[Deleted for abuse.]

A good article. A pity there are so many naysayers.

Surely human rights are the foundation of the world we would like to have; one of tolerance, individual freedom from slavery, torture, abuse or oppression, and one of compassion, freedom from hunger, the right to work, to education and to raise a family, and one of peace, security and democratic (or at least non-tyrannical) rule. An ethical and well-mannered world, where every man, woman and child can hold their head high. Where "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

No-one said it was meant to be easy, but a line must be drawn somewhere, and it is up to the visionary statesmen (and women) of the world's nations to find the way to make it work.

If the UN is the peacekeeper, then the signatories have to comply to an established standard, and be held to account - at risk of penalties or relegation. Honey is better than vinegar of course, so aid, trade and investment should be conditional - possibly even including bonuses for outstanding performance. Why not?

Is Syria a member of the UN? Why hasn't someone in the Syrian regime been indicted for human rights abuse? Would the REAL UN PLEASE STAND UP!

Saltpetre,

What hope have we got for universal human rights when hegemony and self-interest stomp them into the dust?

The UN agency for science and education, UNESCO, recently voted to accept a Palestinian bid for full membership - The U.S. responded promptly to this recognition of "rights" by cutting its funding to the agency.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/31/world/meast/unesco-palestinian-membership/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

It's good to occasionally sight a ray of idealism in such a cynical world, Saltpetre. But you are leaning dangerously towards the Pollyanna...

>>Surely human rights are the foundation of the world we would like to have<<

You are perfectly correct, up to that point.

What is under discussion here, though, is Human Rights (the capitalization is deliberate). And the reality of codifying Human Rights into law is that we move quickly away from the motherhood "tolerance, individual freedom from slavery, torture, abuse or oppression, and one of compassion" into the murkier realms of what those words actually mean, to individuals and groups of individuals.

Tolerance, for example, is a classic. Tolerance of... what, exactly? What is tolerance for some, is deviance to others. You don't have to go far for examples - there are plenty on display in this Forum alone.

You will also find problems in making laws that cover "freedom from hunger, the right to work, to education and to raise a family". How in the name of reason can you create a "right" not to be hungry? Whom do the starving millions sue?

>>No-one said it was meant to be easy, but a line must be drawn somewhere, and it is up to the visionary statesmen (and women) of the world's nations to find the way to make it work.<<

Well, that's where it gets very contentious indeed. The only way to make it work, I think you will agree, is to enforce it. And enforcement means the empowerment of a section of the community to act as policeman over the rest of the community, under the orders of whoever has decided what those Human Rights should be.

Which brings us to Syria.

>>Is Syria a member of the UN? Why hasn't someone in the Syrian regime been indicted for human rights abuse?<<

Ok, let's say the UN indicts "someone in the Syrian regime". Would any of the charges against them require Human Rights legislation, in order to make them criminal?

Quite.

Saltpetre, states have killed over 100 million people in the last century, mostly of their own subjects, oops sorry, citizens. States have been much more abusive than everyone else put together.

So it's no help at all to say that states must decide what everyone else's rights are. You can't make any progress, nor draw any line in the sand, without first recognising that states - a compulsory legal monopoly of the use of aggressive force - are intrinsically problematic.

Indeed the main human rights instruments in international law, such as the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are based on earlier instruments such as the U.S. Constitution 1789, the English Bill of Rights 1689, and the Magna Carta 1215, all of which are specifically intended to LIMIT THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT. That’s where human rights law comes from. What does that tell you?

While no-one can show the *ethical* distinction between the coerced expropriation of people's labour that is slavery, and the coerced expropriation of people's labour that is taxation, it only shows how successful has been the brainwashing that regards the one as self-evidently the grossest abuse, while the other is the foundation of all that is social and just and necessary. And it just so happens that the compulsory indoctrination, oops education, of every child for ten years during their formative years is directed by the government, surprise surprise, what a coincidence.

And so the distinction is….? Still waiting for an explanation that is not circular.

Taxation and slavery are not only indistinguishable in logic, but in history the one derives from the other. After the fall of the Roman empire, the great slave estates, the latifundia, morphed into serfdoms, not because the ruling class of overlords suddenly cared about the freedom of their subjects, but because it’s more efficient, instead of owning people outright, to simply demand a portion of their output on pain of being beaten into submission or locked in a cage for non-performance. And how is that different from taxation? http://mises.org/books/the_state_oppenheimer.pdf

With the rise of the money economy, the feudal incidents of tenure evolved into different forms of compulsory exactions based on payment in cash, instead of in kind. But what is the *ethical* distinction between them?

In ancient Rome, one third of the population were slaves. If in modern democracies, everyone is taxed one third of his product, how would that be ethically any different?

But in any event, taxation is *never* equal. It *always* involves a class of net tax payers and net tax consumers. Thus it is always an arrangement based on force by which a ruling class live at the expense of an exploited productive class. (As the income of government officials or dependants is itself from tax, any tax they pay is a mere book-keeping exercise.)
http://mises.org/Books/mespm.PDF

Modern taxation is a direct descendant of the payment of tribute by conquered peoples to their overlords, from the days when being defeated in war, your life was forfeit: - just as it will be today if you refuse to be expropriated, and defend your freedom with a use of force matching whatever the armed officials bring against you. They will start with threatening letters, but if you don’t submit and obey, they will escalate, and if you continue to defend yourself, they will shoot you dead. That’s how it works.

All revenues of all states are based on that. Their pretensions to moral superiority are false.

The fact that people know resistance is futile, and so submit, does *not* prove they consent.

Thus all talk of human rights as flowing from the determinations of states is ethical, factual, historical and logical nonsense.

The defence of taxation based on democratic theories of “contributions” - as if they were voluntary - are simply fictions made up after the fact. They cannot withstand critical scrutinty.

The definition of human rights must come, not from “might is right” which is virtually the definition of an abuse of human rights, but from the ethical and logical foundation of a right of self-ownership, which *is* universal, and cannot be denied without self-contradiction: http://mises.org/books/economicsethics.pdf