Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[Japher]

I hope you're not lumping me into this category.

I am not.

My complaint was merely of situations similar those seen in this thread and observed by myself countless times, whereby Americans seem to think that beliefs or systems different than their own are 'wrong'.

That works both ways however. This thread was started by saying that the current is system is wrong, so don't give a to the fake Boris when he is the one who threw the coal on the fire.

Also, this thread is a dead horse, and instead of beating it, some of us just decided to cook it up

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Although still more than Oncle Boris, Thank God.

It'd be hard to make less sense .

*cough* CharlesBHoff *cough*

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran - Oops - didn't mean to jinx ya.

Suuuure .

[Fake Boris]

So, you want to know what are fundamental rights. I take it that you don't believe in fundamental rights?

Have you never asked yourself the question: On what values, universal to each and every man on this planet, can we build a world based on equality?

This is the question asked by "fundamental human rights". There were many answers throughout history. I am taking the definition that the UN has given with the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", which seems to be a nice sum-up of many different conceptions. It has been approved by the US.

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

Here are some quotes:

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Basically, any State law should be supportive of the Declaration, as to avoid people taking arms to bring themselves justice.

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

That is clear. If you sign it, you support it.

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.

If your work pay is not enough to get food, shelter, healthcare and education, and that there is no social protection ensuring this for you, your human rights are being violated.
OB's note: this is the case of most of the world's countries.
Even the US: 15% can't afford health care coverage.

And if you think it claims you have to work, you are wrong. here we go:

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.

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.

Now to international co-operation. Let me laugh. Has the US ever be supportive of social security in other nations? Ha ha ha.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Remember the talibans? The US claimed they were "unlawful warriors", that they were not protected by any convention, and that they would be treated "as needed". Does it sound like "arbitrary" to you?

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.

What about sanctions against Cuba?

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Many slaves in Africa are producing cocoa. Why does the US allow the imports of goods produced by slave labor?

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

Huh? Why is it that many US-supported IMF loans pose severe restrictions to labor union freedom?

I am not an historian. If I can find such obvious lies in a matter of minutes, I'm sure with long research we could write thousands upon thousands of pages.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you want to know what are fundamental rights. I take it that you don't believe in fundamental rights?

That depends. Do I, personally, believe there are certain rights that everyone should have? Yeah. Do I think that there are universal natural rights which everyone is entitled to? No. Rights are simply granted by governments, so their can't be international rights with consent by those governments.

It has been approved by the US.

Me thinks you haven't looked the numerous reservations to the treaty that were made by the US (meaning those parts don't apply to the US).

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.

Who decides what is 'just and favorable' and 'worthy of human dignity'? Can Idi Amin decide this? If not, why not?

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.

What is 'adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family'? Does this mean everyone MUST have housing, or that everyone has a right to purchase housing? Is being covered for emergency procedures adequate enough for health and well being? Why not? Who decides?

What about sanctions against Cuba?

What about sanctions against South Africa in the 80s?

Many slaves in Africa are producing cocoa. Why does the US allow the imports of goods produced by slave labor?

How is US supposed to know what goods from a country are made by slave labor or not? Why should all products from a certain country be banned... maybe some aren't using slave labor.

Why is it that many US-supported IMF loans pose severe restrictions to labor union freedom?

It's easier to pay back loans when you don't spend all your money on social programs. After all, you want to get the loan back. That's the whole point!

If I can find such obvious lies in a matter of minutes

Which lies? Have you identified all the reservations the US made to the treaty and checked those provisions to them?

[Fake Boris]

How is US supposed to know what goods from a country are made by slave labor or not? Why should all products from a certain country be banned... maybe some aren't using slave labor.

Everyone knows. There have been investigations made publicly available detailing which companies were using slaves, where, how, when, and how many.

If the US claims it is a democracy, it must be giving itself the means to act as one.

Foreign intervention has never been a problem for the home of the "brave" anyway.

[Fake Boris]

Which lies? Have you identified all the reservations the US made to the treaty and checked those provisions to them?

I have identified them by seeing the obvious contradictions between the treaty and US behavior, thank you very much. And yes, I do know that when the treaty was adopted in 1948, the US expressed many reservations about it.

This is the exact reason why they didn't sign the "International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights" in 1966, because this new treaty was clear in that it imposed real obligations to those who agreed to join it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the US claims it is a democracy, it must be giving itself the means to act as one.

Well that means the people vote, right? Shouldn't the people decide whether or not they want these goods by exercising their power of the wallet? Boycotts work well as well.

[Fake Boris]

Rights are simply granted by governments, so their can't be international rights with consent by those governments.

If a State can consent with a third party in taking a loan, I'm sure it can consent on agreeing with other nations on the rights it will grant.

But that would be forgetting the utter wrongness of this statement anyway: "Rights are simply granted by governments".

They are not. They are submitted by the people to the government. They can take it back whenever they wish if they are strong enough. (BTW, letting corporations do what they like is a ticket to people not being able to claim back these rights)"

Government doesn't come before man. Man brings State, mind you, and what has been created by man may only be composed of what was part of him before.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They are not. They are submitted by the people to the government. They can take it back whenever they wish if they are strong enough.

And what happens in a dictatorship? Do the people decide rights there? I don't think so.

Man brings State, mind you, and what has been created by man may only be composed of what was part of him before.

Very nice sentiment, but the fact remains in a dictatorship your 'alleged' rights mean ****.

Rights don't exist outside of government. Without government no one has rights against each other. You've referenced Hobbs. That's exactly what he says.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well that means the people vote, right? Shouldn't the people decide whether or not they want these goods by exercising their power of the wallet? Boycotts work well as well.

False. Democracy is not Suffrage. It is people's power. A dictator backed by 100% of his people is more democratic than a president supported by 50% of his people. But that is purely theoretical anyway, so I'll move on.

People, when buying goods produced under slavery, are advocating it. That happens when you buy bananas and cocoa. If you have ever bought something produced under slavery, then you agree that you can be enslaved too. That is coherency.

If you have ever voted for a government that supported terrorism, you are agreeing that you might be victim of terrorism yourself.

But since the US constitution is supposed to be against slavery, then the state should legiferate instead of the wallet. Much more efficient and coherent.
The power of the wallet has not been known to stand behind democracy very often throughout history, as demonstrated by the fact that were would obviously be no slavery-produced goods in the US if it had.

[Fake Boris]

Very nice sentiment, but the fact remains in a dictatorship your 'alleged' rights mean ****.

Rights don't exist outside of government. Without government no one has rights against each other. You've referenced Hobbs. That's exactly what he says.

I am referencing Rousseau. Not Hobbes. I could even be talking about Kant here, he would agree.

True. "Alleged" rights. Those that exist beyond existence. As in "idealism". As in "Hegel". As in "Plato". Even Descartes, to some extent. And yes, Marx too (you would have to do some twisting, but the basis is here).

When I say surrendered by the people, I mean by will or by force. Surrendered by force they mean ****, true. But they still should be here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Democracy is not Suffrage. It is people's power.

A 'democracy' without suffrage is no democracy at all.

A dictator backed by 100% of his people is more democratic than a president supported by 50% of his people.

It's the opposite.

People, when buying goods produced under slavery, are advocating it.

So they are exercising their democratic values.

But since the US constitution is supposed to be against slavery, then the state should legiferate instead of the wallet.

Why, so it can close off the democratic process to its people? The US Constitution forbids slavery, it does not forbid trading with states that have slavery.

[Fake Boris]

Is a BS concpet, everything should have it's price. Following this concept, alone, will leave you with a country full of sponges. The only reason those countries you list can do anything is because they are also capitalist, and they hurt because of the social aspect. Leave no man behind! They shout to give themselves warm fuzzies, then moan that some jackass at work isn't pulling his own weight.

I won't bother talking about your other arguments, but here is a start.

There is, somewhere in North America, a country called Quebec. Its citizens do not have to work unless they want to.
Everyone without a job is entitled to 500$ per month. That is not much, but sufficient to rent a cheap room, get a bus pass and eat some crappy food.
If you have children, you get a lot more. I know people who raise their children only with Social Security money. That's not much, but still, more than someone with no education would get if he worked at 7-10$ an hour. This way, no one is forced to have a crappy job because he needs food.
We have less millionaires, but less poverty too.

Still this country is not full of sponges. It is one of the richest in the world.

"Everything should have its price": especially human rights. I suggest a certificate of Human Rights. The basic one costs 1000$ and allows you to circulate. The improved one costs 25 000$ and liberates you of conscription and death penalty. The Great one costs 10,000,000$ and gives you the right to arrest those with an Improved Certificate or less. Finally, the Phantasmagoric one costs 20 billions and allows you to rewrite the Constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... there is no such country as Quebec, O.B. I suggest looking at a map? And I'm sure the Albertans could complain about how they have to fund you and Ontario.