The 14 Human Rights

[Shai Gar]

i have been considering the basic human condition and our rights, anyway i spent some time perusing the DUHR at the UN website, and the US bill of rights and i have edited both documents into something better.

if you think another right needs to be added then please write it in full so it can be debated, or write your idea so the wording can be worked over.

if you think one (or more) of these rights are wrong, then please say which one and give your reasons as to why you believe this is so.


The Fourteen Human Rights

1st Right
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 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.

2nd Right
Society or Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

3rd Right
No person shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4th Right
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, computers, internet information, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

5th Right
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6th Right
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

7th Right
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed five hundred dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court than according to the rules of the common law.

8th Right
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.

9th Right
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, Furthermore everyone has the right to a nationality.

10th Right
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to form a civil union and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to civil unions, during marriage and at its dissolution. Civil Unions shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

11th Right
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

12th Right
No item shall be considered to be illegal for a person to own, as long as it does not immediately violate another persons rights to freedom. No government shall keep anything beyond the reach of any man, whether it will be used to injure or kill themselves, nor shall anything be considered illegal for reasons of morality.

Clause
The Above are Paramount and Sacrosanct. They represent not only the Aspirations of Humankind for Freedom and Democracy, but are the basic Values that we shall always fight for; and which in turn, protect us.
these following ones were rights 11 and 12 that MacGaffin was talking about. they are really not rights, but should be placed in under the Principle tennents as social amendments


1st Social Addition
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 the right to security in the event of sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

2nd Social Addition
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Primary and secondary education shall be compulsory. Tertiary education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
spiffy no?

[MacGuffin]

The 11th and possibly the 12th

[Shai Gar]

as in you are for them? you are against them?
for what reasons?

your post was ambiguous at best

[MacGuffin]

Rights are something that do not require taking from others.

For example, you have the right to free speech. I own a television station. I do not have to give you airtime for you to exercise your right.

The 11th and 12th require taking from others. Then you get into how much to take, what is fair, etc. You end up with a corrupt system.

[Shai Gar]

good point. rights 11 and 12 should be removed and placed in as social additions that are almost as important but not as powerful.

[Pedro_The_Lion]

I don't like any of them but for the sake of contribution I would say you need an access to medicine clause if you're going to put social amendments in.

[Shai Gar]

could you give wording? and what about them do you not like? (consider from the leader and leds perspective)

[Lee]

Rights are made to be taken by others.

[crule81]

It's the old negative vs. positive rights argument. I don't believe positive rights should be "rights", but are privileges and shouldn't be guaranteed and inalienable. The first 12 rights are generally negative rights, although the right to asylum, trial by jury, and appointment of counsel, for example, are very close to positive rights.

[booyalab]

I hate the UN and I agree with crule.
(there isn't necessarily a relationship between those 2 opinions, btw)

[Claverhouse]

The Above are Paramount and Sacrosanct. They represent not only the Aspirations of Humankind for Freedom and Democracy, but are the basic Values that we shall always fight for; and which in turn, protect us. They shall only be suspended ( purely temporarily ) for the duration of Wartime exigencies and Freedom from Terror. During which emergency period they shall be deemed worth squat.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[xenose]

#13 - Every person shall have the right to be free from unjustifiable trolling on the internet.

:)

[Shai Gar]

The Above are Paramount and Sacrosanct. They represent not only the Aspirations of Humankind for Freedom and Democracy, but are the basic Values that we shall always fight for; and which in turn, protect us. They shall only be suspended ( purely temporarily ) for the duration of Wartime exigencies and Freedom from Terror. During which emergency period they shall be deemed worth squat.
the ending part of that was a joke right? i can not agree with it at all, at no time should any rights be taken off anybody. who classifies terror? how long would this hold under your regime? the US has been at "war" with terror since the 60's. should they lose all rights simply because their government chooses to continue that farce?

that is why i wrote in that no person shall have more rights than any other

[Claverhouse]

Not a joke. Merely how human governance works.

If they want to get around something, they do.


Claverhouse :ph34r:



And at the time of Jurgen's coming into Hell political affairs were in a very bad way, because there was a considerable party among the younger devils who were for compounding the age-old war with Heaven, at almost any price, in order to get relief from this unceasing influx of conscientious dead persons in search of torment. For it was well-known that when Satan submitted to be bound in chains there would be no more death: and the annoying immigration would thus be ended. So said the younger devils: and considered Grandfather Satan ought to sacrifice himself for the general welfare.

Then too they pointed out that Satan had been perforce their presiding magistrate ever since the settlement of Hell, because a change of administration is inexpedient in war-time: so that Satan must term after term be re-elected: and of course Satan had been voted absolute power in everything, since this too is customary in war-time. Well, and after the first few thousand years of this the younger devils began to whisper that such government was not ideal democracy. But their more conservative elders were enraged by these effete and wild new notions, and dealt with their juniors somewhat severely, tearing them into bits and quite destroying them. The elder devils then proceeded to inflict even more startling punishments

"Why, merely this," says Jurgen, and again he looked severely toward Satan: "I tell you that as long as sentimental weakness marks the prosecution of offenses in violation of the laws necessitated by war-time conditions; as long as deserved punishment for overt acts of pro-Celestialism is withheld; as long as weak-kneed clemency condones even a suspicion of disloyal thinking: then just so long will a righteously incensed, if now and then misguided patriotism take into its own hands vengeance upon the offenders."

"But, still--" said Grandfather Satan.


"Ineffectual administration of the law," continued Jurgen, sternly, "is the true defence of these outbursts: and far more justly deplorable than acts of mob violence is the policy of condonation that furnishes occasion for them. The patriotic people of Hell are not in a temper to be trifled with, now that they are at war. Conviction for offenses against the nation should not be behedged about with technicalities devised for over-refined peace-time jurisprudence.


And Satan followed Jurgen's suggestions, and the threatened rebellion was satisfactorily discouraged, by tearing into very small fragments anybody who grumbled about anything. So that all the subjects of Satan went about smiling broadly all the time at the thought of what might befall them if they seemed dejected. Thus was Hell a happier looking place because of Jurgen's coming.
I can never resist Cabell...

[Shai Gar]

what is the book entitled? and yes, that is how autocracies work, but not something that should be put into a document for human rights

[Claverhouse]

It is the finest book ever written, JURGEN by James Branch Cabell, a Virginian dates: 1879 - 1958. Generally classed as fantasy, but actually an ironist.

Jurgen is on-line here: Jurgen (http://www.litrix.com/jurgen/jurge001.htm)

But it's much much better to have it as a book. Or several books.

He didn't believe in democracy either.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

There are a couple of links:

James Branch Cabell Home Page (http://users.aol.com/s6sj7gt/mikecab.htm)

VCU Cabell Life Page (http://www.library.vcu.edu/jbc/speccoll/exhibit/cabell/jbclife.html)

[Shai Gar]

personally i believe in intellectual autocracy through millitary force.

but i want a democracy so i dont have to kill the number of people i would need to in order to put me at the top

[Star Cannon]

Oh! Oh! I have one!

"All solicitation shall be contained on one media, so those who do not wish to have solitiation shall not have it, and those who would have can have it. Furthermore: no solicitation shall be forced upon any human being without prior consent."

[Shai Gar]

that isnt an actual human right, that is more of a social law

[Claverhouse]

One of the many reasons I'm unique to the human species is that I don't mind confessing my ignorance.

What the hell's solicitation ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[crule81]

Sometimes certain rights may have to be curtailed in the short term in order to preserve them in the long term. In other words, a society that usually upholds most of these rights might have to suspend them in order to win a war against a society that has none of these rights. If the latter society conquers the former, then none of these rights will ever exist. Only the rights taken away should be restored when the threat has passed and that often is difficult but not without precedent. Lincoln suspended many guaranteed constitutional rights, such as habeas corpus, during the American Civil War. But they were restored after the reestablishment of the Union. I am not using this to justify the Patriot Act, etc., but only to show that there may be times where these rights might have to be suspended for the greater, long-term, good.

[Shai Gar]

i absolutely agree with thomas jeffersons quote "those who give up their rights in defence of their freedom deserve neither"

[crule81]

i absolutely agree with thomas jeffersons quote "those who give up their rights in defence of their freedom deserve neither"

Although I understand from where you come, I believe that statement is too inflexible.
But if those rights are threatened with complete and permanent distruction and the only way to preserve all of them would be to temporarily curtail some of them, I think there is no choice but to go down that path.

[booyalab]

The reason I dont like that quote is that it's a classic example of not seeing the forest through the trees. Many rights in and of themselves are variable and paltry. What's important is the direction in which the country is going and the underlying principles we adhere to. I dont think the government keeping an eye on what books you check out (OF A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION) is evidence of anything more than basic security precautions, unless your bible is 1984. There are certain times when it is irrational to be obsessed with details of individual freedom, because doing so could prevent the freedom in the future world from baring the slightest resemblance to what freedom you have now.

[booyalab]

I know that sounds really idealistic, but I'm not necessarily saying that any limits in rights mean the government is thinking long-term. I just mean that it's short-sighted and foolish to prioritize your immediate convenience or sense of pride and privacy above everything else.

[miff]

in regard to the patriot act, i really do not believe it is the government's long-term plan for the "protection and safety" of american citizens. it was so hastily passed that i doubt the long-term ramifications were truly considered. it is a vague, crappy piece of legislature. i think it was meant to be a quick-fix to give us all a "safe" feeling... like the color-coded terror alerts.

[booyalab]

in regard to the patriot act, i really do not believe it is the government's long-term plan for the "protection and safety" of american citizens. it was so hastily passed that i doubt the long-term ramifications were truly considered. it is a vague, crappy piece of legislature. i think it was meant to be a quick-fix to give us all a "safe" feeling... like the color-coded terror alerts.

What harmful long-term ramifications will come from law-enforcement conducted internet surveillance?

[Lee]

Can I have a right that allows me to take away anothers right but not to have my own taken?

Because thats what people want, human rights should be relabelled "human wants", because it never works out as planned, it's idealistic and ignores human nature, I still support them though... better than not having them.

[booyalab]

Can I have a right that allows me to take away anothers right but not to have my own taken?

Because thats what people want, human rights should be relabelled "human wants", because it never works out as planned, it's idealistic and ignores human nature, I still support them though... better than not having them.


in order for something to be idealistic, the alternative has to be realistic. You're saying that having no rights is realistic?

[Lee]

in order for something to be idealistic, the alternative has to be realistic. You're saying that having no rights is realistic?
Can it not be less idealistic?

Anyway, people do not have rights by default, rights are given by others, they produce a reciprocal relationship between the individual and the governing powers, it's a "I'll scratch your back, you'll scratch my back" relationship. Humans are altruistic to other humans in order to recieve a greater return when needed, human rights are like a deal, support me because I can give you these "rights" (of course they are not really rights in the strictest sense), these rights are there to help the individual prosper and allow the governing powers to keep a healthy relationship with that individual... they both serve each others interests.

In any reciprocal relationship one must give first and the other second, in the case of "rights" or "wants" as I prefer to think of them, the goverment gives the rights first, now the individual reciever is trusted to reciprocate, but he does not necassarily and can gain subsatantial reward by screwing the system... taking and taking without ever giving and so both sides battle it out and we are left with what we have today.

Rights are like bargaining chips and are fallible because ignoring them can yield reward.

[MacGuffin]

The government does not grant rights.

[Lee]

The government does not grant rights.
Do you have an argument to back that up?

I just made up that last post as I went along so please feel free to convince me otherwise.

[MacGuffin]

Do you have an argument to back that up?

I just made up that last post as I went along so please feel free to convince me otherwise.
Governments are created by men. Either by majority (democracy, republics, etc.) or by a few (monarchy, dictatorship, etc.). Rights don't flow from them any more than they come from religious hierarchies or your local bank.

[Lee]

Governments are created by men. Either by majority (democracy, republics, etc.) or by a few (monarchy, dictatorship, etc.). Rights don't flow from them any more than they come from religious hierarchies or your local bank.
You are right.
I still think that human rights have thier roots in a deal between two parties, usually this deal is between those in power and those not but not exclusively, you are right to point that out.

[MacGuffin]

You are right.
I still think that human rights have thier roots in a deal between two parties, usually this deal is between those in power and those not but not exclusively, you are right to point that out.
I think you are kind of right, but it is really murky and starts to get into objective vs. subjective reality.

Anyways, I don't want to say it arises only from contractual dealings between parties, otherwise a party that refuses to deal (a government say) could murder and oppress with impunity.

[Shai Gar]

Booyalab, i will never put in anything that states that humanities rights can be taken away simply because a government feels they are endangered.

not every government is a beneficial, true democracy. if i included that then dictatorships or other forms of governence could simply postpone, indefinately, human rights.

Just look at the united states and how they disregard human rights everywhere, and their interaction with the UN, how they deny human rights in writing and verbally to the UN's face. that patriot bill is not good, and jeffersons quote is brilliant.

and thanks lee and miff for the support

[Lee]

Anyways, I don't want to say it arises only from contractual dealings between parties, otherwise a party that refuses to deal (a government say) could murder and oppress with impunity.
But that is exactly what does happen, this is why any human rights act will be broken, all you can hope any list of human rights to do is improve what i already there, any improvement would have to be relative. Essentially I think that no one standard human rights act will suffice, any act would have to continually be adapted to the changing world and can never be perfect as long is it is possible for cheaters to prosper.

[Shai Gar]

no human rights should stay very liberal and be restricted to rights, the criminal code can change.... at least, malem prohibitia anyway.

and booyalab? giving up your rights because the leaders said to? that seems a very SJ thing to do

[Jacque]

Sometimes certain rights may have to be curtailed in the short term in order to preserve them in the long term. In other words, a society that usually upholds most of these rights might have to suspend them in order to win a war against a society that has none of these rights.
"To do well in war is to earn the right to live well in peace." ~ I forget...

The right to live in peace...the thought struck me as an odd concept when worded differently. I find it revealing for if this right supercedes all other rights, then it posseses the danger of becoming contradictory. In this form, a "human right", you can look down on it, criticize it for being unrealistic, for being petty and paranoid. You can look at it and say, "It's your own damn fault" and that the natural order of things will never allow you to achieve this right in it's absolute form. The are limitations, caveats, and most of all competition.

Then rights become nothing more than a palimpsest for revision and extirpation. Rights cannot be so fickle. Paper cannot tell me what rights I have and then in a turn of page take them away - not that I excercise every one, but to be swept away as if they were an illusion from the start, a false sense of freedom, is a naked humiliation. Rights must have an immutable source. It must come from the individual.

...and yet they do not exist because they are reserved not for individuals, but for all. No, rights should be given, taken, bought, sold, and suspended. Give it to those in need, take it from the powerful, buy it from the foolish, sell it to prosperity, and leave it suspended, dangling beneath their nose, the rights of those who refuse to see it.

[Shai Gar]

take your rights, kill those who would take them from you and ignore all else

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

1st Social Addition
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...

.....provided for all, but paid for by whom?


Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.....

....provided for free, paid for, by whom?

[aether]

"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages....."

I only believe in the quote above....EDUCATI0N IS AN INHERENT RIGHT....

It shall be provided by all.....private corporations, Non profits, governments....and it should be a crime to not to provide education to all!

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

I think you are kind of right, but it is really murky and starts to get into objective vs. subjective reality.

Anyways, I don't want to say it arises only from contractual dealings between parties, otherwise a party that refuses to deal (a government say) could murder and oppress with impunity.

Rights come from observing reality.

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages....."

I only believe in the quote above....EDUCATI0N IS AN INHERENT RIGHT....

It shall be provided by all.....private corporations, Non profits, governments....and it should be a crime to not to provide education to all!

You still didn't say who is paying for it.

[aether]

Taxpayers.....2/3 corporate taxes...to educate the future paper pushers...and 1/3 from income taxes....capiche!

[Shai Gar]

oh i like that. i like that a LOT.

[crule81]

"To do well in war is to earn the right to live well in peace." ~ I forget...

The right to live in peace...the thought struck me as an odd concept when worded differently. I find it revealing for if this right supercedes all other rights, then it posseses the danger of becoming contradictory. In this form, a "human right", you can look down on it, criticize it for being unrealistic, for being petty and paranoid. You can look at it and say, "It's your own damn fault" and that the natural order of things will never allow you to achieve this right in it's absolute form. The are limitations, caveats, and most of all competition.

Then rights become nothing more than a palimpsest for revision and extirpation. Rights cannot be so fickle. Paper cannot tell me what rights I have and then in a turn of page take them away - not that I excercise every one, but to be swept away as if they were an illusion from the start, a false sense of freedom, is a naked humiliation. Rights must have an immutable source. It must come from the individual.

...and yet they do not exist because they are reserved not for individuals, but for all. No, rights should be given, taken, bought, sold, and suspended. Give it to those in need, take it from the powerful, buy it from the foolish, sell it to prosperity, and leave it suspended, dangling beneath their nose, the rights of those who refuse to see it.

In theory, that is the way things should be and maybe someday if human nature changes, it will be that way. In the meantime, some principals may have to be compromised for those principals to survive. (I admit that this is not a very INTP point of view - violation of basic principals) I have a great deal of respect for people who sick to their fundamental principals when it would be easier to abandon them in certain situations. I merely believe that in absolutely extraordinary situations, some rights may have to be compromised.

[sbw]

I hate the UN too, booya...and "1st social addition" could not possibly ever work without taking by force (i.e., stealing) the gains of more productive members of society in order to provide "a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care" to the lazy, stupid, and shiftless members of that society (because EVERY society contains lazy, stupid, and shiftless people). Again, while I recognize that many (including shai) disagree, my opinion is that capitalism solves this; it's the ultimate meritocracy.

Scott

[miff]

In theory, that is the way things should be and maybe someday if human nature changes, it will be that way. In the meantime, some principals may have to be compromised for those principals to survive. (I admit that this is not a very INTP point of view - violation of basic principals) I have a great deal of respect for people who sick to their fundamental principals when it would be easier to abandon them in certain situations. I merely believe that in absolutely extraordinary situations, some rights may have to be compromised.

human nature results in compromised principles to "save" the principles... why is this thread so hobbesian?

what kind of extraordinary situations do you think require the removal of certain rights? what basic principles should be compromised? and furthermore, where does one draw the line in their abandonment?

so many questions! sorry. :nerd:

[crule81]

human nature results in compromised principles to "save" the principles... why is this thread so hobbesian?

what kind of extraordinary situations do you think require the removal of certain rights? what basic principles should be compromised? and furthermore, where does one draw the line in their abandonment?

so many questions! sorry. :nerd:

Those are questions that need to be answered. One problem I recognize with my idea here is the slippery slope argument as you point out with your question as to where the line should be drawn. If responsible people are in charge, then the slippery slope shouldn't be a problem in theory. I think that a situation that warrants a compromise of rights would be if our entire western civilization is threatened with imminent extinction if certain rights were not curtailed. I know this sounds dramatic. In recent history, threats to western civilization have included Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and radical Islam. One could argue that Britain, when it was fighting for its life against Germany in 1940 was in a position that justified a temporary lapse of certain fundamental rights. Defeat not only would have resulted in the lapse of Britain into a new barbarism, but would jeopardize the long-term success of fundamental rights throughout the world. (Maybe a bit too Churchillian)

As to what basic principals should be compromised, it depends on the situation but should be as narrowly tailored as possible to the situation.

[miff]

Those are questions that need to be answered. One problem I recognize with my idea here is the slippery slope argument as you point out with your question as to where the line should be drawn. If responsible people are in charge, then the slippery slope shouldn't be a problem in theory. I think that a situation that warrants a compromise of rights would be if our entire western civilization is threatened with imminent extinction if certain rights were not curtailed. I know this sounds dramatic. In recent history, threats to western civilization have included Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and radical Islam. One could argue that Britain, when it was fighting for its life against Germany in 1940 was in a position that justified a temporary lapse of certain fundamental rights. Defeat not only would have resulted in the lapse of Britain into a new barbarism, but would jeopardize the long-term success of fundamental rights throughout the world. (Maybe a bit too Churchillian)

As to what basic principals should be compromised, it depends on the situation but should be as narrowly tailored as possible to the situation.

what excellent points...

the cases of imminent extinction may be dramatic, but i agree that they do require some sort of compromise. but not TOO much compromise. the slippery slope problem could potentially be curbed with proper leadership combined with the tailoring of citizen rights in accordance with the respective situation. (i think you said that better though. heh)

but is that too idealistic? can leadership roll back citizen rights without getting tyrannical? the US still hasn't repealed the patriot act...

[crule81]

but is that too idealistic? can leadership roll back citizen rights without getting tyrannical? the US still hasn't repealed the patriot act...

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned how Lincoln temporarily restricted (in the North) certain rights guaranteed by the US Constitution during the Civil War. While it probably wasn't necessary to win the war or defend western civilization, those rights were restored after the war. The problem with the US and the Patriot Act is that the "war against terrorism" is still continuing and may not end in the near future. This kind of conflict does not have distinct boundaries in time as those in the 18th and 19th centuries, or even conflicts such as the first gulf war.

[euterpenc]

People need to sit back and learn something every once in a while. I think that would be healthy.

[Pedro_The_Lion]

could you give wording? and what about them do you not like? (consider from the leader and leds perspective)

Nothing against those in particular I just don't believe in rights. I'm bad at legal wording or I would people would take advantage of the loop holes I left in it. Also, you should put rights like the medical stuff into a special section that allows them to be changed when the loopholes are abused.

[kafkaesque]

I do not see how a populance guaranteed these rights would hinder a competent government from protecting itself and it's nation. I see no evidence that curtailing these rights would enable any more complete security than could be maintained without doing so.

Shai Gar, I think this is a great list. Jefferson's quote is brilliant.

[songbird36]

Why should anyone have a *right* to anything?

Aren't "rights" such a Western liberal concept (and nearly irrelevant to most of the world who struggle merely to *survive*)?

[Edmond Zedo]

Why should anyone have a *right* to anything?

Aren't "rights" such a Western liberal concept (and nearly irrelevant to most of the world who struggle merely to *survive*)?
8O