Peter your hyperbole is becoming more inane every time.

So now you are saying that IF any form of service COULD hypothetically be staffed with slaves, it is no longer justified even when it actually isn't?
And again, you actually did not address the points.

But to address yours, the dichotomy of slaves vs taxpayers is a very simple situation;
Are the slaves better off if they were free?
Are the taxpayers better off if the services their taxes went to were terminated?

Arguably the first answer is yes, and the second answer is no; both would be for the slaves and taxpayers to decide, respectively.
Ignoring that that the slaves wouldn't actually have a say, we are left with the taxpayer's options. The taxpayers are faced with a choice of maintaining the service with their money, or ending it and saving the money. They are completely free, and provided plenty of options to vote it out of existence if the service is proving a burden on their quality of life, and enough people agree. But as there is no free lunch, the options are simply either you do not pay for something that no longer exists and save your money, or you indirectly benefit through the service existing, and are expected to pay upkeep. Now, the only exception is whether you can prove that the service should still exist, but is not in any way affecting your quality of life and you would like to be exempt from it.

Of course, this is harder than you think; for if you were to use a road or footpath, purchase products that were delivered by a road or footpath, or in any way acted in a way to require someone else to use a road or footpath in response, you are in fact contributing to the wear of the roads, and cannot claim that everyone else should pay for your actions contributing to the expenses of maintaining it.

Hence, why anyone who is not a hermit cannot claim they are not part of society and should not contribute to its upkeep.

Peter Hume, in Oz you have, and are guaranteed, self-ownership (try to tell me that this is not the Lucky Country and you will be howled into oblivion) - but many in this mixed-up world of ours do not. Do you care about those others and their plight, their interest in, or hope for, self-determination? Do any of we, the free and self-righteous, care enough?

As for your tirade on the criminality of taxation, what alternative would you suggest? Are we not all share-farmers in the wealth of the Blue Planet?

Agreed, that Human Rights laws and covenants are, or should be, designed to limit the powers of governments and individuals to exercise unacceptable force or mandate over the citizenry, BUT should also and equally be designed to affirm and ensure the responsibility of governments and individuals to uphold the inalienable Rights of the citizenry.

Charter of Human Rights: A Covenant in good faith to leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of world peace, to strive unerringly to overcome the source and cause of oppression in every corner of the globe; an agreed minimum startpoint, a world 10 commandments binding every individual, and every government, and enforced by every nation from within, with guaranteed separation of church and state and of freedom of the judiciary, freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

We need to refuse product from oppressive regimes, from child labour, from ecologically destructive or unsustainable undertakings, and offer aid in exchange for reform. There is a better way, and the world has eventually to recognise this and to embrace it.

World police force: One day it may come to this - Unless people of goodwill join together to demand justice for all; or three wise men come from the east. Each-way bet, anyone?

Meg writes

';Where human rights are concerned, there is a global lack of honesty and accountability. Nations either accept that there are universal human rights, and what these involve (as set out, e.g. by the UN) or they don't. If they don't, they should declare this, and be transparent and accountable for their stance. '

Well I declare that UN human rights as set out by the UN are a load of tripe. Go back to what worked in Western nations and what made them great. The biblical principles that made these nations great served them a lot better than the iditioc notion of rights without responsibilities as often preached by the UN. Think about what is good for society rather than a few individuals who want to preach to the world and have their views affirmed.

runner,

Much of what made Western nations "great" was achieved riding on the backs of those they oppressed. Dunno what that says about the way these biblical principles were applied.....

I do agree with part of the point runner makes. It does get tiring hearing about rights without responsibility. Neither should ever travel alone.
I suspect that part of the yawn reaction to much of the discussion about human rights is because the concept is so readily abused. The human rights of the thug who robs you are treated more seriously than your rights. The human rights not to be abused by a child abuser are treated as less important than the rights of serial child abusers to be released back into the community.

Human rights often seem to get touted as an excuse for protecting wrong doers than as part of the process of protecting the rest of us from those same wrong doers.

In regard to Peter's point about taxation. My gripe there is not that I'm required to contribute but that my responsibility to pay those taxes is impacted by choices I make about how much work I do and the type of work I do. It has nothing to do with my ability to earn an income, nothing to do with how much effort I need to expend to earn that income, nothing to do with how well I do or don't manage what money I earn.

There are those who for various reasons are unable to earn a reasonable income, for those I have sympathy. There are others who choose not to earn much income, I don't see any valid reason why my tax obligation should be higher than theirs on the basis of the decisions we make. They may have more free time on their hands to use the services that all our taxes, rates etc fund.

R0bert

Saltpetre
What do you suggest as an alternative to burning your house down? Not burning your house down, right? What do you suggest as an alternative to robbery? Not-robbery right? What I suggest as an alternative to taxation is not-taxation.

Notice that no-one here has given any justification why social relations in general should not be voluntary. Force may be justified to repel aggression, but that leaves no justification for most activities of government.

“We need to refuse product from oppressive regimes, from child labour, from ecologically destructive or unsustainable undertakings”

Go ahead and refuse them, starting with your own unjust or ecologically unsustainable habits. You don’t “need” to force or threaten others to do anything.

“… and offer aid in exchange for reform”

Pay for it yourself. Other people aren’t your property, to be coerced into sacrificing their values so as to obey or fund your opinions.

Hazza
There are a number of fatal flaws in your argument as follows.

1.
You still haven’t accepted that there is any possibility of universal human rights in the first place, “because nobody can agree on what a right is”. Therefore you haven’t eliminated the possibility that slavery is okay in some circumstances; and have given reasons why it might be (rights are what the majority say they are).

So is there a universal right of self-ownership?

If so, why?

Define the right protected.

2.
If not, then who has the right to speak for you against your will?

(cont.)