Rights of Man

**Papewaio** · 09-26-2005, 03:53

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Not true, slavery still exists today. And there are plenty of groups who wish to destroy other's dignity and rights because it goes against their mindset.

**kiwitt** · 09-26-2005, 04:05

Actually the statement is true if taken in the context of "Article Two"

"Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

Therefore, this right is above the rights of states to impose their will on others.

However, if a state has not ratified the rights into their laws, it can not be held accountable. This is why this makes a good starting point.

**Papewaio** · 09-26-2005, 04:22

I agree that it is a good starting goal, I just don't agree when people say it is inherent.

**Soulforged** · 09-26-2005, 04:42

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

This one in particular may have two effects: 1- It's bad written, and they should have added the word "imprescriptible" or "inanienable". 2- This resolves the discussion between me and Redleg.
I'll bet that the first is the acceptable.

**Redleg** · 09-26-2005, 05:10

Originally Posted by Soulforged

This one in particular may have two effects: 1- It's bad written, and they should have added the word "imprescriptible" or "inanienable". 2- This resolves the discussion between me and Redleg.
I'll bet that the first is the acceptable.

Your getting close - however the word you looking for might actually be unalienable.

However society and the state must have recourse for when the individual breaks the laws of the society. Hence you come to the conundrum that faces all nations - Insuring the overall security and wellbeing of the society without trambling on the individual rights of the citizens. Some nations do this better then others - but no state can do it perfect.

Hence Thomas Paine's writtings become revelant to any discussion about government and rights.

**Soulforged** · 09-26-2005, 05:14

Originally Posted by Redleg

Your getting close - however the word you looking for might actually be unalienable.
However society and the state must have recourse for when the individual breaks the laws of the society. Hence you come to the conundrum that faces all nations - Insuring the overall security and wellbeing of the society without trambling on the individual rights of the citizens. Some nations do this better then others - but no state can do it perfect.
Hence Thomas Paine's writtings become revelant to any discussion about government and rights.

Damn english and it's devious use of negatives...

I agree with you, but there's limits. To me that limit does not pass the patrimony, freedom and life are out of the question.

**Redleg** · 09-26-2005, 05:22

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Damn english and it's devious use of negatives...

I agree with you, but there's limits. To me that limit does not pass the patrimony, freedom and life are out of the question.

The discussion of such is what creates a stronger democracy and a better government. Society in the end will decide what delagation of authority/responsiblity that it wants to provide to the government. If the government assumes to much power from society - the past tells us that eventually the people will revolt and constitute a new form of government.