It's upsetting. So many pretty words - and I'm not saying this sarcastically, what was written in the UDoHR and wgen has a certain kind of beauty - and all too often nothing but lip service paid...
It's upsetting. So many pretty words - and I'm not saying this sarcastically, what was written in the UDoHR and wgen has a certain kind of beauty - and all too often nothing but lip service paid to it.
too much political leftism and selfishness has ‘conflated’ the so-called fundamental rights – liberty, presumption of innocence, freedom of speech, protection from arbitrary detention – with so-called wants: decent education, healthcare, decent housing and functioning public services. According to this view, the expansion of fundamental rights from abstractions, such as ‘liberty’, to concrete protections provided by the state, such as adequate housing, is an assault on rights.
And I just don't know what to say when faced with these nonsensical "gotcha!"
But now, at least, I know who shares part of the blame for that old "discussion" I had when someone told me that "positive rights are bad, mandatory education and nationalized healthcare are slavery and should be abolished".
Despite this, a million Britons are dependent on food banks. This is due to a ‘cash-flow problem’, according to Dominic Raab, citing figures from the Trussell Trust, which runs food banks. Raab omitted that the Trust explained that the ‘cash-flow problem’ is because people don’t have enough money to live on.
The rights in the document sound like ideals to strive for, certainly; but if codified as actual law, how would that work in a practical sense? The author seems to be advocating that it should be...
The rights in the document sound like ideals to strive for, certainly; but if codified as actual law, how would that work in a practical sense? The author seems to be advocating that it should be adopted in an enforceable way.
If lawmakers could hypothetically implement a decades-long plan to get to the point where housing and healthcare are adequate, what happens when some unforeseen force majeure takes these away? Or for example half the doctors suddenly leave the country for some reason. Then the government would be breaking the law by not fulfilling citizens' rights? Who would be punished in that case?
Is there another country, or a city or state, that could serve as a case study for these ideas working well?
It's upsetting. So many pretty words - and I'm not saying this sarcastically, what was written in the UDoHR and wgen has a certain kind of beauty - and all too often nothing but lip service paid to it.
And I just don't know what to say when faced with these nonsensical "gotcha!"
But now, at least, I know who shares part of the blame for that old "discussion" I had when someone told me that "positive rights are bad, mandatory education and nationalized healthcare are slavery and should be abolished".
This person just keeps on sounding despicable.
The rights in the document sound like ideals to strive for, certainly; but if codified as actual law, how would that work in a practical sense? The author seems to be advocating that it should be adopted in an enforceable way.
If lawmakers could hypothetically implement a decades-long plan to get to the point where housing and healthcare are adequate, what happens when some unforeseen force majeure takes these away? Or for example half the doctors suddenly leave the country for some reason. Then the government would be breaking the law by not fulfilling citizens' rights? Who would be punished in that case?
Is there another country, or a city or state, that could serve as a case study for these ideas working well?