@Fool and Balthagor
Y'all didn't read my post at all after that line did you? Does a man with a broken arm threaten my safety? Then how does paying for his medical care ensure my safety? Does getting my drinking water from the same creek that the town dumps it's sewage into threaten my safety? Then paying taxes for water treatment and sewage disposal ensures my safety. (see? this game is very simple!)
Can I afford to pay a doctor to set my broken arm, even without insurance? Yes. Can I afford to build my own private sewage treatment plant if my neighbor craps in my drinking water supply? Not likely. I already know y'all are going to bring up plagues and such. Think about it. Public sanitation prevents a vast majority of those public health problems. That is why I do not complain about taxes for clean water, trash collection, and public drainage and mosquito spraying. Childhood diseases? immunizations are such a tiny % of your lifetime medical experience, that socializing over them is laughable. Who invented/discovered all the vaccines anyway? I can tell you with some confidence, it wasn't socialized medical doctors. What y'all are actually saying is that it is Government's responsibility to limit excellent health care to the very very Rich and government honchos. Crappy, dirty free clinics are for the proles, keep those scum away from their betters.
Actually, although that WIKI article describes it much more comprehensively than I did, it says the same exact thing I did. I understand them perfectly, and the article explains the differences between what I consider a "right" and what is a bought and paid for government bribe.
Opponents of the indivisibility of human rights argue that economic, social and cultural rights are fundamentally different from civil and political rights and require completely different approaches. Economic, social and cultural rights are argued to be:
* positive, meaning that they require active provision of entitlements by the state (as opposed to the state being required only to prevent the breach of rights)
* resource-intensive, meaning that they are expensive and difficult to provide
* progressive, meaning that they will take significant time to implement
* vague, meaning they cannot be quantitatively measured, and whether they are adequately provided or not is difficult to judge
* ideologically divisive/political, meaning that there is no consensus on what should and shouldn't be provided as a right
* socialist, as opposed to capitalist
* non-justiciable, meaning that their provision, or the breach of them, cannot be judged in a court of law
* aspirations or goals, as opposed to real 'legal' rights
Similarly civil and political rights are categorized as:
* negative, meaning the state can protect them simply by taking no action
* immediate, meaning they can be immediately provided if the state decides to
* precise, meaning their provision is easy to judge and measure
* real 'legal' rights
The problem is that you all insist that "Economic, social and cultural" government benefits are somehow "Rights". I disagree. Your article even accidentally points out the difference...
Some Western cultures have often given priority to civil and political rights,... Similarly the ex Soviet bloc countries and Asian countries have tended to give priority to economic, social and cultural rights, but have often failed to provide civil and political rights.
When you think of endemic Human Rights violations, do you think of Europe and America? Or do you think of Soviet Russian Gulags and East Asian killing fields? Thus connecting civil and political rights to human rights. Amnesty International hasn't gotten the memo that failing to provide your population with socialized health care and free housing is a human rights violation.
The United Nations can declare that Free Money is a human right, but that does not make it so. Your "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is a pompous socialist tract written by a corrupt and impotent collection of thuggish dictators and left wing crooks. I would not urinate on the U.N. if it's guts were on fire. I might urinate on the UDHR even if it were not on fire. In other words, I disagree with it's premise.
Lea wrote:Didn't you think of how the regime is connected with world around, with geographical and cultural features?
Yes. Novgorod was on the western edge of a vast and barbaric wasteland where "human rights" meant the most common sword arm that would slice off your head. As I said several posts ago. Russians have never in history been exposed to having basic human rights. If it wasn't the Mongols smashing them, it was the Czars' (Tzar? which do Russians use?) Cossacks riding them down, or the Soviets locking them up in gulags and starving them across the Ukraine, or forcing them to work to death in factories for a crappy apartment and some cheap vodka. I was not insulting Russians. I was empathizing with them for suffering such brutality for so many centuries.
I send my wife to Israel (I ask not to invade and not to drop nuclear bombs there in April
) because we don't accept quality of free and paid medical treatment.
Yet you somehow suggest that such crappy treatment that you flee a thousand miles to escape it is something that the United States should strive for? That such medical malpractice is a "Human Right"?
Oh... you might want to ask Ahmadinehjad about that "invading and nuking" thing. Obama hates Israel, but I doubt he will openly attack them.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” -Winston Churchill