It's a shame the UN has so much institutional inertia that it can't be replaced with an equivalent association of free states. It's criminal to put liberal democratic governments who serve their people on the same moral footing as brutally repressive autocrats who oppress the people they supposedly "represent" at the UN.
Very nice. I linked to it. Appropriately, right above some pictures I took of that very colorful wild expression of freedom known as the Chicago Gay Pride Parade.
"Endowed by nature with certain unalienable Rights"?
Sorry, nature endows no rights other than might makes right, the right to do whatever someone else can't stop you from doing. Rights are either a creation of a sovereign God, or the creation of a group/civilization and are alienable dependent upon inclusion in that group and acceptance of it's social order.
Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Declaration of Freedom of Humanity
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men and Women are created Equal, that they are endowed by nature with certain unalienable Rights, which among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
They seem similar enough, but they are different enough to bother me. Nature instead of Creator, Men and Women instead of Men, minor enough changes and yet I can't help but see the DOF as greatly inferior to the DOI.
Men and Women, yes, it seems such a minor quibble and I understand that there are many countries where women are oppressed, but the term Men isn't just the plural of Man, it's also a gender neutral term that identifies a human being regardless of sex. Not only does "Men and Women" ruin the flow of the statement, it's needlessly wordy and honestly IMO it's a piece of PC piffle not worthy of a great declaration. If not Men, why not just say "...that Mankind is created equal, that people are endowed..." it's the same thing and it isn't nearly as clunky.
Re: "endowed by nature", that would seem contrary to the stated mission of the DOF. First we must recall that nature is bloody in tooth and claw, and as such there are no rights that it endows except the right of the strong to take what they will, and isn't that what Tyrants do by their nature? The reason the founding fathers (most of whom were deists) specified that our rights are endowed by a Creator and not derived from nature, is that God given rights cannot be taken away or denied. If one holds that rights are derived by nature, then we invite the Animal Farm argument where some are more equal than others.
The founders wrote the DOI at a time when many of their peers in Europe believed that rights were granted through Government action or derived from tradition, thus it was in the nature of some to suffer, some to be poor, some to be subject peoples while others ruled (see Edmund Burke). Rights that are derived by nature, tradition, or governmental action, can be transferred, regulated, and denied by the State - they are not, by definition, inalienable rights. Our founders, by stating that they saw the rights of Mankind as self-evidently granted by God, and thus inalienable, helped to create a government that enshrined our freedoms and individual liberties.
Sorry, that doesn't work either. Human nature sans civilization is really no better than the animal kingdom.
Robert,
A minor correction, the majority of the founding fathers were Christians, not just deists (Jefferson was one of the few deists). IIRC, 50 out of 56 on the signers were Bible-believing Christians (and 24 actually had seminary degrees), and a slightly larger percentage of the non-signing founding fathers.
But the important thing is that they agreed that mankind possesses rights which are bestowed by a higher power, and therefore only recognized, not created or removed, by government.
It's a shame the UN has so much institutional inertia that it can't be replaced with an equivalent association of free states. It's criminal to put liberal democratic governments who serve their people on the same moral footing as brutally repressive autocrats who oppress the people they supposedly "represent" at the UN.
But then, I'm the picky type who insists that the United States were created in 1789, not 1776. Heh.
Sorry, nature endows no rights other than might makes right, the right to do whatever someone else can't stop you from doing. Rights are either a creation of a sovereign God, or the creation of a group/civilization and are alienable dependent upon inclusion in that group and acceptance of it's social order.
Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
Declaration of Freedom of Humanity
They seem similar enough, but they are different enough to bother me. Nature instead of Creator, Men and Women instead of Men, minor enough changes and yet I can't help but see the DOF as greatly inferior to the DOI.
Men and Women, yes, it seems such a minor quibble and I understand that there are many countries where women are oppressed, but the term Men isn't just the plural of Man, it's also a gender neutral term that identifies a human being regardless of sex. Not only does "Men and Women" ruin the flow of the statement, it's needlessly wordy and honestly IMO it's a piece of PC piffle not worthy of a great declaration. If not Men, why not just say "...that Mankind is created equal, that people are endowed..." it's the same thing and it isn't nearly as clunky.
Re: "endowed by nature", that would seem contrary to the stated mission of the DOF. First we must recall that nature is bloody in tooth and claw, and as such there are no rights that it endows except the right of the strong to take what they will, and isn't that what Tyrants do by their nature? The reason the founding fathers (most of whom were deists) specified that our rights are endowed by a Creator and not derived from nature, is that God given rights cannot be taken away or denied. If one holds that rights are derived by nature, then we invite the Animal Farm argument where some are more equal than others.
The founders wrote the DOI at a time when many of their peers in Europe believed that rights were granted through Government action or derived from tradition, thus it was in the nature of some to suffer, some to be poor, some to be subject peoples while others ruled (see Edmund Burke). Rights that are derived by nature, tradition, or governmental action, can be transferred, regulated, and denied by the State - they are not, by definition, inalienable rights. Our founders, by stating that they saw the rights of Mankind as self-evidently granted by God, and thus inalienable, helped to create a government that enshrined our freedoms and individual liberties.
Sorry, that doesn't work either. Human nature sans civilization is really no better than the animal kingdom.
Robert,
A minor correction, the majority of the founding fathers were Christians, not just deists (Jefferson was one of the few deists). IIRC, 50 out of 56 on the signers were Bible-believing Christians (and 24 actually had seminary degrees), and a slightly larger percentage of the non-signing founding fathers.
But the important thing is that they agreed that mankind possesses rights which are bestowed by a higher power, and therefore only recognized, not created or removed, by government.
I disagee and have posted a reply on Rudy's update.