|
DO NOT SUPPORT THE UNIVERSAL
DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (UNITED NATIONS)
(Part
I
of Two Parts)
Click
here for Part II
Some excellent anti-Islamic,
anti-jihad, pro-freedom and
pro-rights groups and
individuals seriously damage
themselves by their public
dedication to the United
Nations’ Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
They believe they are taking a
moral stand for rights, but they
do not grasp the profound
contradiction and violation to
morality that they create by
supporting documents like the
UDHR. Little do they
realize that they are opening
the door to the very horrors,
miseries, and degradations that
made them leave Islam.
I found one excellent example
of such a problem from a group
that I like, and I want to be
very clear that I present this
only in the spirit of wanting
this group—and all others making
the same error--to expunge this
terrible contradiction. The
group is the Institute for the
Secularisation of Islamic
Society (ISIS) [1] founded by Ibn Warraq, a former
Muslim, and a man greatly and
properly revered.
This group’s Mission
Statement says in part: “We
believe that Islamic society has
been held back by an
unwillingness to subject its
beliefs, laws and practices to
critical examination, by a lack
of respect for the rights of the
individual…The Institute for the
Secularisation of Islamic
Society (ISIS) has been formed
to promote the ideas of
rationalism, secularism,
democracy and human rights
within Islamic society.” This
is a powerful statement.
ISIS then offers a five-part
“Statement of Principles.”
Statement Three inserts the deadly
virus into their principles:
“We endorse the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and
the International Covenants
without qualification.”
Had ISIS properly
qualified its endorsement of
UDHR, it would have
avoided the damage. The
qualification might accept part
of the UDHR as is, but
would totally reject the
counterfeit “rights.” However,
ISIS states its endorsement
“without qualification,” thus it
drinks the entire draught of
poison.
What is the UDHR?
THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS
The United Nations makes
information about UDHR
available on its website [2]. It also gives UDHR history
and background information. For
example, the UN states that
UDHR was adopted on 10
December 1948, and that Eleanor
Roosevelt was the American “key
contributor.” At the end of the
question and answer section it
has for children, it asks, “Why
is the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights important to you?”
And, it answers, “Because it
protects and promotes your
individual rights.”
Protecting and promoting anyone’s
individual rights is exactly
what it DOES NOT DO.
How does UDHR say that
it “protects” and “promotes”
persons’ individual rights?
Following an eight paragraph
preamble, UDHR specifies
thirty “rights.” The UN authors
who created this document knew
little to nothing about rights;
because of this ignorance, the
issue is fogged and allows bogus
rights to go undetected.
Judging from the quality of the
thirty “rights,” the list reads
like a committee creation. The
language is often as fuzzy as
the document is
definition-free. Enumerated
“rights” vary from the
fundamental to the derivative to
frank anti-rights; no guide
delineates which are which.
The worst stuff shows up in
the last third of the UN
“rights” list. Item 21 says in
part, “The will of the people
shall be the basis of the
authority of the government…”
This imprecision opens the door
to ochlocracy because government
is neither defined nor
constrained in any way from any
tyranny.
Item 29, paragraph 3, states, “These
rights and freedoms may in no
case be exercised contrary to
the purposes and principles of
the United Nations.” Which of
the applicable individuals,
governments, or nations, then,
is the supreme entity? It is,
of course, the United Nations,
from which are dispensed the
UN’s versions of rights and
responsibilities. What the UN
giveth, the UN can taketh
away—unlike authentic rights
which come from human
requirements for existence, as
we will elaborate.
THE BOGUS RIGHTS OF THE UDHR
|
UDHR Paragraph |
Promise |
|
22 |
-
“right to social security’
-
“economic, social and cultural rights”
|
|
23 |
-
“protection against unemployment”
-
“Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable
remuneration
ensuring for himself
and his family an
existence worthy of
human dignity, and
supplemented,
if necessary, by
other means of
social protection.”
|
|
24 |
-
“periodic holidays with pay”
|
|
25 |
-
“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.”
|
|
26 |
-
“right to education” and “Education shall be
free”
-
Education “shall further the activities of the United
Nations for the
maintenance of
peace.”
|
(All emphases mine)
It would be easy to nitpick
Items 21 – 30 severely, but we
will focus only on the items in
the foregoing table because
these items completely undo all
of the rest of the UDHR.
The real meaning of these
bogus rights comes from
understanding the meaning of
rights.
RIGHTS PER SE
Many Americans “sort of know” what
“rights” are. Those who were
able to learn enough general
knowledge, despite
“public” or “government”
schools, can usually parrot
“life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness,” but they seldom
go further. Confusion clouds
their minds as they try to tease
out “the right to ____ [you fill
in the blank].” Politicians,
educators, and cultural sources
are both confused and up to no
good in providing bad answers.
Most accept that “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness”
are compatible “somehow” with
the “right to education, right
to unemployment checks, social
security, welfare, and health
care,” among others.
The term “rights” gets tossed
about like some kind of largess,
particularly during election
cycles. As a result of profound
ignorance, a “right,” to most
people, means something along
the line of an entitlement.
There is a price to pay for this
ignorance—ultimately, reality
always wins. Sometimes, victory
takes time as the logical
consequences move inexorably to
conclusion, but logic and
reality always hold the upper
hand. The price being paid for
mixing up real
rights with bogus
rights is the replacement of
real rights with the bogus ones,
as we will demonstrate, and the
unhappy consequences resulting
from it. This replacement
process applies to all societies
which move from greater
individual freedom progressively
to fewer and fewer freedoms, and
finally to no freedom. For
example, contrast free America
as a young republic with the
semi-statist America of today.
Then contrast the latter with
Islamic and other totalitarian
societies, where no individual
rights are respected, where the
life of the individual is
subordinated to the whims of the
state.
The “package deal” of the UNUDHR
tries to mix real rights–both
fundamental and derivative--with
counterfeit rights such as
social security, education,
health, guaranteed income, and
so on, as though the two were
interchangeable.
Few terms reflect the confusion
better than does the expression
“human rights.” Many
intelligent people think that
they have said something useful
when they use that expression.
Jimmy Carter, as an example, has
prattled often, but not
eloquently, about “human rights”
for decades, and to this day
does not know anything about the
“rights” he talks about.
“Human rights” is a qualified term.
“Human,” when used as a
modifier, implies that there are
other “rights.” To a
socialist like Carter, there are
lots of rights. There are
“property rights, economic
rights, environmental rights,
voting rights,” and so on, ad
infinitum, and all are
assumed to be equal. In
reality, however, there is
just ONE fundamental right
and three derivative rights.
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
The fundamental right is the RIGHT TO
LIFE. The derivative rights are
the RIGHTS TO LIBERTY, PROPERTY,
and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
(Please note the exactness of
the terminology: “pursuit of
happiness,” which acknowledges
that there can be no guarantee
of happiness). No other
fundamental rights exist
because these four spawn all
authentic rights as
derivatives and specializations
of these four.
Philosopher Ayn Rand, THE great
clarifier of rights, illustrates
the trap made by contrasting
“human rights” with “property
rights,” which all manner of
leftists (i.e., collectivists)
love to do:
Just as man can't exist without his
body, so no rights can exist
without the right to translate
one's rights into reality—to
think, to work and to keep the
results—which means: the right
of property…Only a ghost can
exist without material property;
only a slave can work with no
right to the product of his
effort. The doctrine that
"human rights" are superior to
"property rights" simply means
that some human beings have
the right to make property out
of others; since the
competent have nothing to gain
from the incompetent, it means
the right of the incompetent to
own their betters and to use
them as productive cattle.
Whoever regards this as human
and right, has no right to the
title of "human." [3]
(Emphasis mine)
Think of “right of way.” A “right”
is just that. It is an ACTION.
Better said, it is a freedom
of action.
Who acts? Individual humans do.
What kind of actions do they
take? They take actions to
support their lives. What are
they acting to do? They are
acquiring the material means to
sustain and further their
lives. All people live in a
material world, and they need
physical materials to keep
living. Without these physical
materials, their physical bodies
cannot survive, and their lives
end. The obvious basic physical
materials are food, water,
clothing, and shelter. People
need the freedom to act to
acquire these and many other
things. They need to have full
authority to use what they
earn. They need to have full
use of the materials they
acquire to own--PROPERTY.
Each person needs the freedom to act
on his own behalf in order to
fulfill his life as much as
possible. People need the
freedom to determine which
actions fulfill their lives and
to make changes when they think
they can fulfill themselves in
better ways. They must be free
to PURSUE their HAPPINESS.
A "right" is a moral principle
defining and sanctioning a man's
freedom of action in a social
context.
The concept of a "right" pertains
only to action—specifically, to
freedom of action. It means
freedom from physical
compulsion, coercion or
interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right
is the moral sanction of a
positive—of his freedom to act
on his own judgment, for his own
goals, by his own voluntary,
uncoerced choice. As to his
neighbors, his rights impose
no obligations on them except of
a negative kind: to abstain from
violating his rights. [4]
(Emphases mine)
Rights are moral principles derived
from the need for each person to
support his own life by his own
actions.
SOURCE OF RIGHTS
Confusion pops up here because of two
misconceptions people hold.
These misconceptions come in the
form of two questions: (1)
Where do rights come from? And
(2), who gives us our rights?
The proper answers are, to
question (1): You are born with
your rights and retain them
forever; the Founders understood
this when they wrote that rights
are “unalienable.” Rights are
an integral part of our nature
as humans and cannot be
separated from that nature. The
answer to question (2) is:
Because rights are an integral
part of our nature; no one can
give them to us, take them away,
or give them away.
If rights “come from” anything, it is
from the demands of REALITY.
Rights come with every human at
birth in every era and in every
culture. Our fundamental nature
as human beings is the same for
all humans everywhere. Any
social system faces just one
HUGE basic decision: to protect
individual rights or not.
The second question which confuses so
many people pertains to the
source of rights.
Conservatives say that rights
are given by a supreme deity.
Liberals say that rights come
from society. Neither is
correct.
Rights come from the nature of human
beings. As Ayn Rand said it so
well:
The source of man's rights is not
divine law or congressional law,
but the law of identity. A is
A—and Man is Man. Rights are
conditions of existence required
by man's nature for his proper
survival. If man is to live on
earth, it is right for him to
use his mind, it is right to act
on his own free judgment, it is
right to work for his values and
to keep the product of his work. [5]
A human is what he is. His nature
and the requirements that enable
him to live are inseparable
parts of his identity. Whether
one believes in God or not,
rights are integral to the
identity of humankind, and
because of this, they are
inalienable. This means that
neither society, groups,
collectives, nor governments can
“give” rights. Similarly, and
we will elaborate more later,
rights cannot be taken away; nor
can one give one’s rights away.
RIGHTS CAN ONLY BE VIOLATED!
Reality sets these requirements,
and there is no way around them.
INALIENABILITY
America’s Founders were absolutely
correct when they said that the
Rights of Man are inalienable.
Rights can be violated, but they
remain, even if unrealized
because some people deny others
their freedom to act.
Rights translate morality
into the social (political)
realm. Living together can be
very valuable to people, in the
proper kind of society, or
horribly dangerous in the wrong
kind of society. A society is
legitimate only when it does not
interfere with people’s freedom
of action, provided their
actions do not violate the same
rights held by others. A moral
society protects the rights of
its citizens, who delegate the
use of force to that government
(society) in order to have their
rights protected. [6]
[3] Peikoff, L.: Objectivism: The Philosophy
of Ayn Rand;
Meridian Books, NY,
ISBN: 0-452-01101-9,
1991, page 353
[4] Rand, A: The Virtue of Selfishness;
Signet Books, NY;
ISBN:0-451-12931-8, 1964;
page 93
[6] Peikoff, op. cit., page 350
[7] Rand, op. cit., page 92-93
DO NOT SUPPORT THE
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
(Part II of Two)
Click
here for Part I
VIOLATING RIGHTS
Suppose, however, that one or more
individuals decide that their
lives will be advanced by taking
the belongings of a neighbor or
neighbors. We know that is
wrong, but why is it wrong, in
terms of rights?
Someone once said, “Your rights stop at my
skin.” I.e., you are properly
able to take any actions which
do not violate the rights held
by others. Rights apply evenly
to all persons.
Remember, rights are freedoms of
action in a social
context, and as long as those
actions do not violate the
rights of others, this means ANY
AND ALL ACTIONS, even those
which others may not approve
of at all, or those others
may think unwise. However, if
these others’ rights are not
being violated, their approval
is irrelevant. Someone’s
actions, within the scope of
rights, might result from poor
choices, but, in a free society,
those who engage in poor
judgment are the only ones to
suffer as long as they do not
violate the rights of others.
Many people have grave
difficulty understanding this.
Thus, many people advocate all
sorts of governmental
restrictions and laws against
all sorts of actions they
consider repugnant or immoral
but which do not harm them
directly. Once you finally
grasp the concept of rights, you
no longer have this hang-up.
It is only around other people that
violation of rights even becomes
an issue. A castaway on an
uninhabited island faces no
questions about his or her
rights, even though he or she
has them. There’s no one there
to interfere with the castaway’s
rights. However, let even one
other person join the castaway,
and the question comes up over
and over. Alone, the castaway
experiences no violation of his
right to life if, for example,
he fails to find sufficient food
or shelter. His failure is not
a result of some other person’s
blocking his attempts to find
food or shelter. The new
arrival, however, introduces the
possibility of force being
initiated against the castaway.
For example, if the new arrival
steals the castaway’s food and
shelter or tries to break his
arms and legs whenever the
castaway tries to hunt, fish,
plant, or harvest, then the
castaway’s rights to life,
liberty, and property have been
violated, along with his
right to pursue his own
happiness.
What if the new arrival just intimidates, or
even makes verbal threats, to
the castaway, but takes no
physical action? If he does not
follow through by initiating
physical force, he is
unpleasant, but he does not
violate the rights of the
castaway. Do you remember this
expression from your early
years? “Sticks and stones will
break my bones, but words will
never hurt me.” Thus it is with
rights. Only the
initiation of physical force can
violate rights, and
understanding this is crucial to
understanding rights.
As obnoxious as the new arrival’s “psy-ops”
may be, they cannot physically
impede the castaway’s right to
life. However, when the new
arrival acts to stop the
castaway from supporting
himself, then the castaway’s
rights have been violated.
It is important to differentiate the two
types of physical force. To
violate rights, someone must
start—i.e., initiate—physical
force against someone else in
order to block that person’s
freedoms of action. Until that
physical force starts, no rights
are violated.
The other type of physical force is
retaliatory; if someone
injures you or steals from you,
you have the right to respond
in order to restore your rights,
as an application of justice.
You obviously have the right to
defense as well, to minimize or
prevent violation of your
rights.
Criminals may also use the intellectual
equivalent of physical force:
deceit and fraud. Both physical
force and deceit-fraud prevent
you from acting on your own
behalf. If the castaway and the
new arrival agreed to search for
water, for example, and the new
arrival found it but lied to the
castaway, that would violate the
latter’s rights. Enron is a
larger and very well known
example of deceit-fraud.
There is a pertinent statement in our
Declaration of Independence,
“…for these reasons [the
protection of individual
rights], governments are
instituted among men…” Citizens
delegate the use of physical
force to a governing institution
in exchange for freedom from
that duty, so they can pursue
their lives without that
distraction.
Rogues and criminals exist in all societies,
and they pose threats to the
rights of citizens. However,
their threat cannot compare
either in quality or quantity to
that posed by the actions of a
rogue government. For example,
just because there is a law does
not mean that it is
morally valid. When
that government passes laws and
regulations authorizing it to
violate individual rights, it
changes the moral use of force
which has been delegated to it
by its citizens into a legal one
that is immoral, and then uses
it. It may thus imprison,
confiscate, tax, force into
labor, kill, maim, starve, and
enslave citizens in violation of
their rights. A government like
that of Saddam Hussein violates
rights in egregiously obvious
ways. Societies somewhere
between being fully free
(capitalism) and fully unfree
(totalitarian) violate rights
through a progressive mix of
controls and legal distortions
until the government ultimately
acquires enough power to act
openly against its citizens and
without regard for the rights of
those citizens.
Conservatives, more than others, are quick
to tag “rights” with
corresponding
“responsibilities.” THE ONLY
RESPONSIBILITY—ONLY—ENTAILED
BY “RIGHTS” IS FOR EACH PERSON
TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS
AND NOT VIOLATE THEM. There are
NO social, religious, group,
state, or collective
“responsibilities.” How do I
know? I know because I know the
source and meaning of “rights,”
i.e., that they derive from
reality and pertain to the
nature of human beings, not
groups or states, or others.
THE RIGHTS TEST
There is a simple test which differentiates
counterfeit “rights” from
authentic, fundamental rights.
The test is based on the fact
that rights are freedoms of
action in a social context.
As Ayn Rand defines rights,
"Rights" are a moral concept—the concept
that provides a logical
transition from the principles
guiding an individual's actions
to the principles guiding his
relationship with others—the
concept that preserves and
protects individual morality in
a social context—the link
between the moral code of a man
and the legal code of a society,
between ethics and politics.
Individual rights are the means
of subordinating society to
moral law.
A "right" is a moral principle defining and
sanctioning a man's freedom
of action in a social context.[7]
(Emphases mine)
The “test question is: “Who provides
these?” If the answer is “you,”
meaning that you take the
actions for you, then you are
dealing with a right. If the
answer is “someone else” or
“others,” meaning that the
money, property, or effort of
other people are required to
provide you with money or other
property, then you are dealing
with bogus rights. Your rights
refer to your
freedoms of action, not to the
products of the actions of
others.
THE U.N.’s COUNTERFEIT RIGHTS
Let’s apply the test question. We can use
the bogus rights upheld by the
United Nations in the UDHR
as arch-typical examples. In
briefest summary, the UDHR
cites these “rights”:
·
Social security
·
Guaranteed employment and protection
against unemployment
·
Guaranteed social protections
·
Periodic holidays with pay
·
Guaranteed standard of living, food,
clothing, housing, medical care,
necessary social services, and
security against unemployment,
sickness, disability, widowhood,
old age, and any circumstances
beyond one’s control
·
Free education
About each item and each sub-item in the
foregoing list, let us ask the
question, “Who provides?” Each
time we get the same answer.
Someone else, other than the
recipient, must provide.
It is always those who “have”
who must provide to those who,
be definition, “have not.”
No one whose thinking comes up with or
approves such lists ever asks
whether those who “have” if they
want to subsidize those who
“have not.” Ayn Rand said it
perfectly:
Jobs, food, clothing, recreation (!),
homes, medical care, education,
etc., do not grow in nature.
These are man-made values—goods
and services produced by men.
Who is to provide them?
If some men are entitled by right to the
products of the work of others,
it means that those others are
deprived of rights and
condemned to slave labor.
Any alleged "right" of one man, which
necessitates the violation of
the rights of another, is not
and cannot be a right.
No man can have a right to impose an
unchosen obligation, an
unrewarded duty or an
involuntary servitude on another
man. There can be no such thing
as "the right to enslave."
A right does not include the material implementation
of that right by other men; it
includes only the freedom to
earn that implementation by
one's own effort.[8]
(Emphases mine)
Implementation of these “U.N. rights” means
taking the property and labor
of some by force to give to
others. To accomplish these
ends, governments must
initiate physical force against
their citizens to get their
property, labor, and even their
lives to be able to
“redistribute” to others. The
fact that the providers might be
willing to donate the fruits of
his labor without the use of
force in no way excuses the
potential for the use of force.
Humanity always has groups of
pseudo-moralists who use guilt
to soften up the “haves” with
moral pabulum so they will not
resist the confiscations. This
is never more than partially
successful. Most people see the
hypocrisy.
Inevitably, the power-lusting control-freaks
turn bogus rights into legal
(but not moral) entitlements
that completely invert
morality. The act of earning
something through terms that are
mutually and voluntarily agreed
upon is an authentic right.
Earning becomes a tangible value
in the form of money; money
certifies that something of
value has been accomplished.
The government, which takes this
earned money to give it to
someone else who did not earn
it but who is given claim to
it by the use of force on the
part of the government,
literally loots and steals,
then “redistributes” this
“stolen property” as a bogus
“right,” justified by fiat.
Non-free nations engage in looting behavior
as a matter of policy. Stealing
is as much a way of life as
breathing. Corruption dominates
life. In such societies,
citizens are free to do only
what they are permitted
to do because the state and its
wards have legal
but not morally valid
claims to the lives, labors, and
property of the citizens.
People in Islamia have no
recognition of their rights
whatsoever; everyone lives by
permission, following commands
from the dispensers of force.
When relatively free countries engage in the
manufacture of counterfeit
rights, they become less and
less free. Entitlements grow.
Bogus rights replace authentic
rights. Down the slippery slope
such countries go; where they
stop, WE KNOW. If they do not
stop, the logical conclusion is
to become an unfree society in
which all individuals’ rights
have been abrogated.
The morphing of the legitimate “Rights of
Man” into the illegitimate
“economic rights” (or any other
set of bogus rights) establishes
a fatal principle: The life
and property of its citizens
belong to the state, not to the
individual. Totalitarian
states fully implement this
principle.
“NEEDS” VERSUS “RIGHTS”
Another source of confusion surfaces here.
It always takes the form of
asking, “What do those in
need do in a free
society? Who takes care of
them, and how?”
Helping those in need is very important to
most people. This benevolence
contributes mightily to
civilizing life among free
peoples (it is scarce among
non-free peoples). Americans,
as the freest people on earth,
are by far the most caring,
helpful, and generous, both
among themselves and toward
others.
Is it a measure of generosity, though, if
money and property are forcibly
seized from those who have
something to “redistribute”?
Many people are ill at ease with
such seizures, because they are
fundamentally unfair. Yet,
there are people who are still
in need.
How do we resolve this problem? The answer,
happily, is “easily.”
Let’s develop an answer that resolves the
“need problem” by clarifying the
question of “needs” versus
“rights.” This clarification
shows how well the “needs
problem” gets addressed and
resolved in a society while
fully protecting the fundamental
rights of every one of its
citizens.
One ground rule is that a “need” is not an
authorization to abrogate the
rights of someone else. People
must be left free to seek
solutions. People must be left
free to give whatever they
choose to help those who are in
need. And, if they choose not
to give, then they must be left
free not to give, since that is
their right as well.
People who have a vested interest in
spreading bogus rights want to
distort the concept of rights
into becoming a give-away system
which they use to acquire power
and influence. They play upon
confused persons’ emotions about
“helping people.” They fog the
issue to exploit the benevolence
and common decency of the
confused in order to harness
them to the exploiters’
purposes. They would have you
believe that few people have
compassion for those who are not
as well off, and so must be
compelled to help out. But,
in fact, compassion is one of
our best human sentiments.
Compassion exists in all
societies, but only in free
societies is the means for them
to blossom as well as strongly
developed desires to help.
A free, moral society is a society where
rights are universally
recognized, and has a government
which exists to protect those
rights.
The freer the society, the more of your
property (including your money)
you keep. You and others build
up savings (“surplus funds”)
quickly when government is
restricted in what it can take
from you.
This surplus money routinely plays into the
benevolence toward others that
an estimated 85% of us have:
the more people keep of what
they earn, the more they can
give to charities. Conversely,
the less “surplus” money people
can keep, the less they are able
to donate. Ask any charity how
well their coffers are filled
during the “highs” and “lows” of
economic cycles.
[Perhaps it is unnecessary to state this,
but just in case it is not,
remember always that government
produces NOTHING, including
money. What government has, it
must extract from its citizens.]
The surplus money in a free society
always goes to work; it buys
better standards of living, and,
through investing in the
creation of businesses, results
in widespread employment. Thus,
those at the low socio-economic
end of life find many more
opportunities to earn their
sustenance and to meet their
needs.
A very small core of those who have met with
unmanageable misfortune for
whatever reason, and truly
cannot help themselves at all,
will always remain. In a truly
free society, though, the
numbers of the helpless become
fewer than in any other kind of
society, and they are easier for
the rest of us to help since
they are small in number. A
free society is an OPPORTUNITY
SOCIETY, and includes almost
endless opportunities to help
others.
This is not idle, pie-in-the-sky,
wish-fulfillment theorizing.
History bears this out. A free
society always has the
fewest dependents because it is
the best able to provide
opportunity for people to
support themselves at many
levels, and more people have
sufficient “surplus” available
to help.
BE BLOODY CAREFUL WHAT YOU ENDORSE
The UNUDHR wobbles unfocused between
the Rights of Man, derivative
rights, and counterfeit rights.
Furthermore, it never defines
“rights.” This is a failure
which allows it to corrupt
freedom. Given how little
people understand “rights,” the
UNUDHR package deal gets
sold and bought, with
well-meaning advocates and
supporters being none the
wiser. Those trying to build an
edifice of freedom, based to any
extent on the UDHR, build
on a fatally flawed foundation.
You cannot replace some of your
money with counterfeit money and
expect enduring good results.
Nor can you smuggle in bogus
rights and expect to get away
with it over the long range.
Reality always wins in the end.
The bogus rights of the UDHR are
so-called “economic rights.”
They are the core of all forms
of socialism: “democratic”
socialism, fascism, and
communism. Bogus rights
inexorably pave the way to
totalitarianism unless the bogus
rights are thrown out and
replaced with authentic rights.
Those who are rebelling from the utter
totalitarianism that is Islam
must not sabotage their truly
noble goals and efforts. Islam
is a horrible religion and a
vicious philosophy. It
abrogates the rights of all
Muslims. It destroys the minds
and lives of everyone it
touches. Escaping from Islam
and rejecting it are among the
highest moral actions possible
to any human being. Those who
escape and oppose Islam are
exceptionally courageous and
admirable people. Those who
fully reject Islam in favor of
reality, reason, and rights will
serve as role models to inspire
others in their struggle for
freedom, and their ultimate
success.
The opposite, the antithesis, of Islam (and
any incipient or fully developed
totalitarian ideology) are the
famed rights of man: Life,
Liberty, Property, and the
Pursuit of Happiness. The
derivatives of these basic
rights are also actions; they
are decidedly not what
the UNUDHR offers--social
security, housing, health,
groceries, income, education,
and so on. These are not
actions; they are products
that must be provided by
others. Other people must be
forced to produce and provide
the concretes the UN regards as
“rights,” which means enslaving
some to serve others.
What I am saying to ISIS and all others
escaping Islam, I say also to
the United States of America,
which must pursue the same
corrective policies.
But to those escaping Islam: Yes, run from
Islam. And, run from the UN’s
UDHR as well. Replace
this document with a
philosophically valid concept of
“rights” that benefits all
persons on earth. This will set
you and all people on earth
free.
[3] Peikoff, L.: Objectivism: The Philosophy of
Ayn Rand;
Meridian Books, NY,
ISBN:
0-452-01101-9, 1991,
page 353
[4] Rand, A: The Virtue of Selfishness;
Signet Books, NY;
ISBN:0-451-12931-8,
1964; page 93
[6] Peikoff, op. cit., page 350
[7] Rand, op. cit., page 92-93
|
