Another comment I want to memorialize in the main text
The thing about discussions about "human rights" (let us now bow down and worship at the altar!) is there actually is something called the law of human rights that has content. There are procedures for unpacking questions like "What is or should be recognized as a human right?" "Who has authority to enforce a human right and when?" "How do we know rights have been violated here?" When someone says, "allowing capital punishment is a violation of human rights" because the Universal Declaration on Human Rights says something about the right to life and I say, "what you are saying is ideological cant," what I mean, of course, is that you haven't done the analysis. It's just "Beat Up on the U.S." Day, so we whine about capital punishment being a violation of human rights, but no one has really considered whether the provisions involved apply or should apply, for example. The real analysis is, "gee, we nice lefties think capital punishment is a nasty bird, so Americans must be baddies for doing it." That's ideological cant, and it gets a yawn from me.
I use capital punishment as an example because I happen to be against it as a matter of policy, and I do believe it is a violation of human rights (though I tend not to feel particularly sorry for my victims; I'll worry about the far greater number of kids being systematically killed in the womb first). My authority for it being a violation of human rights are notions of human dignity as defined by natural law, straight from Catholic social teaching which also informs (both directly and indirectly) most of the human rights documents a lot of atheists who wave them in my face would spit at before citing if they knew their sources. But what's their authority? A piece of paper like some imperfect, compromised treaty. What's their authority for that? Uh, uh . . . someone voted? Who? I didn't. Now, OK, I won't be obtuse; my country did. What if my country now decides that was wrong. Can we leave? What binds us beyond pure positivism, beyond "I'm taking my marbles and going home?" Guns? My country's the biggest bad around! And if we have more guns, how do you stop me? As a matter of practical law, enforceable law, basically then, there are no human rights beyond what the biggest bad is willing to accept at any given moment. Oh, there's comfort for you!
Most people who prattle on about human rights have no answer to those questions. It's why the kookiest ultimately even deny the Holocaust. This situation is an intellectual conundrum they wish they could wriggle away from, because they really do not believe there are principles other than pure positivism, what man wants at this moment, that bind him. They believe in no greater authority -- so the pieces of paper just have to be enough. Worse, they want justice on the cheap; they don't want to pay for the guns to enforce the "justice" or justice they seek to impose on others. Inconveniently, however, they can't bind the big bads unless there is something even greater than the big bad!
And it's why I vote for big defense budgets and lots of guns. No candidate who wants to join another international organization or sign another international treaty will get my vote. Do I really think the Chinese are going to care about our pithy Universal Declarations on Human Rights or the Russians some U.N. resolution when the Chechnyans come calling. Please. And no one in the Middle East, no terror group, no nothing will care. The only way to protect ourselves and the decency we know we have and exemplify are lots of guns and the willingness to use them viciously. Otherwise, we are lambs simply waiting around for the inevitable slaughter.
I use capital punishment as an example because I happen to be against it as a matter of policy, and I do believe it is a violation of human rights (though I tend not to feel particularly sorry for my victims; I'll worry about the far greater number of kids being systematically killed in the womb first). My authority for it being a violation of human rights are notions of human dignity as defined by natural law, straight from Catholic social teaching which also informs (both directly and indirectly) most of the human rights documents a lot of atheists who wave them in my face would spit at before citing if they knew their sources. But what's their authority? A piece of paper like some imperfect, compromised treaty. What's their authority for that? Uh, uh . . . someone voted? Who? I didn't. Now, OK, I won't be obtuse; my country did. What if my country now decides that was wrong. Can we leave? What binds us beyond pure positivism, beyond "I'm taking my marbles and going home?" Guns? My country's the biggest bad around! And if we have more guns, how do you stop me? As a matter of practical law, enforceable law, basically then, there are no human rights beyond what the biggest bad is willing to accept at any given moment. Oh, there's comfort for you!
Most people who prattle on about human rights have no answer to those questions. It's why the kookiest ultimately even deny the Holocaust. This situation is an intellectual conundrum they wish they could wriggle away from, because they really do not believe there are principles other than pure positivism, what man wants at this moment, that bind him. They believe in no greater authority -- so the pieces of paper just have to be enough. Worse, they want justice on the cheap; they don't want to pay for the guns to enforce the "justice" or justice they seek to impose on others. Inconveniently, however, they can't bind the big bads unless there is something even greater than the big bad!
And it's why I vote for big defense budgets and lots of guns. No candidate who wants to join another international organization or sign another international treaty will get my vote. Do I really think the Chinese are going to care about our pithy Universal Declarations on Human Rights or the Russians some U.N. resolution when the Chechnyans come calling. Please. And no one in the Middle East, no terror group, no nothing will care. The only way to protect ourselves and the decency we know we have and exemplify are lots of guns and the willingness to use them viciously. Otherwise, we are lambs simply waiting around for the inevitable slaughter.