goatland is a binary world

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by j_b:

it sounds like MtnGoat wants us to return to 19th century liberalism (the historical kind not the progressive type).

---

It sounds like you want to launch us into some sort of socialistic nanny-state where people have to be dependent upon the government to meet their needs. Many of the "rights" this declaration establishes have no basis outside of government. Is the government the body that "provides" you with rights? Not for me thanks.

 

By the way, the classical liberalism that you appear to decry began long before the 19th century and was the basis for the founding of this country.

 

Greg W

 

P.S. You're an un-American piece of shit if you buy into this whole UN declaration thing

[sk]

but Greg... NO child should be left behind

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Muffy The Wanker Sprayer:

but Greg... NO child should be left behind

---

Until they can hold a job, children are irrelevant in the economic spectrum.

[iain]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

Until they can hold a job, children are irrelevant in the economic spectrum.

---

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

 

Nicely done, Iain! imorris never could have pulled off such a brilliant anti-capitalist spray coup!

[Greg_W]

Thanks for proving my point for me, Iain.

[j_b]

who said this?

 

"The Universal Declaration is the primary international articulation of the fundamental and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. It represents the first comprehensive agreement among nations as to the specific rights and freedoms of all human beings. The Declaration has become a cornerstone of customary international law, binding all governments to its principles"

 

and who said this:

 

"You're an un-American piece of shit if you buy into this whole UN declaration thing "

 

which opinions among these 2 is most opposite to american ideals?

[Peter_Puget]

quote:

---

Originally posted by j_b:

I just want to remind everyone interested in understanding where this flurry of attacks comes from that they should read the links provided. These texts are not from anyone's press in particular, they are opinions and witness accounts by people with a good knowledge of the israeli state, often israeli citizens themselves.I am always surprised when someone's wrong doing are justified by someone else's. it is really this kind of logic that allowed the situation to deterorates to what it is today. I really don't feel I have anything to add, rants of dubious logic won't take us very far (for those interested in getting somewhere).

---

Ah J-B here is a copied link from earlier in this thread.

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=344510

 

Isn't this someone's press. Don't the organizations you linked to have an express political purpose? If so they are someone's voice. Your first post to this thread you suggest that it is an extension of an earlier thread. In that thread you posted clear references to Gaurdian and the Nation. You even asked why I didn't respond to the particulars of the stories. My response was that posting rants from various interest groups proved nothing. I still belive it does. But I thought I'd buttress that claim by exposing the obvious mistruths printed in some of your quoted sources. So for the first part of yoru quote above I call BS. I have never justified Israel's poor behavior (and I believe Mtngoat hasn't either) and I ask that if you think I have show mme an example. As I pointed out several times you have avoided directly answering any questions regarding Arab behavior. I repeat since I (and I believe MG) have been making comparitive judgements not to due so shows "dubious" logic at best. I do not doubt that atrocities have been committed by both sides. This has never been disputed. I do find the current claim of "war crimes" and "genocide" to be of part and parcel of propganda supporting a political campaign not a serious anaysis of the situation. Your uncritical use and progation of such statements leads me to conclude you are merely a propagandizer. If calling you that is an attack then so be it.

 

PP

 

[ 11-14-2002, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Peter Puget ]

[MtnGoat]

"(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives."

 

fine

 

"Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country."

 

fine

 

"(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

 

great

 

"Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality."

 

nope. there is no right to compell others to provide you with labor

 

"(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment,"

 

fine

 

"... to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

 

again justifies compulsion of free individuals to serve the ends of another

 

"Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work."

 

false, this abrogates the personal right to control ownership and contract of ones wholly owned resources.

 

"Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection."

 

false, it expose free indidivuals to the religious dicatates and arbitrary views of others considering what is favorable and "dignity" as well.

 

"Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."

 

fine

 

"Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay."

 

everyone has the right to whatever they can negotiate for, but not an innate right to vacation.

 

"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."

 

this is the biggest problem of all, it guarantees someone else will be forced to labor to provide an individual with all these things upon demand. "rights" do not need to be supplied by coercion of other free peaceful individuals, but rights to goods and services, innately do.

 

"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."

 

still more social coercion

 

"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit."

 

again we see a "right" to goods and services others must be compelled to provide

 

"It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace."

 

now we shall dictate the content and ideology of said education, in direct violation of an individuals right to their own beliefs free of state imposition.

 

"Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

 

Will they have a right to an education that does not agree with the secular religion espoused above?

 

"it sounds like MtnGoat wants us to return to 19th century liberalism (the historical kind not the progressive type)."

 

You are correct sir, the kind that recognizes individuals right to self determination and not as servants of others without their express consent.

[rbw1966]

Mtngoat--just out of curiousity, how do you feel about the draft. Hypothetically speaking.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by j_b:

who said this?

 

"The Universal Declaration is the primary international articulation of the fundamental and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. It represents the first comprehensive agreement among nations as to the specific rights and freedoms of all human beings. The Declaration has become a cornerstone of customary international law, binding all governments to its principles"

 

and who said this:

 

"You're an un-American piece of shit if you buy into this whole UN declaration thing

"

 

which opinions among these 2 is most opposite to american ideals?

---

Neither of these quotes are in line with "American Ideals". Number 1 smacks of globalism and it's implication that our duly elected representative government cede it's authority to an "international governing body" that would enforce rules (or "laws") made up by a body that was not elected by the populace it seeks to govern (us). This is exactly what the people who founded this country sought freedom from: government without representation. Number 2 is an obvious troll hehehe.

 

Greg W

[j_b]

for the accuracy of the record, so far I have linked to pieces at: guardian (actually a book by uri davis, an israeli citizen), independent, nation, reuters, yahoonews, sf chronicles, washington post, gush-shalom (the following individuals:Dr. Yigal Shohat, Colonel (ret.), Israeli Air Force; Dr. Eyal Gross, Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University; Prof. Adi Ophir, Dept. of Philosophy, Tel-Aviv University; Brig. General (ret.)Dov Tamari; Michael Tarazi, legal adviser to the PLO Negotiations Dept., Ramallah; Shulamit Aloni, former minister of eduation and Meretz Party leader), human rights campaign, amnesty international, Yediot Aharonot (israeli tabloid), and the united nations. And there were probably more which I cannot remember. So why the continued smear tactics? Is there anything else we should not read PP?

 

then,

 

quote:

---

"it sounds like MtnGoat wants us to return to 19th century liberalism (the historical kind not the progressive type)."

 

You are correct sir, the kind that recognizes individuals right to self determination and not as servants of others without their express consent.

---

8-12 y.o. working children who earn a fraction of what adults make is no doubt an expression of self determination

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by j_b:

quote:

---

"it sounds like MtnGoat wants us to return to 19th century liberalism (the historical kind not the progressive type)."

 

You are correct sir, the kind that recognizes individuals right to self determination and not as servants of others without their express consent.

---

8-12 y.o. working children who earn a fraction of what adults make is no doubt an expression of self determination

---

This is a stupid response, j_b; classical liberalism has to do with much more than just child labor and you attempt to smear MtnGoat as a propponent of such is idiotic. The fact that there were obvious child labor issues in the 19th Century doesn't mean that we abandon a political school of thought contemporary to the time. If that's the best you can do, say good night.

 

Greg W

[j_b]

well Greg, the first quote was by Eleanor Roosevelt, US representative and chairman of the commission on Human rights.

 

quote:

---

[she] stated that the members of the Commission considered that the draft Declaration represented a great step forward in the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms and in their application. As the Commission had pointed out in its report, the Declaration, she explained, was only the first step in the elaboration of the human rights programme called for by the Charter; it was essential that it should be followed by a covenant on human rights, drafted in the form of a treaty and containing provisions for implementation. The draft Declaration, she submitted, was not a treaty or international agreement and did not impose legal obligations; it was rather a statement of basic principles of inalienable human rights setting up a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. Although it was not legally binding, the Declaration would, nevertheless, have considerable weight. Its adoption, she continued, would commit Member States, in the words of the preamble,

 

" to strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

---

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as a whole, was adopted by 48 votes, with 8 abstentions. The voting was as follows:

 

In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Siam (Thailand), Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

 

Abstaining: Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, Yugoslavia.

 

[j_b]

greg,

 

explain to me how my comment does not follow from MtnGoat's following opinion.

 

quote:

---

"Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work."

 

false, this abrogates the personal right to control ownership and contract of ones wholly owned resources.

 

"Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection."

 

false, it expose free indidivuals to the religious dicatates and arbitrary views of others considering what is favorable and "dignity" as well.

 

[...]

 

"Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay."

 

everyone has the right to whatever they can negotiate for, but not an innate right to vacation.

 

"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."

 

this is the biggest problem of all, it guarantees someone else will be forced to labor to provide an individual with all these things upon demand. "rights" do not need to be supplied by coercion of other free peaceful individuals, but rights to goods and services, innately do.

 

"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."

 

still more social coercion

 

"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit."

 

again we see a "right" to goods and services others must be compelled to provide

---

[rbw1966]

When did this vote take place J_B? Some of those countries cited above are no longer in existence.

[j_b]

voted in 1948.

 

http://www.udhr.org/history/default.htm

[MtnGoat]

"Mtngoat--just out of curiousity, how do you feel about the draft. Hypothetically speaking."

 

Not supportable IMO.

[MtnGoat]

"8-12 y.o. working children who earn a fraction of what adults make is no doubt an expression of self determination"

 

No, it is not, as citizens below the legal age for full self determination they are not able to properly enter into contracts with full knowledge and consent, even if they give it.

 

This of course is in view of a probable argument concerning long hours and arduous conditions.

 

If they are doing light work and earning a fraction of what adults make, that may be OK. I don't expect part time labor for a few hours a day, such a paper route or cutting a lawn, or even picking berries or whatever light piecework can be found, should be frowned upon.

 

[ 11-14-2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[MtnGoat]

In any case, the examples of the human rights declaration provided does in fact show the socialist content of same, which in fact I alluded to in the first place.

 

Socialism assumes individuals owe their allegiance to the state instead of themselves, assumes their labor belongs to society instead of themselves, that rights are granted and are *positive* rights (rights gained by forcing action from others), instead of classically liberal *negative* rights (rights are inherent and only need non action from others to be observed), state control of private enterprise and peaceful individual choices, etc, each element of which is clearly visible in this declaration.

 

Support socialism if you wish, don't try and claim socialism isn't socialism!

[Dru]

quote:

---

 

All your base are belong to us

In A.D. 2101

War was beginning.

Captain: What happen ?

Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.

Operator: We get signal.

Captain: What !

Operator: Main screen turn on.

Captain: It's You !!

Cats: How are you gentlemen !!

Cats: All your base are belong to us.

Cats: You are on the way to destruction.

Captain: What you say !!

Cats: You have no chance to survive make your time.

Cats: HA HA HA HA ....

Captain: Take off every 'zig' !!

Captain: You know what you doing.

Captain: Move 'zig'.

Captain: For great justice.

 

---

[j_b]

let me check .... hum, it's what I thought we voted for it. Any other skeletons you'd like to rattle?

 

[ 11-14-2002, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: j_b ]

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by j_b:

well Greg, the first quote was by Eleanor Roosevelt, US representative and chairman of the commission on Human rights.

---

The FDR's were also well-known and staunch Progressives (read: socialist). Take for example FDR's threat to pack the Supreme Court in order to get his unconstitutional laws passed. His threat worked and he was able to bastardize the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. He/They were definite big government nanny-staters. Not a good example to try and sway me.

 

As far as your comments on MtnGoat's response, most of that quote that you posted violates personal freedoms and property rights of individuals, so I don't agree with it.

[iain]

[Billygoat]

Up late, can't sleep?