UN rights council gets cold shoulder from Ottawa

[Berkut]

Holy shit, don't even stick that quote under my name!

I read the quote and I was thinking "that doesn't sound like something Berkut would say ... " 

hehe, not exactly. Me and Valmy pretty much see eye to eye on this one.

Basic human rights have nothing to do with economic conditions. You can be poor, starving, unhealthy, and disease-ridden, but still have your human rights intact.

I don't like this idea that "human rights" becomes a proxy term for political positions. It is a cheap rhetorical trick used to label those who do not agree with you as a "human rights abuser".

[Valmy]

Rights don't have to be absolute, they can be conditional.  Having people starving in a poor country is certainly less offensive to one's sensibilities than having people starve in a very rich country.  The former just comes with the territory, while the latter is the result of criminal indifference.

So people in rich countries have rights depending upon how much wealth can be farmed?  Bullshit.

In any case while I agree basically with what you are saying I fail to see what that has to do with human rights.  You do not have a right to anything simply because the society can afford to give it to you and you really really need it.

[Valmy]

So what you guys are saying is that a law that, say, forbids women from having an education, is not infringing upon any rights?

I suppose I should be clear.

You do not have a right to a free education provided by the state, though that is something that should be provided whenever possible.

Being disciminated against based on gender is something totally different.

[Berkut]

Rights don't have to be absolute, they can be conditional.  Having people starving in a poor country is certainly less offensive to one's sensibilities than having people starve in a very rich country.  The former just comes with the territory, while the latter is the result of criminal indifference.

Why can't it be criminally indifferent without it being a violation of human rights though?

Does everything bad HAVE to be a violation of human rights?

[Berkut]

So what you guys are saying is that a law that, say, forbids women from having an education, is not infringing upon any rights?

I think we are saying exactly the opposite - the right to equal treatment under the law regardless of gender is certainly, IMO, a fundamental human right.

[Malthus]

Holy shit, don't even stick that quote under my name!

I read the quote and I was thinking "that doesn't sound like something Berkut would say ... " 

hehe, not exactly. Me and Valmy pretty much see eye to eye on this one.

Basic human rights have nothing to do with economic conditions. You can be poor, starving, unhealthy, and disease-ridden, but still have your human rights intact.

I don't like this idea that "human rights" becomes a proxy term for political positions. It is a cheap rhetorical trick used to label those who do not agree with you as a "human rights abuser".

Yeah, I'm on the same team on this issue.

[Malthus]

So what you guys are saying is that a law that, say, forbids women from having an education, is not infringing upon any rights?

The opposite. A law that discriminates would be a violation.

A state whithout the means to pay for an education for anyone would not be in "violation" - it would merely be poor.

The difference (and the difference generally between "positive" and "negative" rights) is that "negative" rights are rights to have the government not do something to you, while "positive" rights are the rights to have the government do something for you.

The latter tend to cost money and thus the richer the society, the more "rights". The former tend to be free, and even the most destitute pauper can refrain from torturing dissidents, hanging gays - or passing laws forbidding girls from going to school. 

[saskganesh]

the idea behind these new "rights" is to make support for "political rights" meaningful. in other words, liberty is great, but if you are hungry, cold, stupid and diseased in an otherwise free society, liberty isn't that useful.

  They are just that: human rights not 'the secret of human happiness and prosperity'.

I'll opt with door B. Human rights, All of them, are indeed the secret of human happiness and prosperity.

The problem is that making the goal sufficiently utopian puts it out of reach of most states.

It is reasonably easy for a poor government to avoid killing dissidents - they merely have to stop doing it. Much more difficult for them to create the sort of social ritches that can support the modern welfare state. The two are not concerns of the same kind.

it's a process. rights evolve. utopian? cheap food, clean water and basic education/health are not expensive. $3000 baby strollers/$3 million weapons systems are expensive though. its really an issue of priorities.

It's $2,000 baby strollers - gotta get that right. 

Anyway, "utopian" in terms of third world nations, many of whom lack the resources and infrastructure to provide "cheap food, clean water and basic education/health care" to their citizens, no matter how they prioritize matters; it would require a degree of redistribution and social control which would, in turn, no doubt require something in the way of "$3 million waepons systems" to enforce, if it was possible at all.

disagree. some third world countries are actually doing that right now, and doing that quite well.

Malawi for example is saving $120 million dollars a year in food imports, because they have a $60 million non-GMO farm aid program, that has turned that country into a food exporter.

[Malthus]

disagree. some third world countries are actually doing that right now, and doing that quite well.

Malawi for example is saving $120 million dollars a year in food imports, because they have a $60 million non-GMO farm aid program, that has turned that country into a food exporter.

Some 3rd world nations are doing better than others. It does not mean, IMHO, that those who are not doing better are by definition "human rights abusers" for the crime of being poor.

[saskganesh]

it's a process. rights evolve. utopian? cheap food, clean water and basic education/health are not expensive. $3000 baby strollers/$3 million weapons systems are expensive though. its really an issue of priorities.

I don't see how something being good to have, essential for life even, and not expensive (and thats a bunch of bullshit anyway since providing the things you listed are incredibly expensive) makes them a human right.

... That is total crap.

They are rights because we decide they are worthwhile preconditions for having a life with dignity. if you think that's total crap that's just wonderful.

a lot of these good things are not expensive. a lot of our current mess is very expensive. for example, if you subsidize farmers not to grow commodities for export, but to maintain green edges around waterways instead, you save money on water purification,  nutrient runoff cleanups, flood controls and habitat restoration.

[Berkut]

it's a process. rights evolve. utopian? cheap food, clean water and basic education/health are not expensive. $3000 baby strollers/$3 million weapons systems are expensive though. its really an issue of priorities.

I don't see how something being good to have, essential for life even, and not expensive (and thats a bunch of bullshit anyway since providing the things you listed are incredibly expensive) makes them a human right.

... That is total crap.

They are rights because we decide they are worthwhile preconditions for having a life with dignity. if you think that's total crap that's just wonderful.

a lot of these good things are not expensive. a lot of our current mess is very expensive. for example, if you subsidize farmers not to grow commodities for export, but to maintain green edges around waterways instead, you save money on water purification,  nutrient runoff cleanups, flood controls and habitat restoration.

...and unless you do these things, you are a human rights abuser?

Planting grass along streams and slavery. Clearly the same thing.

[Berkut]

They are rights because we decide they are worthwhile preconditions for having a life with dignity.

I think a worthy precondition to a life with dignity is a regular blowjob. Does that make it a human right?

[saskganesh]

disagree. some third world countries are actually doing that right now, and doing that quite well.

Malawi for example is saving $120 million dollars a year in food imports, because they have a $60 million non-GMO farm aid program, that has turned that country into a food exporter.

Some 3rd world nations are doing better than others. It does not mean, IMHO, that those who are not doing better are by definition "human rights abusers" for the crime of being poor.

sure.  but that's not really my argument. I am actually more concerned about real people here.

I was responding to:

Anyway, "utopian" in terms of third world nations, many of whom lack the resources and infrastructure to provide "cheap food, clean water and basic education/health care" to their citizens, no matter how they prioritize matters; it would require a degree of redistribution and social control which would, in turn, no doubt require something in the way of "$3 million waepons systems" to enforce, if it was possible at all.

which I did. for example.

but IF a government has it in their ability to provide these kind of services at low cost to their citizens, but won't implement them, then I guess they could be called "human rights abusers" for giving their people shitty lives. really though, I would prefer to call them simply "bad governments." the 3W is full of them, and some ironically, as we well know, are on the UN human rights body

[saskganesh]

it's a process. rights evolve. utopian? cheap food, clean water and basic education/health are not expensive. $3000 baby strollers/$3 million weapons systems are expensive though. its really an issue of priorities.

I don't see how something being good to have, essential for life even, and not expensive (and thats a bunch of bullshit anyway since providing the things you listed are incredibly expensive) makes them a human right.

... That is total crap.

They are rights because we decide they are worthwhile preconditions for having a life with dignity. if you think that's total crap that's just wonderful.

a lot of these good things are not expensive. a lot of our current mess is very expensive. for example, if you subsidize farmers not to grow commodities for export, but to maintain green edges around waterways instead, you save money on water purification,  nutrient runoff cleanups, flood controls and habitat restoration.

...and unless you do these things, you are a human rights abuser?

Planting grass along streams and slavery. Clearly the same thing.

clearly. you'll have to tell me the difference sometime.

[saskganesh]

They are rights because we decide they are worthwhile preconditions for having a life with dignity.

I think a worthy precondition to a life with dignity is a regular blowjob. Does that make it a human right?

we have to decide. as a virile male, I am very sympathetic. now all we have to do is get more agreement from our peers.