Can Human Right goes too far?

[Argeus the Paladin]

Human rights, as the good books say, are the collection of all basic rights that a person have upon opening their eyes to the world, unchallengeable rights to live, to be free and to pursue happiness.

Since its official definition, the concept of human rights has expanded greatly to include a slew of additional clauses, spawning tons of activists who strives to see these rights carried out.

This is the question for discussion: Can human rights go too far? That is, will human rights at one point or another grow to such an extent that they would conflict with the interest of the nation (not the state/government) and by upholding them, people would do everyone else a disservice instead of a service?

Case in point: The political crisis in Thailand recently. The nation has been in political unrest for several years now, and the economy, especially tourism and stock markets, has suffered, all because some people decided that the government is not democratic enough and act upon that thought. Thus, by trying to uphold democracy the activists are harming the entire country as a whole. Apart from that, they do the country no service thus far.

Discuss.

[43rdFoot]

If a government does not respect basic human rights, I see no reason for any deference to be paid to that government. Burn the motherer down.

[Argeus the Paladin]

This is where the problem comes in.

Have you ever thought that getting rid of a government may sometimes result in more of a humanitarian crisis than not? Again, take Thailand. Chances are the country and the people has worsen off considerably since all that democratic mess than before.

BTW, define basic human rights. Of course a government that deprives its citizen of the right to live and prosper should be shot, but those who decide to restrict some aspects of not-so-basic human rights to avoid the said hassles of a chaotic country has their reason to act that way.

Despite what activists think, that is.

[43rdFoot]

The right to be free from the influence of others. That's what I would deem the fundamental human right.

The right to speak what one wills, the right of property, the freedom of religion, the right to be free of the control of others; all are basic principles that I feel all legitimate governments ought to protect.

[Argeus the Paladin]

I dispute the first and the last you named.

What human is there who exists without being influenced passively or actively by others? And there is a name for the control of others, and that is called law and constitution. Those rights aren't possible, let alone being part of basic human rights.

[43rdFoot]

I dispute the first and the last you named.

What human is there who exists without being influenced passively or actively by others? And there is a name for the control of others, and that is called law and constitution. Those rights aren't possible, let alone being part of basic human rights.

Any fully conscious human can choose who or what to believe. Laws exist to prevent one person from violating the freedom of another person. That's their entire purpose.

The government that illegalizes free thought, free expression, free existence, is the government that does not deserve respect.

[Argeus the Paladin]

Then define illegalize.

You do know that sometimes free speech and free expression of one man may come at the expense of other, and that is what laws are for. And then human rights activists may come and ask the government why the law is as such without knowing the context, if you know what I mean.

[43rdFoot]

Then define illegalize.

You do know that sometimes free speech and free expression of one man may come at the expense of other, and that is what laws are for. And then human rights activists may come and ask the government why the law is as such without knowing the context, if you know what I mean.

How could free expression possibly come into conflict with the freedom of others?

[Argeus the Paladin]

Okay then.

Take China for instance. It's a nice large country with a huge agrian population. Consequentially not everyone is as politically aware as the average folks in the OECD, you have to give me that.

Now assume that someone suddenly says "Down with the government" (and many have, I tell you) and list some reason which may either be true or false. The naive populace around him instantly believe in what he says, partly because they weren't, like I said, very politically aware. These people goes down the street in huge demonstrations as a result. The snowball effect attracts other, similarly politically unaware people to go on strike as well, thus creating a crisis, damaging the economy, unstabilizing the country and makes China as a whole less attractive to foregin investors in an attempt to propose a government change that mightn't even be as good as the existing one. Everyone loses.

This is exactly what is happening in Thailand to my understanding.

[43rdFoot]

Then so be it. You neglect to understand the fact that China is an extremely well controlled place, and though it is not nearly as bad as it was in the past, it is still a police state where political dissidence can land you in prison for life, or executed. There is no freedom to be lost there.

It would be a good day when that government is replaced with something somewhat decent.

[Argeus the Paladin]

But what if so many people and wealth is lost in the path to that "somewhat decent" that it makes most people worse off rather than better off? Would you rather that happen?

[43rdFoot]

But what if so many people and wealth is lost in the path to that "somewhat decent" that it makes most people worse off rather than better off? Would you rather that happen?

The tree of liberty is a thirsty plant.


That said, nobody is really at stake to lase anything of real value in China. Sure, a couple large businessmen might see a downturn in profits, but that is irrelevant when faced with the real fundamental lack of respect for human rights that exists in China.

[Argeus the Paladin]

I beg your pardon.

China holds the record for the bloodiest civil wars since sliced bread. Even now a country like that is a smoking barrel of gunpowder. I just have to go out of my way and say that the people who will lose out when such a country becomes chaotic is not necessarily big-shot industrialists.

But we are going vastly, vastly off topic here.

[hellheaven1987]

Iceland just banned all prositution for "respect the right of women"... Don't ask me why Iceland men support this law.

[athanaric]

This is the question for discussion: Can human rights go too far? That is, will human rights at one point or another grow to such an extent that they would conflict with the interest of the nation (not the state/government) and by upholding them, people would do everyone else a disservice instead of a service?

Yes. Freedom of Religion should be abolished or at least heavily nerfed. People are using it to override other, more basic, human rights (such as Freedom of Speech).

[hellheaven1987]

Yes. Freedom of Religion should be abolished or at least heavily nerfed. People are using it to override other, more basic, human rights (such as Freedom of Speech).

Why?? Freedom of Religion would not disturbing people's life...

[Scorch]

Yes. Freedom of Religion should be abolished or at least heavily nerfed. People are using it to override other, more basic, human rights (such as Freedom of Speech).

Freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion is.

[Argeus the Paladin]

God says homosexuals are sinner and must go to hell and all their points are moot.

For instance.

[hellheaven1987]

God says homosexuals are sinner and must go to hell and all their points are moot.

For instance.

Blah, the problem is that it is not part of freedom of religion - everyone has freedom to choose what religion he/she wants, and his/her belief should not physically restrict others' action/belief.

Of course, language insult is another thing, but if someone fails to even overcome this level, I do suggest he/she better grow up a bit.

Freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion is.

Blah, if religions cannot even keep its principle teachings I would say just abolish them all together. Either way, I find it ridiculous that homosexuals would like to join Catholics and then complain the teaching against them - it is not like someone force them to be Catholics, and they all have freedom to leave their sect and join others in same time.

[Scorch]

Blah, the problem is that it is not part of freedom of religion - everyone has freedom to choose what religion he/she wants, and his/her belief should not physically restrict others' action/belief.

The problem is when barbaric religious discourses restrict the potential for equality in apparently secular nations.