6/06/2008
Myth 182 - When human rights is not right
Walter Woon warned against following the cult of human rights believers, when championing human rights becomes a religion. Constance Singam wanted more human rights fanatics to push the boundary of human rights.
Walter Woon has his concerns as human rights has been used as a tool by the West to serve less than rightful purposes. It is only human rights when it serves their interests, and violating human rights when needed without any inkling of guilt. No hypocrisy? No?
Human rights is all wrong when it is adulterated by politics. Human rights is rubbished when pushed by evil people who were violators of human rights. The plight of the Myanmar typhoon refugees could have been better handled if aids/human rights do not come with all the conditions for political interference.
Human rights when pushed for its own sake could be much more palatable. At least it is an ideal to live and fight for. But when human rights is used to bash people for one's political ends, then it is all a big farce. Having said that, it is also wrong to pooh pooh away human rights per se.
We are to a big extent violators of human rights ourselves and these should not go on without any condemnation. We shall start at home, to treat our people better, fairer and more equitable. Oops, not only our people but every human beans, even children of lesser gods.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
It is worrying when a professor of law says something like that.
"Rights" has always beena sexy political idea -- it really gets at people's heart strings. Add the adjective "human" before the word "rights" and you ahev one helluva powerful political tool.
Hitler (and other despots) came to power by championing "rights". In Hitler's case it was the "rights" of the German Aryan people -- their "right" to racial purity and traditional German values, their "right" to re-arm themselves and oppose the debt put on them by the Treaty of Versailles (continual payment of war reptriation).
In Malaysia, the Bhumi's have "rights" too. In Israel, Jews have "rights", whilst the Palestinians are still looking for the rights they've lost.
So seductive is this idea of Human Rights, that the presumptuous "world government" arseholes who call themselves the "United Nations" decided it would be a good idea if they authored (IMO one of THE worst documents in human history) "The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights". They did this unilaterally -- most of the approximately 4 billion (at the time) population of Planet Earth was never consulted.
> (IMO one of THE worst documents in
> human history) "The Universal
> Declaration Of Human Rights"
I find this ironic given how you've been enthusiastically behind a Bill of Rights - which the way I read it is that the bill just transfers power from one state entity (the executive/legislative) to another (the judiciary - which is not even democratic).
A "Bill of Rights" is limited to territories which CHOOSE to have them. This is normally done by "govt by the people for the people" -- where ther is usually alot of discussion going on in the communites affected by such impending legislation.
The UN DHR on the other hand is "GLOBAL" in a sense that the people of the world were neither consulted nor did they approve when such a bill was "authored".
The UN are the most presumptuous arseholes who are living and breathing on this planet. They are bundlesd together with their partners in crime: The World Bank and The IMF, occasionally forming alliances with that other global terrorist the US Federal Govt.
What exactly is wrong with the World Bank and IMF (coupled with the UN) - for the same reasons Stiglitz touted?
Too much power and influence concentrated in the hands of a few. BTW the "power and influence" is global.
See John Perkins great book Confessions of an economic hitman. If you don't like reading, go to YouTube and do a search for "John Perkins".
I've read the Perkin books actually, though I never quite knew what to make of it. The Economist thoroughly trashed it.
What's your take on The Economist then? Given that the magazine styles itself as a staunch supporter of capitalism and civil libertarian values - but they don't countenance alternate views very well. Feels like dogmatic, religious zealotry coming from them sometimes.
I too watched the America: Freedom to Fascism documentary which you plugged some time ago. Aaron Russo has his points, but then you can't help wondering if he's a crackpot given the claims that he has been making about Nicholas Rockefeller here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA
the wheel of history is pointing to the goodness of authoritarian states as the new model of economic progress: )
redbean:
Very true. In this age of "personal empowerment" there is a mad rush to centralise power and control the people...who are "too free" and therefore pose a danger that serfdom will disappear altogether thus damaging the lifestyles of the ruling elite.
anon 1234:
Perkins is perceived as being a left-leaning democrat with occasional libertarian views. The Economist is a conservative, pro-state magazine. The libertarian view of capitalism is radically different from the conservative, pro-state view. The Economist supports institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. They support central banking.
Libertarians want the state out of the market completely. Conservative-style capitalism requires the govt to be active in the market to "regulate" specific aspects, thereby favouring one group and penalising others. Conservatives like tax, because they can get tax breaks (whilst the workers can't), govt-backed loans, state subsidies and grants, govt contracts (like building weapons). Conservatives champion central banking, and state controlled fiat currency systems.
Libertarians OTOH, are anti-tax, want nothing to do with the state, do not bow to any authority, and want to be just left alone so that they can mind their own business. Libertarians are against any idea of central banking and for the most part make the case for privately issued, fully backed HARD money, especially GOLD backed currency. Their view is that if the state issues the currency, then the state will sooner or later resort to THEFT.
Big business (Big Oil, Big Banking, etc) loves The State, because they can get state protection (from competition), have govt impose "regulations" and market restrictions (to penalise competition and erect barriers to entry), eventually leading to state-protected cartels and monopolies.
anon 512:
Yes. A healthy amount of skepticism is a good thing to have. However I do believe that "chipping" will eventually come into existence, as well as RFID tagging of govt-issued currency. These are additional reasons why libertarians want to put an end to central banking and govt involvement in the money supply, and leave capitalism alone.
My view:
State controls are likely to INCREASE and the majority of people will end up in some kind of 21st century serf-master relationship with The State. You can already see this occurring. HOWEVER, the good news is that the possibilities and opportunities for those who choose personal freedom and individual sovereignty are INCREASING, but the state is always going to be on your tail, and in the rear-view mirror.
Heh, socialism for the rich under the guise of capitalism.
i will support such a socialism if everyone is rich.
maybe a blood transfusion, when all the bad blood has been removed and replaced with good blood, then all singaporeans, new and old, will be rich.
no poor singaporeans left.
Post a Comment