I like Bill Nye. But this whole argument treats 'Africa' (as only one example of a region of the underdeveloped and exploited world) as the nebulous hell-region where bad things happen. He cites examples of these bad things, but then, in a characteristically bourgeois fashion, he focuses on the consumptive problems (not enough aid, not enough to eat, no enough medicine, etc). And who is responsible for this? The first-world, capitalist zones of power (the US, Europe, 'civilization', etc).

Why don't we actually look at the production-side of things. Why can't Africa produce its own resources? It once was able to, very efficiently and without problems. That is, until imperialism happened. We are taking about a continent that was broken up into artificial nations, where agriculture was transformed into cash crops, where millions were shipped off as slave labor. We are talking about a continent that has tried for hundreds of years to fight for liberation for itself, only to have these imperialist countries keep their stranglehold on its neck.

(go wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%ADlcar_Cabral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara

My point here is that the whole discussion of more or less foreign aid presupposes an Africa that cannot feed itself. The solution is not to continue a dependent relationship. The solution is a sustainable and liberated Africa, who has economic control over her resources, and political freedom for her own people. the solution is self-determination, not should the US try to feed more of the kids? (whose starvation is rooted in the US's wealth. )

/end rant

Human rights are the most well meaning of political machinations that the West uses to assert its dominance over the rest of the world. Based on Western ideals of politics, freedom and welfare it embodies the "we know best" attitude that kept colonialism alive for so long. Ignored locally, as witnessed by Australia's refugee policy, the USA's refusal to ratify the Social and Economic Rights Covenant and Geneva convention, it is used by Western powers both left and right to assert their interests in international relations. This was witnessed in Afghanistan where we saw ex-post facto arguments concerning women's "right" to education as defense for invasion, an excuse not used in any other patriarchal nations where there is not a national interest at stake, and Saddams' torture chambers, only to be occupied and used in the same albeit lesser manner by the Coalition of the Willing. Human rights are demanded by the populace but exploited by the powerful all under the pretense of spreading "freedom". However, this freedom is liberalism and with it comes all the pitfalls of liberalism.

Furthermore, to call them rights means that there must be someone you can appeal to when they are violated. As the video said, there are 26 million people in slavery. We know where most of them are yet do nothing to rectify the situation as they are in poor Eastern European and West African nations that have no profitable resource to entice the powers that be. Is the West not violating their human rights by not intervening when they have the capacity to do so? Are you not violating the human rights of starving people when you buy that 2nd television? The argument might be given that they are not within your jurisdiction. To that I say the declaration is UNIVERSAL. The obligation is also universal. Chances are that there are people in your very city that are going hungry, with no shelter. To what extent are you violating their human rights?

Another example of the Westernisation of the human rights regime is article 23 and 24 of the charter. 23:Everyone has the right to work, for equal pay, for just renumeration and join trade unions.
How often are these violated in nations that are the bastion of rights such as the USA and France? Women still get 75% of the pay FOR THE SAME JOB. This is hard to get your head around as it wont occur in the same workplace but read into it and you will find out it works.
24: Everyone has the right to paid leave.
USA .. no such right despite signing on. So, you are violating human rights. Furhtermore, how does an agrarian society conform to this type of system? How can there be paid leave when there is no wage system? This is further evidence of the Westernisation of the human rights system.

So, despite these criticisms human rights are crucially important to the wellbeing of millions of vulnerable populations. But don't for a second think that there is no work to be done nor is the concept anywhere close to a "truth" about the world. It is a Westernised, historically contingient set of principles that are only adhered to when it is convenient to the powers that be. Adherence to human rights can liberate many but also enslave.

The text of the letter Steele refused to sign on to reads as follows:

As leaders of our respective national parties, we want to speak to all Americans about the importance of conducting our political debates in a manner and tone that respects our political system and demonstrates to the world the strength of our democracy.

We have a system of government that allows the great issues of our day to be resolved peacefully and civilly and that serves as a beacon of hope to those around the world who yearn for political freedom, political stability, and governing without the threat of violence.

We have a system that allows people to express approval of their government or change the party in power peaceably through the ballot box.

Our Constitution affords Americans the right to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Clearly, we have different positions on the merits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, we together call on elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry. We also call on all Americans to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism, and to scale back rhetoric that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such behavior.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^I don't want to see you calling the fire department when your home catches fire, Señor rugged individualist.


Can you not read or something? I want government funding to the extent that they're preventing the infringement of rights and offering recourse, not "directing industry" with forcibly appropriated money or providing services any more complex than laying pavement. Any fire could be arson, you need a fire department to protect private property. Full-blown state health care addressing self-inflicted conditions with other people's money is garbage.

Ever hear about the guy in Sweden with the brain tumor? The state didn't like his chances and declared it inoperable to save money. He flew to private facility and paid for the operation, and lived for many more years. How kind and wonderful socialist health care is.

Learn what Socialism is.. do you really want to Live in CUBA or Russia? for the next 4 years.

Surely not, but it's worth nothing that economic and political freedom are two completely different things and they don't even have elections in Cuba. And yes, economically, Cuba is even more socialist than we are. Just this year they ALLOWED their citizens to buy computers. People don't risk their lives fleeing to America on rafts and banana boats for nothing, they're trying to escape living life as just another lowest common denominator. They want the opportunity to live, not merely survive in a so-called socialist utopia. Unfortunately, they don't realize the hyperinflationary depression brought on by our socialist interventions they're now stepping into. Out of the frying pan and into the fire, as they might say.

downvote banshee for ignoring what i wrote and telling me the definition of a word.

Are you on drugs or something?!! I totally answered your question. If you aren't socialist, you're capitalist. The terms are a reference to where the majority of the capital is controlled, politicians or its earner. There is no other place for it to be. Just like if you're not feeling good, you're feeling bad. Not anti-good.

YES, THAT MEANS GEORGE BUSH AND NEO-CONS ARE SOCIALISTS, EVEN MORESO THAN CLINTON WHO ENJOYED POPULARITY UNDER THE FED-INDUCED TECH BUBBLE OF THE 90S. Instead of having that bubble burst on Bush's first term and making him a one-term president, he delayed a severe recession by having Greenspan artificially lower interest rates to 1% for an entire year. The inflationary effects of that filtered into real estate. Amazing revelation, here for you?

then you only have one problem left, and for me it's a big one: The Arts. I cannot figure out a way that art can be compatible with capitalism. It doesn't work like that.

It's the complete opposite, art is hurt by socialism. What funds advanced types of art and entertainment like video games and movies is the personal tastes of a private earner who has in his possession excess capital after buying things to merely survive. Socialism could try to provide for that, but tastes vary far too much for a central office to know the millions of places that the capital would have flowed to if it had been spent by its earner. Or even how much is appropriate to distribute to each person. Invariably, there will be people who don't care much about art and just want a bigger family. Do you then take from one person's art fund to finance the cost of those kids? That will gut the art fund very quickly. As will the corruption inherent in having capital controlled by someone who didn't earn it. And when your government is involved in banning computers and censoring speech, good luck with damn near anything.

^what BansheeX said.

NetRunner:
My sources, among others, are excerpts from the best selling author Milton Friedman, the 1976 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics, and hailed "the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it". In "Free to Choose" he writes:

"The combination of economic and political freedom produced a golden age in both Great Britain and the United States in the nineteenth century. The United States prospered even more than Britain. It started with a clean slate: fewer vestiges of class and status; fewer government restraints; a more fertile field for energy, drive, and innovation; and an empty continent to conquer"
"During most of the period of rapid agricultural expansion in the United States the government played a negligible role. Land was made available—but it was land that had been unproductive before."
"...few other government restrictions impeded free trade at home or abroad. Until after World War I immigration was almost completely free (there were restrictions on immigration from the Orient). They came by the millions, and by the millions they were absorbed. They prospered because they were left to their own devices."
"Almost every charitable or public service organization, from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals The Power of the Market to the YMCA and YWCA, from the Indian Rights Association to the Salvation Army, dates from that period. Voluntary cooperation is no less effective in organizing charitable activity than inorganizing production for profit. The charitable activity was matched by a burst of cultural activity—art museums, opera houses, symphonies, museums, public libraries arose in big cities and frontier towns alike."
"Perhaps even more surprising to us today, people were free to travel all over Europe and much of the rest of the world without a passport and without repeated customs inspection. They were free to emigrate and in much of the world, particularly the United States, free to enter and become residents and citizens."


And before you say these ideas no longer apply today...take a look at the economy of Hong Kong, home to 7 million people in 426 square miles.

ah, the great lesson, democracy is shit

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/against-political-freedom.html