a universal bill of rights

To solve world problems

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
sickles
Sage
Posts: 930
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:30 pm

a universal bill of rights

Post #1

Post by sickles »

what do you all think should be included in a universal bill of rights and why?
I mean, rights that everyone has intrinsically, and that no one can revoke or impede upon unless its to keep someone from harming someone else in a real way.

here are some of my idea:

right to health : a person cannot be asked to do something hazardous, unless that person does so with education on why it is dangerous and how to minimize the danger. A person or company in violation of this would be guilty of a crime. A governments duty is to provide for and protect the health of its citizens and all peoples in its borders.

right to speech: a person cannot be censored in any way, unless it is in the case of a minor being spoken to by a non guardian adult. The guardian then has the right to censor.

right to defense: a person has the right to bear arms that are not considered "unnecessary force" i.e. tanks, nukes, bioweapons, wmd. A person must be registered with the militia , and must muster with the militia in times of country self defense (to be defined later as strictly self defense, not pre-emptive self defense)

thats what i got so far...
"Behold! A Man!" ~ Diogenes, my Hero.

User avatar
sickles
Sage
Posts: 930
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:30 pm

Post #2

Post by sickles »

i hope this isnt against the rules, but im going to edit this first post to save the good ideas of others for decimination. While i realize that this isnt a debate subgroup, i would welcome critisism of any of these:

right to health : a person cannot be asked to do something hazardous, unless that person does so with education on why it is dangerous and how to minimize the danger. A person or company in violation of this would be guilty of a crime. A governments duty is to provide for and protect the health of its citizens and all peoples in its borders.


right to speech: a person cannot be censored in any way, unless it is in the case of a minor being spoken to by a non guardian adult. The guardian then has the right to censor.

right to defense: a person has the right to bear arms that are not considered "unnecessary force" i.e. tanks, nukes, bioweapons, wmd. A person must be registered with the militia , and must muster with the militia in times of country self defense (to be defined later as strictly self defense, not pre-emptive self defense)
"Behold! A Man!" ~ Diogenes, my Hero.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Post #3

Post by ChaosBorders »

sickles wrote: right to speech: a person cannot be censored in any way, unless it is in the case of a minor being spoken to by a non guardian adult. The guardian then has the right to censor.
My criticism of free speech is that openly hateful rhetoric can (and often has) led to physical violence.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein

The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis

WinePusher

Post #4

Post by WinePusher »

Chaosborders wrote:My criticism of free speech is that openly hateful rhetoric can (and often has) led to physical violence.
Well, that raises the question of what constitutes "hate speech."

You may have a different opinion of what hateful rhetoric is then I do.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Post #5

Post by ChaosBorders »

winepusher wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:My criticism of free speech is that openly hateful rhetoric can (and often has) led to physical violence.
Well, that raises the question of what constitutes "hate speech."

You may have a different opinion of what hateful rhetoric is then I do.
Probably, but a good rule of thumb would probably be if it actively advocates the harm of another human being.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein

The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis

Guest

Post #6

Post by Guest »

Chaosborders wrote:
winepusher wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:My criticism of free speech is that openly hateful rhetoric can (and often has) led to physical violence.
Well, that raises the question of what constitutes "hate speech."

You may have a different opinion of what hateful rhetoric is then I do.
Probably, but a good rule of thumb would probably be if it actively advocates the harm of another human being.
I advocate that Osama Bin Laden die a slow painful death when he is caught! I also am in full support of water boarding captives for information! Have I just committed "hate speech" and be worthy of punishment?

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Post #7

Post by ChaosBorders »

SacredCowBurgers wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:
winepusher wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:My criticism of free speech is that openly hateful rhetoric can (and often has) led to physical violence.
Well, that raises the question of what constitutes "hate speech."

You may have a different opinion of what hateful rhetoric is then I do.
Probably, but a good rule of thumb would probably be if it actively advocates the harm of another human being.
I advocate that Osama Bin Laden die a slow painful death when he is caught! I also am in full support of water boarding captives for information! Have I just committed "hate speech" and be worthy of punishment?
Fair enough. Perhaps better phrased would be "hate speech" against our nation's "own citizen's and law abiding visitors". No one really cares if someone hates an enemy of our nation.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein

The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis

User avatar
sickles
Sage
Posts: 930
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:30 pm

Post #8

Post by sickles »

certainly the "right to life" would be in this universal bill of rights. However, if you violiate the bill of rights, you forfiet it's protections. fair enough?

I think all thoughts, even hatefull ones , should be protected. As long as that doesnt lead to the violation of a "right"
"Behold! A Man!" ~ Diogenes, my Hero.

User avatar
sickles
Sage
Posts: 930
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:30 pm

Post #9

Post by sickles »

what about a "right of freedom"?

you cant be incarcerated, detained, tortured, or forced into labor unless you have violated one of the other rights for another person. I would also consider violating another person's "rights" punishable by pain, not imprisonment. I doubt sentencing someone to jail does any good. It is a powerful deterent, but so is the lash or hard labor.
"Behold! A Man!" ~ Diogenes, my Hero.

Post Reply