I think you will find it interesting.

@Lyle -

"... onslaught of hatred and vehemence."

Nice stereotyping! I'm guessing that such a statement wasn't meant to be divisive at all, was it?

@Lyle
I believe you just broke the Article 5.

@Lyle -

I'm starting to sense a lot of hostility in you lately. Perhaps it's time for a vacation. Here's a suggestion:

http://www.vacationsatkutshers.com/

Well Lyle... You and I haven't made too many friends here so far. I keep thinking we should all meet in public somewhere, maybe have a barbecue or something.

@Brian -

Hoffa would be down with a little BBQ get together!

@Brian Carlson...I also think we need to do a public meeting. Hoffa claims to have an isolated place where we could meet. What do you think JRH?

Am I a Leftie? I have never been sure what I am. The spectrum seems spheroid to me...not linear.

@Brian -

I think that would make you a north eastern hemisphere kinda guy ;-)

Does our Constitution seem utopian? Or the Declaration? Why not have positive goals despite the fact that many will fall short of them or that they will take time to achieve? This is what Christ and Buddha, Mohammed, Krisna, Zoroaster, Baha'u'llah and many other great masters have encouraged and taught. My lord JB..... Do you want to play to the mediocre...to the average? Why can't we learn to serve others?

A child has no dignity or goodness? You look at an infant and immediately see it as evil? Or as a blank slate... Unproven therefore undeserving of respect? This can't be...please clarify.

@Brian
Our constitution or declaration are in no way utopian. They don't attempt to make men equal in outcome and both hinge heavily on the restriction of government in favor the individual. More importantly in favor of the individual to highest level of success regardless of the success of his fellow citizens.

You mention what religious leaders have advocated, is your desire a theocracy? We can learn to serve; however, you can't use government to force people into service.

I have 5 children and while yes for the first months of life, innocence is what you can see. Before the age of one they quickly become selfish and unable to comprehend many of the social interactions that determine dignity and goodness. No parent attempts to create that in their child, it is a natural process. Therefore, dignity is not inherent and must be taught.

@J.B. Schmidt....You are correct; rights between men are not inalienable. However, a positive moral society will extend alienable rights for the well being of all. Theoretically no one life is worth more than the next and to count ourselves as being civilized we will work to remove the obstacles that prevent equality of opportunity.

@J.B. Schmidt....So, if I am reading you correctly, then children are born inherently evil? The natural process, as you call it, gives the new human the ability to survive. They demand our attention and if we are a capable and competent parent, we meet their needs without reservation. We have a range of expectations for our children, beginning from birth until they reach adulthood. It is our role as parents and primary care givers to teach children how to live within society, while developing their special attributes and capabilities. If the child is unable to become socialized then they were defective from birth or the parents didn't do their job.

@Lyle
So are you arguing that children a born a blank slate or born good? Either way that is not a logical explanation. If born as a blank then neither dignity nor the lack of dignity exist; thus nothing is inherent. If children are born good, then the good is the parents responsibility to maintain that and any variation from good should we not hold the parents responsible?

I never said children were born evil; rather they are born imperfect. That imperfection is why inherent dignity is impossible. It is also why they require parents to help them understand this and live as socially acceptable individuals.

Help me here...this document condemns individual success? I missed that line or passage.

@J.B. Schmidt...I don't agree that it will condemn individualism. There is not any inherent conflict between individual success and community needs.

@Brian and Lyle
This document promotes equality in outcome. The only way to achieve equality in outcome is either A) Cap the level of success a person can reach. or B) Take from the successful in order to build up the unsuccessful. In essence A and B are reducing the ability for the individual to succeed.

In order for the a government to provide that "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."(Article 25), the successful "shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society" (Article 29)**. Every country except one that has instituted socialism as proposed has a lower median income then the US. That only happens when you curb success and as that one country begins to become less indigenous, its median income will also drop. I fail to see the benefit to the community by limiting success and bringing incomes down.

**
I understand that in Article 29 it says everyone and not just the successful; however, that style is often used to give the idea that all are contributing. However, for a person that doesn’t have what Article 25 determines an individual should by rights have, he can only get that via the imposition of laws via Article 29. You obviously cannot impose legislation taking from a person who is already lacking the rights this document claims are inalienable. Hence, when in Article 29 it says, “everyone shall be subject only to such limitations”, based on context you can’t limit those that have not met the threshold of Article 25. Therefore you are only placing “limitations” on the successful.

@J.B. Schmidt...There have always been limitations on individuals, including their endeavors to succeed. But, in spite of those limitations, those who have the will. the intelligence and fortunate enough environment to succeed, do so anyway. The primary measuring stick that is used in our culture is the amount of wealth that is accumulated. However, what we have lost is the importance of the value of how that wealth was achieved. If someone violates the values of society in order to achieve that wealth, then rightfully their status is diminished. i.e. Bernie Madoff. On the other hand a Steven Jobs is celebrated because not only did he grow wealthy, but the manner in which it was achieved. No matter what it is, as my mother used to say: "the cream always rises".

Using the limitations set to regulate and control certain practices is no excuse for not achieving success, it is just an excuse for those who don't quite make the grade and feel compelled to blame something or someone other than themselves.

@Lyle
Explain to me the limits of legal success (please do not muddy the waters with illegal actions) that the US Constitution imposes. Explain in the constitution were redistribution of wealth is promoted in order to make every ones existence fair and equal.

Limitations and regulations shouldn't be direct excuse on success. Not unlike my grill, when I place the cover on a lit charcoal, the various setting of the vents hamper the ability of that fire to succeed. As I close the vents, eventually that fire will go out do to lack of freedom to take in oxygen. Progressive notions as listed in this document close the vents on an economy and slowly choke of its ability to succeed. Just like my grill, portions will stay hot, but they become fewer and farther apart. Until magically we have economic growth like what we are currently seeing in the US.

The US clearly is not moving in support of this document in numerous ways. I think we are still a holdout in the Kyoto Accords as well. Rather than setting the bar for humanitarian efforts, and in the realm odpf support of universal human rights, we continue to violate them egregiously in many parts of the world.

@Brain Carlson...The U.S. talks a good game, but short on action. The Kyoto Accords is but a pipe dream.

Supporting this document would in fact reduce the United States to the former Soviet Union. A mass of cookie cutter pod-people run by corrupt communist party members.

Yep, we'd all be equal - equally poor, unhealthy, unhappy and unproductive. A liberal paradise!!!!

I think the UN would appreciate it if the US WOULD pay it's tab. We are in arrears and have been for long time. Sadam used chemicals provided to him by the us as well as technology, to gas Iranians and Kurds. You seem to believe that dialogue on an international level, is pointless, and this suggests you are into American exceptionalism, a premise I find akin to facism.

Point being Brian you would be the better Judge. Its laughable . The concept is a complete waste of time and energy. It is so obvious unless you lack common sense will never happen . It is further laughable you think a piece of paper means anything with out teeth behind it . I notice why you bashing America you skipped over the part that There is no penalty for non compliance. And why you criticize us killing the bad guy you sit on you duff and write a meaningless blog because you can . If you were in Iran and did that you wouldnt be free or live long. But you got stupid piece of paper that says they couldnt do something like that to you .It's really laughable because its so void of common sense that you actually put forth the belief that this is practical . Talk about drinking the Kool aid .
And your human rights enforcement mechanism is ? I am still waiting.......it appears like something you have no answer for and we both will be dead before you could come up with an answer that could be taken serious in the real world! This is fantasy island your living on.

@Brian
Please put real world numbers to the following passage from Article 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."

What I mean is, explain exactly what material possessions I and my family have a right too? For example, what size house? How much food? What brand of clothing? What quality of health care? How much retirement money? How much vacation time?

After you have set levels for the above then answer this. If I have decided to work a part time job at McDonald's making $15K per year, am I still entitled to those rights? If they are "rights" I should be, correct? Who then makes up the difference between my salary and those rights? If you are taking from the 'rich', why wouldn't everyone work at McDonald's instead of trying for better work if we are guaranteed the same 'rights'? Especially when better work only means I am supporting those that have chosen to work at McDonald's?

@Brian
"more powerful politically and manipulate international law" Really? What weight does have the US have in the UN? Little to none, even though it is our money that keeps it afloat.

Maybe we are smarter or better, so. You are questioning if we should regulate our own success because the rest of the world can't succeed? That would be like Patch asking you write at a poorer level because other don't have the same ability as you. Or asking US auto manufacturers to produce lower quality cars because the rest of the world needs to catch up.

Our capitalism has done more and spread more money through the globe then any other nation, ever! Please tell me another country that sends as much money across their boards as America does.

@Brian -

"Debaters meet in public and ....STILL don't like each other!!!"

Thanks for the laugh!

I've always been meaning to get together with Lyle, but would love to meet you as well! It would be nice if we could get McBride, Greg, not greg, Craig, Bren, HRG, Gearhead, skinnyDUDE, anti-Alinsky, and some others as well.

Just for Lyle, we'd have to see if we could get Alfred, oak creek resident, and AWD to join us!

Maybe we could get Mark Maley to feature a get together article on all the SE Wisconsin Patches. That way, everyone could confirm in the comments and we could set up a date, time, and place.

Hoffa only owns an antique pass me down shotgun, so he won't be packing.

We could have it at my place, but I'm way out in the boonies. Probably more convenient if Hoffa came to everyone else as opposed to vice versa. But then again, maybe everyone would be up for a trip - who knows!

@David -

You're forgetting that the concrete was Teamster concrete, so it naturally didn't last very long before it started crumbling all around me ;-)

BTW - Are you in for the get together?

@JRH --- as a former Teamster I resemble that ;-)

And it was the Evil Contractors at the concrete plant that put all the extra sand and water in it --- you know, those Evil Capitalists !!! We just hauled it.

Yeah --- I would be down with the get together --- whatever form you folks agree to --- my preference would be a good and loud Blues Band that would make conversation or argument impossible, but would make the beer go down better.

BTW --- if you want to pack, I can lend you a sling for your shotgun ---- just think how macho you would look with a bandoleer of shotgun shells across your pinstripe suit.

Vocal local.......had we begun with your policy of sterilizing immigrants you would not be here suggesting we sterilize the new Americans.

@Brian -

Only Nicholson can do Hoffa right ;-)

So basically it is the same situation we are in now without the paperwork. Its a pipe dream and another liberal Jump the shark moment as its not tied to anything realistic. The UN is a worthless body. Under your rules I assume Syria has violations of this amazing human rights paper. But Russia is cheering for Assad to keep it together. Even has armed sales to him. Its just the obvious point that the concensus you seek is laughable and always will be . Nations act in self interests that will never change. A piece of paper to make some liberal elitist feel good about themselves will never have no bearing in this world. Its a waste of time which Liberals like to waste along with money.

@skinnyDUDE....All great things begin with only an idea. Our nation was only an idea at one time. I don't know you except for what you write, but I think you seriously fear the unknown and the possibility of change. That's a natural human reaction and usually change doesn't happen until we are forced into it by circumstances out of our control. Quit fearing the future and help us attain a better place for all of us.

@ Lyle
"quit fearing the future". I wonder if General Mao, Hitler, et al, used the same phrase to appease the fears of their citizenry? You have no moral high ground or right here, quit acting like it.

@oak creek resident....I think if you'd read about Hitler, Mao, Lenin, etc; you'd find that they counted on painting a fear of the future. They used this fear to motivate others to voluntarily give them power. When enough fear was generated they provided an answer that people willingly accepted. So come up with another example and a better argument.

@BRIAN
Pipe Dreams are not progress. Reality is . This is a pipe dream as the very body you hold up to implement it is a joke. Many are a joke on human rights your prescribing. . That's why its laughable. That's just the fact of the matter .. Try again......

@oak creek resident....What do you propose as an alternative?

The US, historically, as supported petty dictators... do you know the history of US involvement in Latin America for instance. We have taught them, through institutions like the former School of the Americas, HOW TO BE thugs...we have trained the folks that ran their death squads and interrogation/torture teams. You really need to do some more research. The UK, an empire, has a horrific history of human rights violations and Italy, Mussolini aside, is rife with corruption. You need to get out of Oak Creek now and then.