Thursday, March 13, 2014

The Left's Ever-Growing List of "Human Rights"

By, Chris Rossini

At what point will the Lefties bite-off more than can be fed to them?

Check out what I came across at The Nation:
When most people hear the words “human rights,” they immediately think of torture, unlawful detention, censorship and political oppression. These are important concerns, but they constitute only one aspect of the human rights framework: what are referred to as “civil and political rights.” A wide range of human rights obligations referred to as “economic and social rights”—the right to work, the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to food, and the right to housing and shelter, among others—are routinely overlooked. This is unfortunate because this second set of rights provides powerful tools to assess and conduct economic policy. (my emphasis)
First, I love how the above are rattled off as if they are a matter of fact. Also, the inclusion of the words "among others" is quite entertaining as well. I can't wait until the addendum is released. Perhaps it'll include things like "the right to not experience sadness" or "the right to a butler and maid".

This thing called "Human Rights" can (and should) be summarized in two simple words: Property Rights.


Chris Rossini is on Twitter

20 comments:

  1. The Left is at war with reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Left's entire philosophy is underpinned by one simple foundational block, you must first take something from someone else!

      They are the "anti-property" people.

      Delete
    2. "The Left is at war with reality."

      The Idiot Left has always been at war with reality and always will be. Their IQ is measured at less than 40. I mean you can only be so stupid but they have exceeded the limits her somehow.

      Delete
  2. Hi Chris, I like your posts but as far as the only right being "property rights", it has always nagged me about how people come to acquire property in the first place. If land is just a natural resource, how did someone claim ownership over it? I'm pretty sure land was granted if you settled there and improved the land (something along those lines) but is that an ethical way to decide? I just read that scientists believe there is a reservoir of water in the earth's crust that is bigger than all the oceans combined. Who gets this water?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Anonymous,
      -- If land is just a natural resource, how did someone claim ownership over it? --

      A person can stake a claim over virgin territory by mixing his or her labor with that land, either by cultivation or by demarcation.

      -- I'm pretty sure land was granted if you settled there and improved the land --

      No, land is not granted. Governments may claim that they're the ones that grant land but that would only imply they either stole it from someone else or staked a claim without any justification (for instance, when the Federal Government 'deems' a territory or piece of land a 'public park' or 'natural reserve')

      -- I just read that scientists believe there is a reservoir of water in the earth's crust that is bigger than all the oceans combined. Who gets this water? --

      Whoever has the resources to extract it from the deep of the crust. That's who.

      Delete
    2. Look up the homestead principle.

      Delete
  3. Economic policy (if you want to call it that) is already conducted based on these so-called "human rights", and look at the mess it has made.

    ReplyDelete
  4. They did not rattle them off as if they were a matter of fact. They said the rights are "routinely overlooked" which means many do not recognize these rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Jerry Wolfgang,
      -- They did not rattle them off as if they were a matter of fact. --

      Yes, he did: "This is unfortunate because *this second set of rights* provides powerful tools to assess and conduct economic policy." (emphasis mine)

      The above implies the author of the piece believes those rights he listed are real.

      Delete
    2. That's because these are not rights, and cannot be, for the very simple reason: a one person's right cannot violate other person's rights.

      Delete
  5. -- the right to work, the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to food, and the right to housing and shelter, among others—are routinely overlooked. This is unfortunate because this second set of rights provides powerful tools to assess and conduct economic policy.--

    Especially destructive economic policy at that.

    One time I told a colleague of mine that you couldn't say "healthcare is a right" because that implies ownership of the production of someone else; what she said to me in reply is probably what most on the left resort to use as the usual response: "that's an extreme consideration." Apparently, her liberal use of the word "right" does not come off as "extreme", but my cogent objection to the turning of services into rights is "extreme thought". This is the world we live in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. Her "right" to your labor, money and capital is "normal", but your right to KEEP those things is extreme.

      You should have punched the stupid C*n+ in the face and told her it was your right to punch stupid people. When she said you acted in an extreme way you should reply it was normal in her world to steal and punish people at whim, so she should just shut up and deal with it.

      Delete
    2. "Exactly. Her "right" to your labor, money and capital is "normal", but your right to KEEP those things is extreme."

      That type of twisted thinking is incredible isn't it? But what do you expect from a thug?

      Delete
  6. What the modern weak kneed left leaves out of all of their so called rights is the social compact that must exist in order for things to remain fair and equal. For instance, everyone has a right to an adequate standard of living but what is not discussed is what is expected of the individual in return? Is it ok if I have 10 children that will be entitled to this standard of living and yet my neighbor only has 2 children for what ever reason? Is it ok for me to sit home and play while my neighbor heads off to work? What always seems to turn left wing governments towards evil is the enforcement of the other side of the contract which the left is ignoring for now. Sooner or later, the guns and cruelty have to come out to keep the system going.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not even "sooner", it is "immediately".

      Delete
  7. Isn't it amazing how the growth of "human rights" always seems to coincide with a decrease in actual individual liberties? I have come to realize that "human rights" is the Left's code word for entitlement at other people's expense. They never use the word liberty, only "rights".

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's really quite simple, the Left does not believe in property rights. That's why countries run on Leftist principles have crappy if not disastrous economies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although they do believe in property rights for their property - just not yours.

      Delete
  9. You have a right to your own property and no one else's except through contractual agreement.

    ReplyDelete