I rather live by Crowley's list of human rights. It's all so simple.
Personally, I see that the Declaration of Human Rights exsists just to give people a sense of comfort [so to speak] while living in a world where oppression of various subjects is all around. There's so many things there that says it's okay to do this and it's okay to be this way, when in reality....it's not.
Not that I don't agree with Christianity as being mostly slave morality, but how do you see the Declaration of Human Rights as an upholder of slave morals?
LIBER OZ Uber Alles!!!mrdaFebruary 23 2006, 15:28:28 UTC
"every organ of society"
So that's how the UN see us - I'll keep that in mind...
"Everyone has the right to a nationality."
What the fuck does this even mean?
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Why exactly? Doesn't that depend on people willing to employ them? Does this mean employers will be forced to hire against their own judgement?
"Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection."
How do they measure "human dignity" then?
"Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible."
Am I "free" if bound by a "duty to the community"? Pah!
"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of
( ... )
Re: LIBER OZ Uber Alles!!!ghostdog_February 23 2006, 17:51:42 UTC
Interesting...
The Democratic slave morals slip under the radar time and time again, with me and most others. Then again, the UN never shouts about 'human rights abuses' relating to any of those minor ones. Perhaps some re-wording is in order, or maybe we just need to question what things like "protection against unemployment" actually means and entails.
Liber OZ is perfect in my opinion, if there is a better system of bare-bones ethics, I have yet to see it.
Comments 8
Personally, I see that the Declaration of Human Rights exsists just to give people a sense of comfort [so to speak] while living in a world where oppression of various subjects is all around. There's so many things there that says it's okay to do this and it's okay to be this way, when in reality....it's not.
Reply
Just like the Christian slave morality from which it descends....
Reply
Reply
Reply
So that's how the UN see us - I'll keep that in mind...
"Everyone has the right to a nationality."
What the fuck does this even mean?
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Why exactly? Doesn't that depend on people willing to employ them? Does this mean employers will be forced to hire against their own judgement?
"Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection."
How do they measure "human dignity" then?
"Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible."
Am I "free" if bound by a "duty to the community"? Pah!
"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of ( ... )
Reply
The Democratic slave morals slip under the radar time and time again, with me and most others. Then again, the UN never shouts about 'human rights abuses' relating to any of those minor ones. Perhaps some re-wording is in order, or maybe we just need to question what things like "protection against unemployment" actually means and entails.
Liber OZ is perfect in my opinion, if there is a better system of bare-bones ethics, I have yet to see it.
Reply
Leave a comment