. Can someone parse this one for me? It's registering null
> semantic content to me.
>
> > Take the canonical example: You have a right to swing your fist, I
> > have the right not to be hit by it. Bingo, rights conflict.
>
> Bzzt, let's actually get the canonical example right: "You have a right
> to swing your fist, which ends just short of my nose." Bingo, no rights
> conflict.
Oh my, I have not seen this in awhile. Horrid.
As an example:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the
health and well-being of himself and of his
Family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to security
in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old
age or other lack of livelihood in
circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and
assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock,
shall enjoy the same social protection.
Wow, I guess this most be where most leftists think health-care is a
right, much less anything else (Housing, etc.) I can imagine if the UN
gets enough power to start taxing countries or
whatever to enforce this declaration. No thanks, I will live under the
US one anyday.
Can you imagine we, the US taxpayers, are funding this nonsense? Time to
pull out of the UN,
right now! What a bunch of hogwash.
Did you also notice that in the background, there are wonderful little
words like peace, etc.
I am surprised they don't have diversity in there as well.
Thanks for posting that Larry.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers ->
http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
