ever notice that the list of human freedoms

[careyprice31]

like the right to life, liberty, security, freedom of speech, and so on, is being used tojustify all kinds of oppression?

Just recently a court took custody in Canada of some babies born to jehovah witness parents so they could receive medical treatment in the form of blood transfusions. The parents said it violated their rights.

It is incomprehensible to me how people can choose a religion and a god who may or may not even exist, over medical care for their children (in this case they were born prematurely) and saving them from possible sickness and/or death.

The rights was also used by people here in Newfoundland who wanted to be ale to smoke in their cars no matter who was present (NL is going for a ban on smoking when there's children in the car)

businesses who oppose our ban on smoking in public places because they said it intereferes with their freedoms. Doesnt matter that its an unsafe working environment, they want to make their profits.

Churches using our charter of rights and freedoms to justify discriminating against LBGT (lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgendered) peoples.


Clearly there is something wrong here. I cant put my finger on it but these freedoms are good, and such, why are people getting away with oppression and allowed to use our chater of rights and freedoms to be able to get away with it?

Is there something wrong in the charter itself? Are the rights of people worded wrong? Is it the capitalist system? Something in it is letting people oppress others and its legal !

I dont understand it. Anyone here who knows about lists of human rights and is smarter than I am in that area of knowledge can help me understand this??


(oh i put this here in oi because i want to hear from everyone, not just those who arent restricted, k?)

[spartan]

What is most funny is that when governments commit violent acts to defend these "freedoms" they often suppress these freedoms so as to defend them!

If you have to suppress the freedoms that you say you defend then you have already lost the battle.

If you want to defeat the enemies of true freedom (Not the "freedom" that the US talks about) then do it by showing these people the value of your freedom, instead of doing exactly what they want by suppressing it.

[Dr Mindbender]

Absolutely well said.

the most common one is the way in which the capitalists use the ''right to the ownership of property'' to justify wage slavery.
However what they neglect to do is differentiate between personal and private assets when they refer to 'property' thus resulting in a big anti-red witch-hunt when anyone tries to support communal ownership of means of production.

Or another one is ''freedom to a homeland'' What about freedom to movement? Our national borders serve as little more than a prison, keeping people both out and in.

[Awful Reality]

The leads to the obvious question- to the ends justify the means? And in the case of the canadian children, vice-versa?

[apathy maybe]

The other week I went through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and commented on each one. What I came up with was that lots (most?) of them were problematic from my anarchist position.

Specifically it endorses states, laws and nations. Capitalism, and in part gender inequality.

Unfortunatly when attempting to post my critique, I lost the entirety of it(because I hadn't saved it, and something crashed). I then posted a much shorter version in theory, I'll have a look for it later and post the link here. I'll then also reply to the rest of the thread.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/universal-declaration-human-t69272/index.html
That's what I was talking about. I'll get back and reply to the thread later.

[pusher robot]

Clearly there is something wrong here. I cant put my finger on it but these freedoms are good, and such, why are people getting away with oppression and allowed to use our chater of rights and freedoms to be able to get away with it?

What is disturbing you is probably the realization that freedom is not efficient. It is not utilitarian. It does not maximize happiness. It does not maximize welfare. It hurts people's feelings. All it does - the only thing it does - is give people the liberty of choice.

And the fact of the matter is, if you give people liberty, some of them will use it for destructive or antisocial ends. If you allow them to suffer the consequences of their choices, then some of them will destroy themselves and those who choose to be around them. This is a problem inherent in liberalism - but true liberals accept and even embrace this. It is the human condition.

I suspect that you are not really a liberal, and that you support these "freedoms" in the same way most of your comrades support democracy: you think it's great, only so long as people make the "right" choices. But that's not really support of freedom at all; it's support of the illusion of freedom.

[Demogorgon]

I suspect that you are not really a liberal, and that you support these "freedoms" in the same way most of your comrades support democracy: you think it's great, only so long as people make the "right" choices. But that's not really support of freedom at all; it's support of the illusion of freedom.
You ar ethe one to talk there, belonging as you do, to a political school that despises democracy.

[Dr Mindbender]

And the fact of the matter is, if you give people liberty, some of them will use it for destructive or antisocial ends. If you allow them to suffer the consequences of their choices, then some of them will destroy themselves and those who choose to be around them. This is a problem inherent in liberalism - but true liberals accept and even embrace this. It is the human condition.


Thats only half the story though. I'll guarantee you that 99% of those people with self destructive tendencies (bar those with personality or mental problems) are merely a product of their social and material upbringing; a condition over which they are unable to choose. Remove those conditions, and create and equal footing for all people then suddenly the opportunities and motives for such destructive life options lose their appeal.

For example Its irrefutable that alcholism, drug dependency general criminality and other lumpenproletarian behaviour are irrestrictably linked to capitalism and the overall class system.

[pusher robot]

You ar ethe one to talk there, belonging as you do, to a political school that despises democracy.
Are you sure you aren't confusing me with someone else?

Remove those conditions, and create and equal footing for all people then suddenly the opportunities and motives for such destructive life options lose their appeal.
Great! The trick, of course, is to "remove these conditions" without also removing the freedoms themselves.

[careyprice31]

Thats only half the story though. I'll guarantee you that 99% of those people with self destructive tendencies (bar those with personality or mental problems) are merely a product of their social and material upbringing; a condition over which they are unable to choose. Remove those conditions, and create and equal footing for all people then suddenly the opportunities and motives for such destructive life options lose their appeal.

For example Its irrefutable that alcholism, drug dependency general criminality and other lumpenproletarian behaviour are irrestrictably linked to capitalism and the overall class system.

Absolutely agree with u on that.

"You ar ethe one to talk there, belonging as you do, to a political school that despises democracy."

Thank you demogorgon.

Actually I have a feeling that the capitalists would really hate real democracy (and i dont mean these societies in Canada and the US which pass themselves off as democracies)

[Awful Reality]

Great! The trick, of course, is to "remove these conditions" without also removing the freedoms themselves.

In removing these conditions there is a period, if brief, where these freedoms must be to some degree suspended. This is part of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Later, it dissolves into Communism.

Even when these were suspended (I repeat, to some degree), the quality of life- take post-Stalin Russia- was fine.

[pusher robot]

In removing these conditions there is a period, if brief, where these freedoms must be to some degree suspended. This is part of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Later, it dissolves into Communism.

Even when these were suspended (I repeat, to some degree), the quality of life- take post-Stalin Russia- was fine.

Yes, well, this demonstrates my point: you (nor Svetlana) are not liberals.

For liberals, freedoms are not a means to an end, to be suspended and implemented as convenient so as to achieve a desired outcome. They are the end. They are the outcome.

To the extent that Svetlana "sees something wrong" with a liberal document filled with liberal principles, it's because she's not a liberal.

[Awful Reality]

Yes, well, this demonstrates my point: you (nor Svetlana) are not liberals.

For liberals, freedoms are not a means to an end, to be suspended and implemented as convenient so as to achieve a desired outcome. They are the end. They are the outcome.

To the extent that Svetlana "sees something wrong" with a liberal document filled with liberal principles, it's because she's not a liberal.

Thank you for proving nothing.

Liberal is literally a word for "permissive." That's what Svetlana and myself consider ourselves to be- as Marxists.

The rest of this comment is worthless stupidity. I believe that what you're saying is so obvious it need not even be inferred. Yes, she has problems with "liberal (as per your definition)" literature and ideas, much in the same way that you have problems with Marxist ideas.

[careyprice31]

Yes, well, this demonstrates my point: you (nor Svetlana) are not liberals.

For liberals, freedoms are not a means to an end, to be suspended and implemented as convenient so as to achieve a desired outcome. They are the end. They are the outcome.

To the extent that Svetlana "sees something wrong" with a liberal document filled with liberal principles, it's because she's not a liberal.

Hold on there, Sparky, wait a moment.

Just because I see that people are using the document to justify their oppression, and they actually get away with it "because its in the name of the document" and oh well the document says so so it must be ok. doesnt mean im not a liberal. I believe in freedom. But I dont think people should be able to use this document to justify oppressing people. And therein is the problem.

[Dr Mindbender]

Great! The trick, of course, is to "remove these conditions" without also removing the freedoms themselves.

The conditions which create those destructive tendencies are sources of enslavement, not freedom. Being born into class bondage is not 'excercising your freedom'.

Also, before you go on an Randian rant about the upper class having to sacrifice freedom, to provide for the rest of everyone there is no such thing as 'absolute freedom' anyway. I hope to never live in a society where someone will have the freedom to randomly stab people in the street. There is freedom and there is freedom with responsibility. Unfortunately, the beourgiose do not play by the rules of the latter.

You speak as though freedom and the negative facets related to the class heirarchy are some how sacredly intertwined.

[careyprice31]

You speak as though freedom and the negative facets related to the class heirarchy are some how sacredly intertwined.

what? You mean they're not?

:laugh:

Kidding.


You're right though. Those are rooted in sources of opressive thinking, not the ideas of freedom.

[Demogorgon]

Are you sure you aren't confusing me with someone else?

Nope, you have said yourself what you think of democracy many times. Telling us all about how it is inferior to liberty and all that (as if you could seperate them).

But come on, you belong to the Austrian school, it isn't exactly a secret what they thing of democracy, is it? Trying to claim you favour democracy would be like me trying to claim I favour private property. It just ain't going to sit, is it?

Incidentally perhaps I shouldn't really single out Austrians here. All Libertarians are not known for their love of democracy. There certainly isn't anywhere else in the twenty first century where you can find serious suggestions to re-introduce property qualifications for voting. And don't get 'em started when faced with the prospect of people voting against their preciou gods of the market :lol:

[RHIZOMES]

For example Its irrefutable that alcholism, drug dependency general criminality and other lumpenproletarian behaviour are irrestrictably linked to capitalism and the overall class system.

My family has a history of alcoholism and whenever I drink it I can't get enough of it and usually end up with a broken nose and a few bruises. I believe it's genetic.

[RNK]

Crime itself is linked to the nature of capitalism; statistically, according to every study done on the subject, people who live in poverty -- which is a necessite under capitalism -- are far more likely to commit a crime than those who are not (why would a rich suburbian have to steal a car or rob a liquor store?).

When you begin addressing the material - the social and economic and individual - needs of all of society, it will naturally translate into the reduction of violent and non-violent crimes.

[Dean]

Clearly there is something wrong here. I cant put my finger on it but these freedoms are good, and such, why are people getting away with oppression and allowed to use our chater of rights and freedoms to be able to get away with it?

Our government doesn't care about those freedoms. Furthermore, these exampels yo umention do encroach on them, the main issue is first childrens' rights. It's like saying that we have those freedoms, and making a big deal about trying to keep womens' rights below them. No, if we have those rights, that includes women. Likewise, foreigners, children, and workers deserve these rights too. If yo uapply this logic, however, the U.S. has never lived up to these standards. The U.S. has never has much freedom going for it, anywas; the most dangerous aspect of this nation is that people do indeed think they're free. A man who owns a Halal restaurant down the street recently told me that Egypt has more freedoms than the U.S.. I believe it.

[careyprice31]

Our government doesn't care about those freedoms. Furthermore, these exampels yo umention do encroach on them, the main issue is first childrens' rights. It's like saying that we have those freedoms, and making a big deal about trying to keep womens' rights below them. No, if we have those rights, that includes women. Likewise, foreigners, children, and workers deserve these rights too. If yo uapply this logic, however, the U.S. has never lived up to these standards. The U.S. has never has much freedom going for it, anywas; the most dangerous aspect of this nation is that people do indeed think they're free. A man who owns a Halal restaurant down the street recently told me that Egypt has more freedoms than the U.S.. I believe it.

Hah. Dean, I like the way you talk. LIke the others, I have no idea why you were restricted.

[pusher robot]

Nope, you have said yourself what you think of democracy many times. Telling us all about how it is inferior to liberty and all that (as if you could seperate them).

But come on, you belong to the Austrian school, it isn't exactly a secret what they thing of democracy, is it? Trying to claim you favour democracy would be like me trying to claim I favour private property. It just ain't going to sit, is it?

Incidentally perhaps I shouldn't really single out Austrians here. All Libertarians are not known for their love of democracy. There certainly isn't anywhere else in the twenty first century where you can find serious suggestions to re-introduce property qualifications for voting. And don't get 'em started when faced with the prospect of people voting against their preciou gods of the market :lol:

You're being very uncharitable. I consider myself a liberal democrat. But of course I recognize that democracy is not an unlimited good. If 51% vote to enslave the other 49%, that is not a democratic outcome that I would tolerate. But I guess I must surmise from your attack on that opinion that you would be willing to tolerate it? I'm shocked by your willingness to countenance slavery, honestly. I am.

[pusher robot]

Hold on there, Sparky, wait a moment.

Just because I see that people are using the document to justify their oppression, and they actually get away with it "because its in the name of the document" and oh well the document says so so it must be ok. doesnt mean im not a liberal. I believe in freedom. But I dont think people should be able to use this document to justify oppressing people. And therein is the problem.

You are not a liberal because you recognize things as "oppressive" that are not oppressive to liberals. If someone wants to permit smoking in his pub, that does not oppress the liberal because he is free not to go there. If someone wants to compensate a liberal for his labor, that does not oppress the liberal because he is free to refuse the offer. The scarcity of the physical universe does not oppress the liberal, because he is free to make his own value judgments.

[Capitalist Pig]

Just because I see that people are using the document to justify their oppression, and they actually get away with it "because its in the name of the document" and oh well the document says so so it must be ok. doesnt mean im not a liberal. I believe in freedom. But I dont think people should be able to use this document to justify oppressing people. And therein is the problem. I agree with you, but this is a slippery slope. It's not a matter of freedom, it's just one of those slippery slop situations. Who raises children? Government or Parents? I do not agree with their choice, but I believe it's the right to make it.
businesses who oppose our ban on smoking in public places because they said it intereferes with their freedoms. Doesnt matter that its an unsafe working environment, they want to make their profits. A bar is not a public place. It's privately owned. I don't understand people. I'm a big anti smoker. I hate smoking. I hate people that smoke. But that doesn't justify banning it. Just don't goto the place. I think you fail to realize that freedom is a two way street. That my freedoms don't come before others..
Churches using our charter of rights and freedoms to justify discriminating against LBGT (lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgendered) peoples. How do churches discriminate against LBGT? Will they not bless them? Do LBGT or any person for that fact, deserve to be blessed? As much as I'm antireligion, I do understand that some people don't like LBGT(for whatever reason) and they're free to do that.
Is there some narcissistic urge to force people to believe what you believe? People will dislike LBGT, blacks, whites, asians, celebrities, bums, fat, skinny, etc, and as much as I disagree with that, I'm not going to get the government to go tell them how to think. I just won't associate with them, live my life and treat people with respect. I'm not looking to put guns into peoples hands to use against other people to conform them to my ideals.
These freedoms are merely sovereign choices we make that effect our life and our property. As long as we're not effecting the freedoms or property of others.
I think there just maybe a breakdown in ideologies here. These freedoms are sovereign to the person. That's the end of it. I know left wingers believe in freedoms that require the acts of others. So like a right to free health care requires another person to provide. Theoretically, if no one wanted to provide you with health care, than someone would be forced to provide it.
It's just a different ideology.

[Demogorgon]

You're being very uncharitable. I consider myself a liberal democrat. But of course I recognize that democracy is not an unlimited good. If 51% vote to enslave the other 49%, that is not a democratic outcome that I would tolerate. But I guess I must surmise from your attack on that opinion that you would be willing to tolerate it? I'm shocked by your willingness to countenance slavery, honestly. I am.

Any democracy is realistically going to have something approaching a bill of rights to prevent that sort of thing anyway.

But that aside, when has a democratic majority (a proper one, I don't want to hear about sham parliaments) ever voted to enslave anyone?

[careyprice31]

I agree with you, but this is a slippery slope. It's not a matter of freedom, it's just one of those slippery slop situations. Who raises children? Government or Parents? I do not agree with their choice, but I believe it's the right to make it. A bar is not a public place. It's privately owned. I don't understand people. I'm a big anti smoker. I hate smoking. I hate people that smoke. But that doesn't justify banning it. Just don't goto the place. I think you fail to realize that freedom is a two way street. That my freedoms don't come before others.. How do churches discriminate against LBGT? Will they not bless them? Do LBGT or any person for that fact, deserve to be blessed? As much as I'm antireligion, I do understand that some people don't like LBGT(for whatever reason) and they're free to do that.
Is there some narcissistic urge to force people to believe what you believe? People will dislike LBGT, blacks, whites, asians, celebrities, bums, fat, skinny, etc, and as much as I disagree with that, I'm not going to get the government to go tell them how to think. I just won't associate with them, live my life and treat people with respect. I'm not looking to put guns into peoples hands to use against other people to conform them to my ideals.
These freedoms are merely sovereign choices we make that effect our life and our property. As long as we're not effecting the freedoms or property of others.
I think there just maybe a breakdown in ideologies here. These freedoms are sovereign to the person. That's the end of it. I know left wingers believe in freedoms that require the acts of others. So like a right to free health care requires another person to provide. Theoretically, if no one wanted to provide you with health care, than someone would be forced to provide it.
It's just a different ideology.

So you believe that those peoplem who own the privately owned places should be allowed to have scents and peanuts and allow all kinds of things , and cigarettes that endanger people's lives and say that those people who dont want to be around it or cannot can 'just walk away'

Its that easy to you, is it?

Fact is if the businesses allow that people are being forced to have something inside their bodies that will put their health and life at risk, they are intruding on others rights.

The point being that it makes a very unsafe working condition for workers (and consumers who love to enjoy bars and kick it and relax) and u say they can just 'walk away'? Do u know how hard it is to find a job?

I applied to different places for years to find work and couldnt get one. Got lots of interviews but was never hired.

Most people have none of very little choice of where they want to work. Unlike you imply they cant just 'walk away'

That is not exactly an educated statement to make.

thats not a good argument, people will always dislike LBGT so lets let the oppression continue and just stay away from them. Good one, I must say.

"You are not a liberal because you recognize things as "oppressive" that are not oppressive to liberals. If someone wants to permit smoking in his pub, that does not oppress the liberal because he is free not to go there. If someone wants to compensate a liberal for his labor, that does not oppress the liberal because he is free to refuse the offer. The scarcity of the physical universe does not oppress the liberal, because he is free to make his own value judgments."

See above.

The fact is, people's health and welfare should come before profit.

[pusher robot]

The fact is, people's health and welfare should come before profit.
But not before freedom.

[careyprice31]

But not before freedom.


You mean freedom by your standards, your definition, which differes from my definition. Your definition isn't really freedom at all. Its an illusion of freedom.