More on 'classical liberalism':

https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-classical-liberal-approach-to-human-rights...

What is a ‘classical liberal’ approach to human rights?

Tim Wilson, (formerly) Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner, has announced that he will take a “classical liberal” approach to human rights. There is a fair degree of confusion about what this means.

Classical liberalism is not a coherent body of political philosophy. However, in relation to human rights, there are three key ideas that most classical liberals subscribe to.

The first is the idea that all people are born with rights, which they hold simply because they are human. This is the idea that underpins Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 1.

My observation: note the difference in the UN formulation, compared with the 18th century's "all are created equal before the law".


But there are several reasons why a classical liberal approach to human rights does not necessarily reflect the needs and aspirations of contemporary Australian society.

First, the philosophical foundation for the classical liberal idea of human rights is very shaky, as argued by the likes of philosopher Joseph Raz. Historically, classical liberals view rights as bestowed by God or derived from some essential human essence.

But many Australians seem to take a more pragmatic view of human rights, as noted by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner Mick Gooda. Rights are the important interests and values that democracies have decided to protect. Far from making rights less important, this makes them more so.

Community consultations show that many Australians are also more ambitious than many classical liberals about what these rights should consist of. Brandis has said that freedom is the core human right without which nothing else is possible. But food, work, education and social security are also important. Rights are inter-related and inter-dependent. It is a mistake to think that something like a right to adequate health care is too vague to be an enforceable right.

Ensuring that certain groups of people are not discriminated against is a central part of an equal society. As Brandis points out, since its establishment in 1986, the Australian Human Rights Commission has spent much of its time advancing the idea in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

But Brandis thinks freedom (of the individual) is the "core human right", obviously based on the delusional concept [i]"all are created equal before the law", when  the truth is "all should be equal before created law."[/i]

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 1:31pm:


There is no "divine right" of elected government, or unelected government, or anything else; there is only created law on behalf of (or rather, hopefully  to achieve) "good governance"....for all, not only the powerful, or privileged, or the 'unduly clever'..


Jesus suggested " Love God and love one-another",  as a guide to good community relations under law. 
  ("render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's")

Confucius suggested " benevolent authority",  surely the same thing expressed in different words. ("god"= "benevolence").   

A majority of voters decides which rights we have, or don't have. The Labs and the Conservatives have decided for everyone ever since 1901 in Australia

Voters who are in the minority on an issue are dictated to by the majority

So we are not all equal, the majority wins every time, and the minority is left out in the cold every time. Rights of the minority are less than the majority"s

The Libs and Labs have dictated to us that a newly formed politic party doesn't have the right to claim certain benefits unless it has 1,500 members. And we don't have the right to freedom any longer if they bring back military conscription, some will lose their freedom, a lot won't - inequality at it's worst

We don't have the right to voluntarily buy third party motoring insurance, the Libs and Labs said so. And those two arrogant groups also said we don't have the right to vote voluntarily

The Libs and Labs get their jollies by diminishing our human rights, ever since 1901 it's been happening, and the longer they are ruling us, the less rights we'll have. We hardly even have the right to self-defense, and again, the Libs and Labs have made it that way

The Libs and Labs and their supporters pick and choose which rights we can have, all because that duo LibLab majority get to dictate how things are going to be

It's always the majority versus the minority ... and the majority is perpetually the Libs and Labs ... and I would argue, they mostly ignore Human Rights and selfishly make up rights as they go along according to their expediency to keep ruling Australia, stay in power.

One day it has to come to an end, this century hopefully, for the sake of younger generations

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 5:55pm:


The two of you confuse inalienable rights with the rights we are currently allowed to hold.... THAT, my children - is why I am here to lead you out of the wilderness.  We need a total change of governance to bring about those inalienable rights.... not just your idle acceptance of what we currently hold....

Are you with me?  Sign here - if I get the required number I will stand for election next time.... you know my policies.... they're called Simple Truths...