Here's a paper I wrote for my Global History class that I'm taking at the University of Minnesota.
All Brains and No Teeth
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) expands on similar documents that came before it such as the Magna Carta and the Bills of Rights of England and the United States. It does an excellent job of recognizing important rights, however it has done little to prevent violations of these rights and its advocation of redistribution of wealth is morally questionable.
Some articles of the UDHR limit government and others demand that government provide services. These demands for government services makes the UDHR stand out from the Magna Carta and the Bills of Rights of England and America, documents which only restricted government, rather than empowered it. For example, Article 5 proclaims that government cannot torture anyone, and Article 22 requires that government provide social security to everyone. Although no one has a problem limiting the government’s ability to torture people, many are opposed to redistribution of wealth. Ideally, everyone should have social security, but there is difficulty in making this happen because it is expensive and must come from taxes. Is it ethical for the government to force one person to pay for the social security of another person? This puts the morality of the UDHR in question.
The UDHR was created because people experienced horrible violations of their human rights in the Second World War. The document is earnest and well-meaning. The creators should be praised for their compassion. Athough it has been widely translated and read, and may very well have influenced many people, it has failed for one reason: It cannot physically protect people. Since the document was adopted by the United Nations, there have been unthinkable humans rights violations throughout the world. The UN has failed to prevent the slaughter of unarmed civilians on several occasions. Take Cambodia for example, which had one-third of its civilians killed in its civil war. In the Rwandan Genocide, despite the presence of a UN peacekeeping force, one million civilians were killed. In Sudan, the UN has been powerless to stop the mass murders that still continue. If the document itself cannot ensure human rights, and the UN cannot, then what can?
The UDHR differs from previous documents in that it does not guarantee a right of self defense. The English Bill of Rights proclaims “That the subjects […] may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” The American Bill of Rights guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Allowing civilians to own arms would not totally solve the problem of human rights violations. It must be understood that arms are tools, they are neither bad nor good. They can be used by good people to protect themselves or by bad people to hurt good people. Fortunately, since the majority of people in the world are good, arming them would prevent them from having their rights violated. The UN, in step with the UDHR, has engaged in programs to disarm civilians and governments. Ironically, disarmament is only effective against good people and has failed against criminals and warlords. For example, the greatest combat loss the UN has ever incurred was in 1993 in Somalia. 24 UN peacekeepers were killed as they attempted to disarm members of a local militia that had been stealing food from civilians. To sane people, the concept of arming civilians is an unnatural one, because the only purpose of arms is to kill. However, it is absolutely necessary and there will be minimal negative consequences. Take the United States for example. American citizens own the most arms, enjoy the greatest freedoms, and live in one of the safest countries in the world.
The UN should amend the UDHR to include a provision for people to store arms for their protection. In its original form, the UDHR does an excellent job of recognizing rights, but it does not do anything to protect them. It is time for the people to step up and protect their rights. Once the UN allows them to do this, there will be much fewer human rights violations and the world will prosper.
****
The Teaching Assistant is a black African women from Zimbabwe. Her final comment on my paper was "Andrew, I enjoyed reviewing your paper. It's well articulated, argued and analysed. If you keep this up you will not have problems with [other] paper assignments." The paper was not graded.
I'm surprised I got this good of a response. Perhaps I was wrong to think everyone here is a card-carrying Marxist/SDS Member/Democrat???
All Brains and No Teeth
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) expands on similar documents that came before it such as the Magna Carta and the Bills of Rights of England and the United States. It does an excellent job of recognizing important rights, however it has done little to prevent violations of these rights and its advocation of redistribution of wealth is morally questionable.
Some articles of the UDHR limit government and others demand that government provide services. These demands for government services makes the UDHR stand out from the Magna Carta and the Bills of Rights of England and America, documents which only restricted government, rather than empowered it. For example, Article 5 proclaims that government cannot torture anyone, and Article 22 requires that government provide social security to everyone. Although no one has a problem limiting the government’s ability to torture people, many are opposed to redistribution of wealth. Ideally, everyone should have social security, but there is difficulty in making this happen because it is expensive and must come from taxes. Is it ethical for the government to force one person to pay for the social security of another person? This puts the morality of the UDHR in question.
The UDHR was created because people experienced horrible violations of their human rights in the Second World War. The document is earnest and well-meaning. The creators should be praised for their compassion. Athough it has been widely translated and read, and may very well have influenced many people, it has failed for one reason: It cannot physically protect people. Since the document was adopted by the United Nations, there have been unthinkable humans rights violations throughout the world. The UN has failed to prevent the slaughter of unarmed civilians on several occasions. Take Cambodia for example, which had one-third of its civilians killed in its civil war. In the Rwandan Genocide, despite the presence of a UN peacekeeping force, one million civilians were killed. In Sudan, the UN has been powerless to stop the mass murders that still continue. If the document itself cannot ensure human rights, and the UN cannot, then what can?
The UDHR differs from previous documents in that it does not guarantee a right of self defense. The English Bill of Rights proclaims “That the subjects […] may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” The American Bill of Rights guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Allowing civilians to own arms would not totally solve the problem of human rights violations. It must be understood that arms are tools, they are neither bad nor good. They can be used by good people to protect themselves or by bad people to hurt good people. Fortunately, since the majority of people in the world are good, arming them would prevent them from having their rights violated. The UN, in step with the UDHR, has engaged in programs to disarm civilians and governments. Ironically, disarmament is only effective against good people and has failed against criminals and warlords. For example, the greatest combat loss the UN has ever incurred was in 1993 in Somalia. 24 UN peacekeepers were killed as they attempted to disarm members of a local militia that had been stealing food from civilians. To sane people, the concept of arming civilians is an unnatural one, because the only purpose of arms is to kill. However, it is absolutely necessary and there will be minimal negative consequences. Take the United States for example. American citizens own the most arms, enjoy the greatest freedoms, and live in one of the safest countries in the world.
The UN should amend the UDHR to include a provision for people to store arms for their protection. In its original form, the UDHR does an excellent job of recognizing rights, but it does not do anything to protect them. It is time for the people to step up and protect their rights. Once the UN allows them to do this, there will be much fewer human rights violations and the world will prosper.
****
The Teaching Assistant is a black African women from Zimbabwe. Her final comment on my paper was "Andrew, I enjoyed reviewing your paper. It's well articulated, argued and analysed. If you keep this up you will not have problems with [other] paper assignments." The paper was not graded.
I'm surprised I got this good of a response. Perhaps I was wrong to think everyone here is a card-carrying Marxist/SDS Member/Democrat???
