I just fucking hate how pretentiously written this bill of “basic human rights” is. How the fuck is being able to travel where-ever you want a right? I might WANT to travel in to Area 51, but I’d be shot if I did. Does that mean Area 51 is violating human rights? And what the hell is this bullshit about me being entitled to “Economic and cultural” help from my government?
>Itt we debunk human rights
there's no such thing as universal rights
rights are dependent on the power structure that uphold them
when the power structure collapses, so does the rights
Based Nord
As far as I'm concerned, the only rights we have are negative. The commandments are "thou shalt not", not "thou shall".
it starts normal then veers into marxism.
>innocent until proven guilty
>right to privacy
They don't even follow their own bs rights
>the two of us travel to the Moon
>"thou shalt not kill"
>kills you
...
I demand cummies as a human right.
UN publishing pamphlets with a spelling mistake. Low tier.
Thou shalt not violate the NAP
Your theoretical example isn't reasonable, I don't associate with Danes.
>You have the right to recognition everyehere
>everyehere
...
there is an alternate line of thinking that says we have no rights -- no such thing. instead we (and the state) have obligations. for example, i have an obligation to not rob you and leave your battered body in an alley. the state has an obligation to not infringe on our personal liberty and so on.
Theyre full of shit and misinterpreted the origina declaration.
un.org
en.wikipedia.org
>a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others
You have to be a citizen to go where you want within a country.
So they lied.
>your property as artist or scientist
wtf
>We are all entitled to social order
What a joke.
How do you maintain any kind of order when the most violent scum has virtually no deterrence from acting on their vile impulses in places where normal law abiding citizens can't legally defend themselves and cops can't use force without being hounded by the media?
Sounds like the exact same thing but stated differently. Right to property = Thou shalt not covet = you have an obligation to not rob.
there you go...perfect
>Contry
>Everyehere
>Declaration of human rights
>zero statements about the right to bear arms
What a useless document.
Why not just accept that pre-determined rights are retarded and English Common Law is the only sane system
Was this written by a teenager?
subhuman intelligence. rights exist outside the material universe, they are cosmic and immutable.
>Does that mean Area 51 is violating human rights?
Yes
The concept of rights is internally inconsistent. If more than one "right" is in play at any given time, they will conflict with each other.
Most people would agree individuals deserve to be judged for their individual actions and that you have a right to your physical integrity. Well, it's impossible to run a low-crime society if you don't discriminate against nogs on the basis of race. Even if you administer IQ tests or something, there is regression to the mean.
Even if rights exist, good luck enforcing them if you are in a weak economic or social position. The closest thing we will ever have to rights is an ethno-state where everyone is basically on the same page and agree to enforce rights that exist in the form of a legal entities.
How do you maintain social order without violating some other right?
Example: someone throws cig butt on sidewalk. Cop stops them to issue ticket. Litter-er refuses to ID themselves. Cop either has to let it go (i.e. other people's right to social order violated) or escalate the interaction (i.e. apply physical force to someone for littering, excessive force).
Rights are a childish idea.
Time for you to look up negative vs positive rights.
Another example.
Hiker gets lost in the woods for two weeks. In a state of near starvation, finally stumbles across someone's vacation cottage, breaks in and helps themselves to food and medical supplies.
Did the hiker violate personal property rights? What about his right to health?
Its literal subversion, its meant to lure you in and then use the fact that people dont think as critically when they agree with something initially
>No one has the right to torture you
Jesus, it's like it was written by a high school student.
>it probably was
>no right to bear arms
Typical. Did you know Alger Hiss, confirmed Soviet commie spy in the USA federal government, was heavily involved in the formation of the United Nations as its Secretariat General? The UN has been used as a front for Soviet diplomatic chicanery ever since. It's almost as full of communists as the State Department!
Fucking this. No right to defend your life and liberty. Into the trash it goes.
This is correct, however given the current state of the UK it's clear that ECL alone isn't enough. Nor is the Bill of Rights in the USA because THAT gets trampled all day long, too.
I think the Swiss have it right. All government is local and everyone is armed and zero immigration unless they are really really desired (like super rich people).
Dumb dumb, my first example were both negative rights
The right not to be prejudged because you happen to be a member of a certain race
The right not to be assaulted
Step away from the lolbertarian coolaid
"Human rights" is the most horrible concept ever. It's written up by a small intellectual elite (who decides what is and what isint a human right??) and can be changed at any time at the whims of this elite - then the entire world has to follow to the last letter, lest they be declared EVIL.
"I will simply point out the error of principle that has provided the foundation of this constitution and that has led the French astray since the first moment of their revolution.
The constitution of 1795, like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man. Now, there is no such thing in the world as Man. In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him.
....This constitution is capable of being applied to all human communities from China to Geneva. But a constitution which is made for all nations is made for none: it is a pure abstraction, a school exercise whose purpose is to exercise the mind in accordance with a hypothetical ideal, and which ought to be addressed to Man, in the imaginary places which he inhabits....
What is a constitution? Is it not the solution to the following problem: to find the laws that are fitting for a particular nation, given its population, its customs, its religion, its geographical situation, its political relations, its wealth, and its good and bad qualities?
Now, this problem is not addressed at all by the Constitution of 1795, which is concerned only with Man."
There is no such thing as "human". There are germans, italians, nigerians, chinese, japanese and so forth. Trying to ascribe a single set of rules to all the nations of the world is simply a bad idea.
If you think about it, "human rights" is no different to the quran or the bible, in that it's a set of moral rules. What you can do and what you cannot do.
The basic human gibsmedats
>Nor is the Bill of Rights in the USA because THAT gets trampled all day long, too.
The bill of rights enumerated "rights" that assure it's eventual destruction, namely universal suffrage
>Everyone is entitled to these rights
Why?
Like anyone gives a shit what the united nations thinks a country adds or removes rights regardless of what they say. An example not mentioned here is the USA gives you the right to defend yourself while the UK does not
These are inherently contradictory. You can't simultaneously have a universal right to own property and a universal right to open travel.
Nords are really retarded
This gives me right to privacy and freedom of expression.
BURN ALL NIGGERS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
MERICA FUCK YA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Universal suffrage is not in the USA bill of rights, look it up. In fact the USA still does not have universal suffrage.
"Human rights" = kike narrative to undermine authority of white christians
There are no human rights. There is the moral law which sets out duties and responsibilities.
I agree Olafur.
Well technically the bill of rights is the first 10 amendments, so yeah no universal suffrage there.
There are later amendments that grant voting to blacks and women, so practically universal suffrage.
/thread
Ok, you got me, the bill of rights is only the first 10 amendments.
Doesn't change the fact that giving gibsmedats, literal retards, criminals, browns, childless feminists, etc the "right" to vote starts all rights swirling down the toilet
Basically. The only thing which disqualifies you from voting is a felony record, and even that is controversial (and so is asking for proof of citizenship).
I have heard of staff at literal retard homes busing their "clients" to the polls. So you can be an orthopedic surgeon with an IQ of 140 and fix 500 broken bodies a year and you get the same vote as a literal retard. To do otherwise is a violation of "rights".