Predictable response

"sovereign

but

not

others?

Then they all basically elect each other to the UN Human Rights Committee which sort of solves any issues that might arise in the future (and gives a platform to point fingers at everyone else).

PS:

Which version of the "human rights" are "we" talking about? The Islamic or the Western. There is a difference you know.

In message , dated Tue, 29 Aug

2006, Frithiof Andreas Jensen writes

The wrongly named 'unalienable' ones? Wrongly named because in practice they are all too easily alienable.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely.

John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

'Human Rights' are a social contract between those with concentrated power and those with diffuse power in the context of a particular society.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK\'s only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

Actually, I always thought we should 'annex' Baja, and make it South California, or something like that.

Charlie

But minus the Mexicans (except servants).

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK\'s only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

Who needs signs when you're using GPS?

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Yeah. At the behest of one lame-brained commander-in-chief, who just decided it would be a good idea to make a war or two.

Thanks, Rich

Pretty much, yeah.[1]

Where would _you_ draw the line?

Thanks, Rich

[1] right now, the US seems to be pretty close - it's a chunk of land ruled by a committee of madmen.

And, what should one do about a group of thugs who have guards around their borcers, who say, "We're in charge by consent of our people" and get a couple of citizens to say how much they love their leader, then what? Diplomatic relations? Free trade?

I just now had a profound revelation.

Of all the attempts at "regime change", by whoever, the only one that has had any positive effect has been the introduction of The Free Market.

Just look at the record!

When will people get it - government control is Bad. Free Will is Good.

That's why everyone should vote Libertarian - what the hell, how could he be worse than the current pack of clowns? ;-)

Thanks, Rich

Usually, not until the next election. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Well, this "basic human rights" stuff has two edges, you know. Don't people (and maybe even nations) have the "basic human right" to not be attacked by people who disagree with their lifestyle?

Or what exactly would "do something about it" mean in this context?

Thanks, Rich

Better hurry. Mexico has pretty much done that all the way up the west coast to Los Angeles, at least.

What really disgusts me is Mexican shows on taxpayer-paid PBS. Arrrgh!

Thanks, Rich

We've purchased large magnets from Acme.

Which Acme?

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"Proud supplier to Wiley Coyote"

In article , John Larkin wrote: [....]

Before we give the "disqualify" teeth, we'd better know what it means.

I think, the international community does agree to some basic human rights already. Many of them are hypocrites about it when it comes to putting it into practice. Some hold people for long periods of time without charge, torture people and etc, but still maintain that they believe in human rights.

A system for giving the international standards teeth would have to include an international court system. There would have to be a method by which the government of a nation would be found guilt of a crime and the degree to which it is punished determined. You can remove the "minister for shoving old ladies under busses" but not depose the whole crew or you could oust the lot of them.

Once the punishment has been decided, a force strong enough to ensure that it is carried out is needed. This basically means that the reformed UN would need an army it can call on fairly quickly. We don't want 10 years of arguing over what color tanks to use to get in the way.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

In article , Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote: [....]

It isn't just Islamic vs Western. Communisim, socialism, capitalism and anarchy are all western ideas that carry different versions of what human rights are.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

In article , Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: [....]

I disagree. "Human rights" are the rights you have just because you are human. "The social contract" is an agreement between the the people and the government where the people choose not to exercise some of their rights individually but rather collectively. Those rights are not given up. They are still the rights of the individuals.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

In article , wrote: [... nations exist because they can't be defeated ...]

The national sport of the US is baseball where people "run home".

The national sport of Canada is hockey where anyone with more than 3 teeth is a newcomer.

The national sport of Mexico is their version of the rodeo where they jump on large unfriendly animals.

The national animal of the US is the Bald Eagle which is still endangered.

The national animal of the Canada is the beaver which eats trees for a living.

The national animal of Mexico is the chiwawa, a small dog like animal that can survive on Taco Bell food.

I don't fancy the US attacking either of those.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge