Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 16
th, 2024 at 6:19pm:
Now boys - this IS an important point - it does, however, require a functioning mind to work it out:-
...which, sadly, guarantees your analysis will be faulty....let's look:
Quote:"They have the right to above-poverty participation in the economy .........................
A right is not translatable into an absolute guarantee of the results from that right....."
I first heard that from reading someone's view on 'the right to the pursuit of happiness' in the US Constitution.... he stated that the 'right to pursue happiness' was by no means or interpretation an actual right to succeed in that pursuit.
Your error (sorry if I offend Unsub re "smugness"):
1. No bill of rights - including the UNUDHR - has ever mentioned a 'right' to happiness; the US phrase "pursuit of" merely emphasizes the 'right' of individuals to pursue it, while implying freedom from government regulation.
But government is needed to establish rule of law, to achieve the
common welfare, and avoid chaos/anarchy among self-interested, competitive individuals.
2. The 'right to pursue happiness' is compatible with justice only if access to above poverty employment is guaranteed - you can't be happy in systemic (generational) involuantary poverty.
[You continue to confuse
self-imposed poverty which affects sick individuals, with
systemically imposed poverty which unjustly affects healthy individuals.
Like the half of the US population who are living from paycheck to paycheck (or on welfare) - the definition of unjust financial stress, in a land of plenty.
Quote:Same here... an Aboriginal living in Cape Remotaria has the same right to above-poverty participation in the economy as anyone else..... he may not get it due to a variety of circumstances, not least living in Cape Remotaria where there is no work.... his Right has been in no way abrogated by anyone.
Everyone who is involuntarily unemployed is suffering an injustice. Governments can - indeed have the responsibility to - move people (from "Remotoria)" if they don't want to create employment there; and the unemployment problem in the Alice and other regional centres remains to be solved.
Quote:That poppets - is the very vast chasm between shoving an emotional interpretation onto a concept, and considering that concept in terms of simple reality.
Your error:
simple justice and fairness - as expressed in UNUDHR article 23 (the 'right' to above- poverty employmnet/participation), isn't "shoving an emotional interpretation onto a concept", it's simple justice, as conceived by men who were seeking to "save mankind from the scourge of war"(UN Charter) who are open to the concepts of
morality, justice and fairness, as opposed to
survival of the fittest and the delusion of 'personal responsibility'.
Quote:You see a lot of that with the UN at this time over Israel... facile comments that mean nothing in reality, but are more 'motherhood' statements - and even at that biased to prefer one child over another.
Not "one child over another", but ALL children....which is why the ICC has an arrest warrant for both Netanyahu and Hamas.
Quote:I wouldn't bother with what the UN says... they are 99.9% simple statements of some feeling about something, and far too often couched in terms that are wide open to interpretation - just like this. One of those 'rights of the indigenous (as undefined)' is possession and control of 'their land' ... whatever that's supposed to mean in the modern age.
You arguing with someone else?
I already addressed the mistake in the UN's attempt to differentiate between
universal rights cf rights of different groups.
Quote:Jesus - every property owner bought and paid for would like a cast-iron guarantee that his 'government' will not compulsorily acquire his property at any time....
We are talking about the primary right (necessity) of all to housing, not secondary rights of property ownership.
Quote:so what is this special 'right' about? Whatever they claim to be 'their land' that they never SETTLED on but wandered about on for dinner and every square inch they ever wandered across?
FFS ......
Diversion; the topic is the right to above poverty participation. (article 23).
Do stay on track, now that we have sorted out the difference between the (non existant) 'right' to happiness, the right to pursue happiness, and the right to food, housing and employment.
Forum
Pages: 
