Universal Standards – A Brief Visit
( 1 ) Introduction
It is generally accepted by most people that there exist a set of universal standards by which everyone should abide without exception to make our society a peaceful and fair place to live in. As a matter of fact, the United Nations had adopted such a set of standards embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and signed by over 48 member countries ( including all major countries ) on December 10, 1948. The full text of this declaration as published in the United Nations official website is reproduced here under ( http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html ) :- “ Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( adopted by UN on December 10, 1948 )
It is generally accepted by most people that there exist a set of universal standards by which everyone should abide without exception to make our society a peaceful and fair place to live in. As a matter of fact, the United Nations had adopted such a set of standards embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and signed by over 48 member countries ( including all major countries ) on December 10, 1948. The full text of this declaration as published in the United Nations official website is reproduced here under ( http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html ) :- “ Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( adopted by UN on December 10, 1948 )
Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be priotected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore,
The General Assembly,
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article I All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11 1. Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. 2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.
Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14 1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. 2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15 1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16 1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. 2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country. 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22 Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. 2. Everyone, without any discrimination,has the right to equal pay for equal work. 3.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. 4.Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. 2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26 1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. 2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. 3.Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27 1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28 Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 2.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 securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 3.These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. “
The aim of this essay is to explore the question of whether or not such a set of universal standards can be reasonably supported by facts and principles independent of any particular religion, political ideology or school of ethical principles. After all, the member states of UN are so diverse with regard to religious beliefs and political ideologies that such an universal set of standards for human behaviour must not reflect only the views of some influential member states to the exclusion of the other members. If this vital question cannot be answered in a satisfactory manner the Declaration would just be another political statement reflecting the views of the more influential members states only. If this unfortunate scenario turns out to be the reality the significance of the Declaration as the basis of international and inter-personal behaviour would be drastically reduced or should even be disqualified as guidelines for universal human behaviour.
( 2 ) First things first
Before answering the question of the acceptability of the Declaration we must ask the question of whether or not a set of universal standards should be put forward in the first place. After all, such standards are meant to set a minimum standard for all human behaviour and individual liberty is always something to be treasured and protected as everyone will agree. Furthermore, as we are trying to assess the aptitude of the universal standards independent of any particular religious belief, political ideology or school of ethical principles we must also find an unassailable criterion to gauge the contents of the universal standards. It seems to me that one such universally accepted and objective criterion can be found in the laws of nature or simply Mother Nature as we usually call it. The laws of nature exists and works like clock work on the physical world and all living beings and objects alike. No one and nothing can resist but must simply obey the laws of nature. This omnipotent characteristic of the laws of nature makes it an indisputable universal criterion to assess all human behaviour. The laws of nature have been working well for millions of years ( over 4 billion years to be exact ) until human misbehaviour and misuse of technology have started to harm the environment. This proves that doing things contrary to the laws of nature has dire consequences as we all agree now. There is, however, a reservation of which one must be aware regarding the supremacy of the laws of nature. That is, people sometimes tend to interpret the meaning of the laws of nature to suit their own selfish and sinister objectives. For example, the evil Nazi leader Hitler had used Charles Darwin's biological evolution laws to justify the massacre of six million Jews during WWII to satisfy his perverted obsession for power. By so doing he had grossly violated the most basic and most important of all human qualities, namely, compassion which differentiates us from wild animals who instinctively follow the laws of the jungle. As human beings are endowed with higher mental faculties by Mother Nature unlike other animals we should know better than resorting to the laws of the jungle to achieve our selfish ends. We know because a world lacking human compassion will mean suffering and confusion for everyone. From Mother Nature we can deduce the concept of Natural Justice. As we are all subject to the same laws of nature which can be harsh at times ( such as natural disasters, etc. ) and as all of us cannot escape the natural processes of pain from birth, ageing, sickness and death it is logical that we should help one another to enable us to stand a better chance of survival and of enjoying a better life ( another basic human right ). At the very least, by standing together we can lessen our common burdens in life. Therefore, it serves our best interest to maintain a smooth and fair society with one heart based on a set of generally accepted universal standards of human behaviour.
( 3 ) The relevant laws of nature
Equality of all human beings with regard to their basic human right is the centre issue here. Should all human being be equal ? Mind you. They are NOT at all equal in reality but should they be ? That is the sixty four dollar question. I as most decent human beings do think there should be equality for all. However, there are others especially many of those belonging to the privileged class do not hold the same view. They are enjoying their precious and exclusive rights so much that they do not want anyone else to share them even in a fair and square manner. Such dissidents of the “ equality for all “ principle include those politicians and their hang men of any autocratic regime holding power illegitimately and at the same time holding citizens of their countries at their mercy. Another prominent dissident group is the crooked black sheep community of the business world ( the so-called Wolves of Wall Street ) who would steal and cheat to fatten their own pockets at the expense of everyone else as can be seen during the global financial crisis in 2008 the aftermath of which is still being felt worldwide today. The common denominator for these two evil dissident groups is the adoption of double standards – a very loose and convenient set of rules for themselves while a very harsh set of rules for other people. Coming back to the question of equality for all we may resort to an old Chinese saying :- “ Everyone is born with a mother “ implying that we should treat others as kindly as we treat ourselves as we are all human beings. However, the dissidents may say that their mothers may have a better up bringing and more noble birth or blood line ( another outdated feudal notion ) than other people. Well, I guess differences can always be found if we set our minds to it ( the infamous Selection Effect - http://jkhcforum.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/thoughts-to-you-from-yours-truly-57-feb.html ). In today's world where everyone ( is but just a click of the computer button away and is living under the common scourge of terrorism ) and everything ( is environmentally tied together including propagation of sickness and pollution ) is so closely connected that we stand a much better chance of survival if we unite together rather than discriminate against one another for whatever idiotic reason.
To refute the dissidents' argument against the “ equality for all “ principle based on the above fallacious grounds or any other arguments they may put forward we can raise the stakes for our reasoning to the realm of the unassailable laws of nature. All blood lines can be traced back to the origin of life which is still a mystery in science. However, one thing is certain. All life is carbon based and the element of carbon can only be made in the nuclear fusion process occurring in stars like our sun. Every star including our sun is a cosmic nuclear fusion cooking pot. The cooking process starts with the most simple atom which is hydrogen composed of one proton ( with positive electric charge ) and one electron ( with negative charge ). When the star heats up nuclear fusion takes place and two hydrogen atoms fuse or " melt " together to form helium composed of two protons and two electrons. This fusion process progresses until carbon is formed which is composed of 14 protons and 14 electrons by a miraculous process known as resonance without which carbon can never be formed. As everyone knows carbon is the basis for all organic matters so that there would be no life without carbon. This is not the end of our life story which is much more intriguing. The fusion process will progress further until the chemical element of iron with 26 protons and a like number of electrons is formed. Then the process ceases because iron is the most stable element. When all the hydrogen in a burning star becomes iron the nuclear fuel is exhausted and the outward pressure exerted by nuclear fusion reaction will be gone and the force of gravity takes over causing the dying star to collapse upon itself under its own iron mass. The gravitational collapse will result in a tremendous explosion know as a supernova ( meaning new star ) because it marks the beginning of the formation of a new star from the debris of dusts and gas scattered around in space by the supernova. These will coalesce eventually because of gravity until the mass of the debris is dense enough to cause the nuclear fusion process to restart. At this stage a new star is born.
The aim of this essay is to explore the question of whether or not such a set of universal standards can be reasonably supported by facts and principles independent of any particular religion, political ideology or school of ethical principles. After all, the member states of UN are so diverse with regard to religious beliefs and political ideologies that such an universal set of standards for human behaviour must not reflect only the views of some influential member states to the exclusion of the other members. If this vital question cannot be answered in a satisfactory manner the Declaration would just be another political statement reflecting the views of the more influential members states only. If this unfortunate scenario turns out to be the reality the significance of the Declaration as the basis of international and inter-personal behaviour would be drastically reduced or should even be disqualified as guidelines for universal human behaviour.
( 2 ) First things first
Before answering the question of the acceptability of the Declaration we must ask the question of whether or not a set of universal standards should be put forward in the first place. After all, such standards are meant to set a minimum standard for all human behaviour and individual liberty is always something to be treasured and protected as everyone will agree. Furthermore, as we are trying to assess the aptitude of the universal standards independent of any particular religious belief, political ideology or school of ethical principles we must also find an unassailable criterion to gauge the contents of the universal standards. It seems to me that one such universally accepted and objective criterion can be found in the laws of nature or simply Mother Nature as we usually call it. The laws of nature exists and works like clock work on the physical world and all living beings and objects alike. No one and nothing can resist but must simply obey the laws of nature. This omnipotent characteristic of the laws of nature makes it an indisputable universal criterion to assess all human behaviour. The laws of nature have been working well for millions of years ( over 4 billion years to be exact ) until human misbehaviour and misuse of technology have started to harm the environment. This proves that doing things contrary to the laws of nature has dire consequences as we all agree now. There is, however, a reservation of which one must be aware regarding the supremacy of the laws of nature. That is, people sometimes tend to interpret the meaning of the laws of nature to suit their own selfish and sinister objectives. For example, the evil Nazi leader Hitler had used Charles Darwin's biological evolution laws to justify the massacre of six million Jews during WWII to satisfy his perverted obsession for power. By so doing he had grossly violated the most basic and most important of all human qualities, namely, compassion which differentiates us from wild animals who instinctively follow the laws of the jungle. As human beings are endowed with higher mental faculties by Mother Nature unlike other animals we should know better than resorting to the laws of the jungle to achieve our selfish ends. We know because a world lacking human compassion will mean suffering and confusion for everyone. From Mother Nature we can deduce the concept of Natural Justice. As we are all subject to the same laws of nature which can be harsh at times ( such as natural disasters, etc. ) and as all of us cannot escape the natural processes of pain from birth, ageing, sickness and death it is logical that we should help one another to enable us to stand a better chance of survival and of enjoying a better life ( another basic human right ). At the very least, by standing together we can lessen our common burdens in life. Therefore, it serves our best interest to maintain a smooth and fair society with one heart based on a set of generally accepted universal standards of human behaviour.
( 3 ) The relevant laws of nature
Equality of all human beings with regard to their basic human right is the centre issue here. Should all human being be equal ? Mind you. They are NOT at all equal in reality but should they be ? That is the sixty four dollar question. I as most decent human beings do think there should be equality for all. However, there are others especially many of those belonging to the privileged class do not hold the same view. They are enjoying their precious and exclusive rights so much that they do not want anyone else to share them even in a fair and square manner. Such dissidents of the “ equality for all “ principle include those politicians and their hang men of any autocratic regime holding power illegitimately and at the same time holding citizens of their countries at their mercy. Another prominent dissident group is the crooked black sheep community of the business world ( the so-called Wolves of Wall Street ) who would steal and cheat to fatten their own pockets at the expense of everyone else as can be seen during the global financial crisis in 2008 the aftermath of which is still being felt worldwide today. The common denominator for these two evil dissident groups is the adoption of double standards – a very loose and convenient set of rules for themselves while a very harsh set of rules for other people. Coming back to the question of equality for all we may resort to an old Chinese saying :- “ Everyone is born with a mother “ implying that we should treat others as kindly as we treat ourselves as we are all human beings. However, the dissidents may say that their mothers may have a better up bringing and more noble birth or blood line ( another outdated feudal notion ) than other people. Well, I guess differences can always be found if we set our minds to it ( the infamous Selection Effect - http://jkhcforum.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/thoughts-to-you-from-yours-truly-57-feb.html ). In today's world where everyone ( is but just a click of the computer button away and is living under the common scourge of terrorism ) and everything ( is environmentally tied together including propagation of sickness and pollution ) is so closely connected that we stand a much better chance of survival if we unite together rather than discriminate against one another for whatever idiotic reason.
To refute the dissidents' argument against the “ equality for all “ principle based on the above fallacious grounds or any other arguments they may put forward we can raise the stakes for our reasoning to the realm of the unassailable laws of nature. All blood lines can be traced back to the origin of life which is still a mystery in science. However, one thing is certain. All life is carbon based and the element of carbon can only be made in the nuclear fusion process occurring in stars like our sun. Every star including our sun is a cosmic nuclear fusion cooking pot. The cooking process starts with the most simple atom which is hydrogen composed of one proton ( with positive electric charge ) and one electron ( with negative charge ). When the star heats up nuclear fusion takes place and two hydrogen atoms fuse or " melt " together to form helium composed of two protons and two electrons. This fusion process progresses until carbon is formed which is composed of 14 protons and 14 electrons by a miraculous process known as resonance without which carbon can never be formed. As everyone knows carbon is the basis for all organic matters so that there would be no life without carbon. This is not the end of our life story which is much more intriguing. The fusion process will progress further until the chemical element of iron with 26 protons and a like number of electrons is formed. Then the process ceases because iron is the most stable element. When all the hydrogen in a burning star becomes iron the nuclear fuel is exhausted and the outward pressure exerted by nuclear fusion reaction will be gone and the force of gravity takes over causing the dying star to collapse upon itself under its own iron mass. The gravitational collapse will result in a tremendous explosion know as a supernova ( meaning new star ) because it marks the beginning of the formation of a new star from the debris of dusts and gas scattered around in space by the supernova. These will coalesce eventually because of gravity until the mass of the debris is dense enough to cause the nuclear fusion process to restart. At this stage a new star is born.
There is still another mysterious twist in the recycling of the cosmic debris created by a supernova explosion. For stars bigger than 8 times the size of our sun the gravitational collapse of the iron core at the end of the nuclear fusion process will be unstoppable and a black hole will be formed. It is known as a black hole because it is infinitely dense so that even light cannot escape. For our earth, the escape velocity of a space rocket leaving the grip of the earth's gravity is about 24,000 km per hour. Light has a velocity of 300,000 km per second. So, one can imagine the density of mass in a black hole. Astronomers cannot see a black hole. Its presence can only be detected by faster than normal movements of stars circulating the black hole as if they are circling nothingness. Most galaxies including our own Milky Way harbour a black hole in their centres. Without the gravitational pull of a massive black hole in the centre our galaxy should have disintegrated long ago judging on the speed of the revolution of a billion stars around the Milky Way centre.
This is the romantic story of our life and humble beginning for creatures both big and small, good and bad. Who or what is the most noble person or creature respectively ? All and none ! All things ( including inanimate matters ) cannot be more equal. So, it is not who or what you are that is important but what you do. If your deeds are in line with the greatest law of all which is the law of nature you are a noble being. Otherwise, you are the anti-hero which is synonymous with the devil if you hurt the environment and its creatures. This applies to all creatures whether they believe in the existence of God or not. The eternal law of nature which is that of cause and effect will ultimately catch up with the devils. I have absolutely no doubt about this. Another vital moral lesson to be learned is that death ( like in a supernova ) is the beginning of life and life death. Therefore, we must accept the inevitable and recognize the achievable. May we all have the wisdom to tell one from the other. Apart from valuable knowledge we can also derive a lot of profound insight and inspiration from astronomy. In my humble opinion, it is an essential subject for all people especially those in power because astronomy can confine politicians' inflated ego to an acceptable level.
After reading the above brief account of the origin of all life I hope it leaves little doubt on the reader's mind about the common and humble origin of all life which is star dust. The question of equality of all global citizens should be beyond dispute by any sane and reasonable human being.
( 4 ) Purpose in life and the universal standards
Some people say that life definitely has a purpose while others may beg to differ. I think this is a very personal question and can only be answered by each individual alone. I belong to the first category of individuals and further believe that each individual is endowed with his or her own talents to achieve their particular purpose in life. Hence, I always do my own soul searching to find out my personal purpose in life.
One of the greatest philosophers of all times, Socrates famously said that :- " The unexamined life is not worth living. " ( one of my own favourite quotations ). After examining life perhaps one will get the truth or at least one's own version of the truth and then the truth will set you free ! Then again, perhaps not in every case as even the great Socrates himself was executed by the state for propagating the truth and accused of misleading the younger generation. Despite the tragic fate of Socrates his protege Plato as well as Plato's student Aristotle all faithfully followed his love for the truth. Aristotle was recorded as having said this about his teacher, Plato :- " Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth. " The logic seems to be that by asking WHY ( examining one's life ) it leads to the TRUTH and knowing the truth ( or true purpose in life ) will lead to PEACE of mind. That is why the truth will set you free !
While I totally subscribe to the " why-truth-peace " logic yours truly is a bit more greedy in life. In my humble opinion, knowing your purpose in life is just the " necessary " condition for gaining peace of mind. The " sufficient " condition is to do your utmost to achieve that purpose which is destined for you. Regardless of success or failure in fulfilling that purpose it seems fair to say that trying one's utmost in achieving one's purpose in life is the hallmark of a successful life. Thus, it is abundantly clear to me that everyone can be successful in life if one has tried his or her best to achieve one's own goal in life. Coming back to the subject of the importance of asking why, I will just say this. Without asking why there can be no success in life and no peace of mind when we pass on. It is as simple as that.
As I see it, one of the important purposes in life is to interact with other people so that we can share our knowledge and experience and can enrich our life to our mutual benefit in the course of social interaction to make a better world for all. Human beings are generally social animals that like to communicate with one another. This being the case a set of minimum standards of behaviour is necessary to keep our peace with one another and provide a fair playing field in society as a whole.
( 5 ) People, society and the universal standards
People live in society instead of alone because there is strength in numbers in terms of security, economic co-operation and social interaction which is inherent in human nature as mentioned above. There are always pros and cons to any arrangement. It is a matter of compromise or give and take. To pay for the privilege of living in a society the individual will have to forego some personal liberty and be governed by a political body ( the state ) and obey a set of laws enacted by majority consent to keep society running smoothly, orderly and fairly. This relationship between the individual and the state or government is generally known as the Social Contract in political philosophy.
There are a few different versions of Social Contract as set out here under according to Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract ) :- “ In moral and political philosophy, the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] The world's earliest version of the social contract theory is however found in the 2nd Century BC text of earlier Buddhism, Mahāvastu.[2] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory. The Social Contract (Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique) is also the short title of a 1762 book by Jean-Jacques Rousseau on this topic. Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in Greek and Stoic philosophy and Roman and Canon Law, the heyday of the social contract was the mid-17th to early 19th centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy. The starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition absent from any political order that Thomas Hobbes termed the "state of nature".[3] In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up their natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order. Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762), and Immanuel Kant (1797) are among the most prominent of 17th- and 18th-century theorists of social contract and natural rights. Each solved the problem of political authority in a different way. Grotius posited that individual human beings had natural rights; Hobbes asserted that humans consent to abdicate their rights in favor of the absolute authority of government (whether monarchial or parliamentary); Pufendorf disputed Hobbes's equation of a state of nature with war.[4] Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority; and Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence. Social contract theories were eclipsed in the 19th century in favor of utilitarianism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, and were revived in the 20th century, notably in the form of a thought experiment by John Rawls. “
Regardless of the particular version one will agree to the main aim of the Social Contract is to spell out the citizens' basic obligations to the society or state to which he or she belongs. At the same time , the citizens' rights are equally protected. The central theme of the Social Contract may be summarized as follows:- “ Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. “ ( as set out in Wikipedia above ). More over, the concept of a social contract dates back to the Second Century B.C. and not of the western cultural tradition.
Society did not exist before people feel the need to form such a union for their own mutual welfare. Society exists for the peoples' common good not the other way round as all autocratic regimes claim with a view to legitimizing their total control over every aspect of their citizens' lives. A logical inference from the purpose of forming society is that the efficiency of any state or government can be measured by how much freedom the citizens have to give up in exchange for their citizenship. The less loss of personal freedom is required for the citizens to enable the state or government to operate properly the more efficient is the governing machine.
Given that the governing machine is made up of people who are given a mandate by the majority citizens to run society ( most importantly in the efficient production and fair distribution of economic resources ) these public servants or better known as politicians must be supervised properly because they have been given the privilege to control all resources as well as people's daily lives. ALL people including yours truly here tend to abuse power when this most corrupting thing in this world is given to their care or control ( every one will remember the overpowering effect of the ring on its owners in the famous movie “ Lord of the Rings “ ) This being the case their law abiding obligation and ethical standards should be even stricter than those applicable to ordinary citizens. Furthermore, they are usually given a fat remuneration package and high esteem and even a chance to earn their place in history if they do a good job. All these privileges are not usually enjoyed by ordinary citizens.
As society, governments and international relationship are all run by people a set of minimum standards for human behaviour is vital to ensure a smoothly and fairly run human society as a whole. Therefore, a set of generally accepted universal standards must exist as guidelines to every aspect of human behaviour.
( 6 ) Government, the people and the universal standards
( a ) Why do we need the government ?
“ Men is by nature a political animal.” So declared Aristotle. The father of modern China, Dr. Sun Yat San also said that “ politics is everybody's business.” Whenever men gather together there has got to be some organizational mechanism to conduct their daily affairs. Politics is born out of such a basic need. But the human brain which controls our actions is a chaotic system of the most complicated kind hence politics ( handling human affairs ) has become a highly complex, and very often, tricky process. Because we live in a materialistic world and our daily needs are derived from human ( services ) and other natural ( goods ) resources economics comes in. That is why Karl Marx had rightly stated that politics is merely concentrated economics. The dispute between the two basic economic systems, namely, market ( capitalistic ) economy and centrally planned ( socialistic ) economy, on which is the superior system has long been resolved ( since the collapse of the former Soviet Union ) in favour of the former. The only truly socialists systems to be found in the world nowadays exist only in Cuba and North Korea and these are crumbling fast, too. Despite the settlement of the ideological arguments between these two systems, it is still of interest to us to ponder on the philosophical basis upon which the two systems are built. This is because the roots of each system can be found in different assumptions concerning the relative importance of the inborn human rights as compared with that of society as a whole. A clear understanding of the rightful position of the individual in society is and always will be of paramount significance in guiding any present and future public policies. Such policies are ultimately reflected in the enactment of the relevant laws that will directly affect our daily lives and livelihoods, the most important element in social economics. The most enlightening remark on politics, in my opinion, is Abraham Lincoln's statement :- “ No man is good enough to govern another without that other's consent. “ This says it all about the inborn right of the modern citizen wherever he or she might be. It spells out in unambiguous terms the basic political idea of government by the majority mandate of the people. In the very beginning of human history, people lived in isolated and small groups such as families and tribes. Even then, they found it beneficial to every member of the group to co-operate and help one another to face their daily difficulties in a harsh environment. To trade some liberty for safety and strength in number as a group, they were willing to subject themselves to the rules set by the group to which they belonged. Keeping in mind the main purpose of this partial surrender of individual freedom is for the exchange of help and protection from the group, it is both logical and reasonable to conclude that a fair deal should involve only the minimal sacrifice of the individual's right to enable society to function properly and nothing more. If the individual is asked to make a total sacrifice of his right to exchange for just a little benefit, he or she would have been better off living alone. Therefore, the measure of the efficiency of any government is the degree of sacrifice it demands from her citizens. The less sacrifice asked of her citizens in the form of laws and taxes the more efficient is the governing machinery. Of course, there must be a reasonable level of protection and other social services such as health care and financial security that must be provided by the government. Nor is it right for the citizens just to ask for benefits from their government without contribution on their part because all goods and services must be funded by taxes and other financial measures. To square the equation of supply and demand, citizens must also do their part by paying all just taxes and not to abuse their rights to the essential services provided by their government. Furthermore, greater sacrifice may have to be made by the citizens when their own country is under threats of attack by enemies. There is a constitutional duty for all able-bodied citizens to defend their own country in a justifiable war when all other means of settling disputes with the enemies prove to be in vain. Should this unfortunate situation arise we must be wary about the wisdom of the politicians in going to war. Every attempt must be made to question such fateful decision through the legislature to ensure that war is the only option before we should give our support and act on it by our participation in national service.
“ Men is by nature a political animal.” So declared Aristotle. The father of modern China, Dr. Sun Yat San also said that “ politics is everybody's business.” Whenever men gather together there has got to be some organizational mechanism to conduct their daily affairs. Politics is born out of such a basic need. But the human brain which controls our actions is a chaotic system of the most complicated kind hence politics ( handling human affairs ) has become a highly complex, and very often, tricky process. Because we live in a materialistic world and our daily needs are derived from human ( services ) and other natural ( goods ) resources economics comes in. That is why Karl Marx had rightly stated that politics is merely concentrated economics. The dispute between the two basic economic systems, namely, market ( capitalistic ) economy and centrally planned ( socialistic ) economy, on which is the superior system has long been resolved ( since the collapse of the former Soviet Union ) in favour of the former. The only truly socialists systems to be found in the world nowadays exist only in Cuba and North Korea and these are crumbling fast, too. Despite the settlement of the ideological arguments between these two systems, it is still of interest to us to ponder on the philosophical basis upon which the two systems are built. This is because the roots of each system can be found in different assumptions concerning the relative importance of the inborn human rights as compared with that of society as a whole. A clear understanding of the rightful position of the individual in society is and always will be of paramount significance in guiding any present and future public policies. Such policies are ultimately reflected in the enactment of the relevant laws that will directly affect our daily lives and livelihoods, the most important element in social economics. The most enlightening remark on politics, in my opinion, is Abraham Lincoln's statement :- “ No man is good enough to govern another without that other's consent. “ This says it all about the inborn right of the modern citizen wherever he or she might be. It spells out in unambiguous terms the basic political idea of government by the majority mandate of the people. In the very beginning of human history, people lived in isolated and small groups such as families and tribes. Even then, they found it beneficial to every member of the group to co-operate and help one another to face their daily difficulties in a harsh environment. To trade some liberty for safety and strength in number as a group, they were willing to subject themselves to the rules set by the group to which they belonged. Keeping in mind the main purpose of this partial surrender of individual freedom is for the exchange of help and protection from the group, it is both logical and reasonable to conclude that a fair deal should involve only the minimal sacrifice of the individual's right to enable society to function properly and nothing more. If the individual is asked to make a total sacrifice of his right to exchange for just a little benefit, he or she would have been better off living alone. Therefore, the measure of the efficiency of any government is the degree of sacrifice it demands from her citizens. The less sacrifice asked of her citizens in the form of laws and taxes the more efficient is the governing machinery. Of course, there must be a reasonable level of protection and other social services such as health care and financial security that must be provided by the government. Nor is it right for the citizens just to ask for benefits from their government without contribution on their part because all goods and services must be funded by taxes and other financial measures. To square the equation of supply and demand, citizens must also do their part by paying all just taxes and not to abuse their rights to the essential services provided by their government. Furthermore, greater sacrifice may have to be made by the citizens when their own country is under threats of attack by enemies. There is a constitutional duty for all able-bodied citizens to defend their own country in a justifiable war when all other means of settling disputes with the enemies prove to be in vain. Should this unfortunate situation arise we must be wary about the wisdom of the politicians in going to war. Every attempt must be made to question such fateful decision through the legislature to ensure that war is the only option before we should give our support and act on it by our participation in national service.
( b ) Market economy versus Socialist economy
Coming back to economic issues, it is pretty obvious that the reason for the triumph of market economics over the socialist or centrally-planned economics is the fact that the former system gives due consideration and respect to the rights of the individual while the latter does not. But this is not to say that market economics is the perfect economic system. In fact, its basic motivation is greed which is the second mortal sin ( the first being ignorance ) on my personal list of vices. Therefore, like E.M. Forster's opinion on democracy, I can only manage to give two cheers for capitalism. Like any social system, capitalism must be urgently supplemented by a proper education system to instill the ethics of fairness and compassion into the minds of the citizens especially the younger generation before the capitalistic system can become tolerable. Only with fairness and compassion can mankind survive the less than perfect and, sometimes, greedily evil capitalistic system. You only have to look at the extent of the unfairness and misery brought upon the less developed countries by the overpowering globalization process that is gathering pace at an amazing speed to realize the potential damages and injustice that can be done to the underprivileged.
Despite all these terrible shortcomings, market economics still does a reasonably good job in the effective utilization and distribution of scarce resources by putting a price on any commodities or services through the laws of supply and demand that reflect their true economic value and thereby prevents wastage. To overcome its evil aspects of greed and disregard for humanitarian considerations, we must look to the democratic system of government which can provide check and balance in the ruling government's power. Any irresponsible government must be liable to replacement by another more capable one through a popular and constitutional mandate. This in turn is only possible through the implementation of a fair electoral system supported by a well educated population of voters. The capitalistic system is only a man made system that can and should be changed if and when necessary on humanitarian grounds which is the top priority in any fair economic policy. Therefore, under sound economic policy, the commercial principles should not be applied to basic social services provided by the government. This is the sensible ability to pay and benefits received approach adopted in the area of public finance which is a special branch of economics that deals with public affairs. Under this approach, the pricing of public services such as health care is not based on the normal economic principle of demand and supply but on the individual's ability to pay for such services. For example, patients requiring emergency medical services are asked to pay different rates for the same services depending on their income brackets. Such measures can effectively reflect the different humanitarian considerations applicable to different patients. So, the impact of the undesirable aspects of a capitalistic economy can be kept to a minimum. Furthermore, we must work towards an enlightened form of the market economics by re-aligning our value system ( see my blog here :- http://jkhcforum.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/financial-tsunami-ft-way-forward-20.html ).
As regards the failure of the socialist regime, there are three main objections to its theoretical premises. Firstly, no one really knows exactly what the population as a whole need. It is just too complicated to plan in an orderly manner. Secondly, without a price system to fix the real economic value of any goods and services through the laws of supply and demand, nobody can know the true value of the ever scarce resources and that will lead to definite waste. This can be clearly seen in the general lack of efficiency of public and governmental establishments which do not operate on the commercial principles. That is the reason why it is always important for the government to have the smallest possible share of the gross national product ( income ) in terms of its annual financial budget. The private sector is always more efficient economically because inefficient organizations will inevitably be forced out of existence by the powerful law of survival of the fittest which is the driving force in the history of the evolution of life itself. The third reason for the failure of the socialist economic system is its flagrant disregard for consumer choice and by reference to human values and the importance of the consumer as a uniquely functioning and feeling individual for whom society is formed in the first place. Socialist or centrally-planned economy has the usual characteristics of absolute power and discipline as dictated by the ruling hierarchy. This is a key feature of any socialist economic system because without absolute power both the planning itself and the execution of such plans will be compromised. The illogical and lopsided reasoning of this key feature says it all for this failed regime. Instead of finding out and providing for the needs of the people, a socialist economic system asks for and, very often, demands adaptation by the people to the central government's economic plans usually decided by a few bureaucrats who are always supported by an army that has often sworn allegiance only to the ruling party and its leader. The ridiculous part of it all is the fact that without the fixing of the true economic values for the resources by an objective price system that works on the laws of supply and demand, the planners themselves in all their sincerity and honesty ( which is not generally the case ) will be incapable of achieving any efficient distribution or utilis\zation of scarce resources. So, there you have it. It is simply a system based upon illogical philosophical assumptions which ignores basic human rights and unworkable economic principles that cannot achieve the major economic goals of efficient use of resources; fair distribution of income and wealth; full employment; stability of prices and economic growth. It has degenerated into a hideous tool used by power mongers and dictators to enslave the people as most skilfully and satirically highlighted by the famous writer, George Orwell in his world renowned novel, Animal Farm.
Coming back to economic issues, it is pretty obvious that the reason for the triumph of market economics over the socialist or centrally-planned economics is the fact that the former system gives due consideration and respect to the rights of the individual while the latter does not. But this is not to say that market economics is the perfect economic system. In fact, its basic motivation is greed which is the second mortal sin ( the first being ignorance ) on my personal list of vices. Therefore, like E.M. Forster's opinion on democracy, I can only manage to give two cheers for capitalism. Like any social system, capitalism must be urgently supplemented by a proper education system to instill the ethics of fairness and compassion into the minds of the citizens especially the younger generation before the capitalistic system can become tolerable. Only with fairness and compassion can mankind survive the less than perfect and, sometimes, greedily evil capitalistic system. You only have to look at the extent of the unfairness and misery brought upon the less developed countries by the overpowering globalization process that is gathering pace at an amazing speed to realize the potential damages and injustice that can be done to the underprivileged.
Despite all these terrible shortcomings, market economics still does a reasonably good job in the effective utilization and distribution of scarce resources by putting a price on any commodities or services through the laws of supply and demand that reflect their true economic value and thereby prevents wastage. To overcome its evil aspects of greed and disregard for humanitarian considerations, we must look to the democratic system of government which can provide check and balance in the ruling government's power. Any irresponsible government must be liable to replacement by another more capable one through a popular and constitutional mandate. This in turn is only possible through the implementation of a fair electoral system supported by a well educated population of voters. The capitalistic system is only a man made system that can and should be changed if and when necessary on humanitarian grounds which is the top priority in any fair economic policy. Therefore, under sound economic policy, the commercial principles should not be applied to basic social services provided by the government. This is the sensible ability to pay and benefits received approach adopted in the area of public finance which is a special branch of economics that deals with public affairs. Under this approach, the pricing of public services such as health care is not based on the normal economic principle of demand and supply but on the individual's ability to pay for such services. For example, patients requiring emergency medical services are asked to pay different rates for the same services depending on their income brackets. Such measures can effectively reflect the different humanitarian considerations applicable to different patients. So, the impact of the undesirable aspects of a capitalistic economy can be kept to a minimum. Furthermore, we must work towards an enlightened form of the market economics by re-aligning our value system ( see my blog here :- http://jkhcforum.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/financial-tsunami-ft-way-forward-20.html ).
( c ) Fallacies of the Socialist argument
The alleged moral superiority of the socialist system is its fairness to all. Karl Marx set out his ideal motto in this manner ;- “ from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs.” Despite its theoretical soundness, this motto is quite impossible in practice because of our selfish human nature. It requires almost a saint to do the first part without any financial compensation which was the original Marxist design. As for the second part of the motto, it is a mandate for what we call “ the free lunch”. If the kind of ethical standard that is called for by this motto really exists or is achievable in practice, then our society can operate on any system or none at all. Such is the high degree of moral and ethical standards required before the socialist economic system can be successfully implemented. Nevertheless, I do confess that at my home ( just like Jesus Christ and his apostles, ) I and my family members do practice communism ( the morally higher form of economic system that is actually described by Karl Marx's motto ). The parents make the money while the children just do their part which is receiving education and taking all their daily needs from the family without paying any financial compensation. This is Communism with a capital C, pure and simple and let me tell you unequivocally that it only works within the family unit, period !
Just to clarify the confusing reference to Communism, Karl Marx also felt that his motto as cited above was not easily achievable. Therefore, he proposed the less stringent standards of Socialism as a stepping stone to Communism. Under a socialist system there would again be no private ownership of property but there would be financial reward for labour provided by the citizens of the state based on planned and government approved rates. Ultimately, he anticipated a change over to the ideal state of Communism when the population had been educated to the required perfect moral standards. Under the disguise of all these high sounding ideas the ugly reality is the indisputable fact that socialist systems all go hand in hand with totalitarian political systems that always diminish the individual values of each human being in favour of selfless and total sacrifice of the citizens for the state ( but it is only one way traffic ) which is controlled by a self-interested ruling political party or dictator. To add insult to injuries already inflicted upon individual citizens by such a ridiculous deal , the declared political goal of all such totalitarian governments are always equal rights for all, but as George Orwell said ;- “ Only some are more equal than others.” The some referred to here are, of course, those politicians who hang on to their illegitimate power by hook or by crook.
I could never in my life forget the bloody episode of the Tiananmen Massacre of demonstrating students and workers in Beijing on the 4th of June, 1989. The biggest irony of all is that the killing of the workers who were supposed to be the proletariat that made up the vanguards of the Communist Revolution. The army that carried out such despicable atrocity was none other than the Peoples' Liberation Army. Only this time around, this army of the Chinese Communist Party had truly and literally liberated the people they were supposed to protect into the kingdom of heaven ( however one must bear in mind that the Peoples' Liberation Army swear their loyalty to the party instead of the people – so there you have it ! ). Even more ironic is the fact that such atrocity had taken place in the Square of the Heavenly Peace ( Tiananmen Square ) in Beijing. What greater horrors can absolute power manage to produce ?
So why are we still pondering over this welcomed demise of socialist economics now ? The simple answer is that its demise highlights the triumph of the individual's sacred rights to be free - to make free choices in life on a materialistic, social, intellectual and spiritual levels. Freedom can only be delayed but never denied. A particularly undesirable effect of Socialism ( and Communism alike ) is Karl Marx's materialistic world view and the inevitability of class struggles ( no compromise in this area is possible under Socialism ) which subsequently deteriorated into the evil practice of the end justifies the means. Such extreme philosophical outlook is the source of almost all the evil deeds which are an affront to all humanity including the scourge of our present day- terrorism. That is why the argument for the end justifies the means must be vigorously denounced.
To me, Marx's uncompromising attitude towards class struggle and materialism merely reflects his inability to connect different important aspects of nature, life and humanity. The sanctity and precious nature of life; the harmony and peaceful co-existence of all the elements and living organisms in nature ; and the never ending cycles of change through life and death all point to the possibility and, in fact, the necessity to compromise and to connect among ourselves and Mother Nature. Furthermore, the important elements in nature and life are not made up of things ( ends ) but processes ( means ) as implied by Quantum Theory. Therefore, the means are much more significant than the end because nature itself is the manifestation of never ending cycles of processes - to everything, turn, turn; to every season, turn, turn. In our modern society abound with high technology, everyone demands efficiency and instant results. Whereas it is the process of reaching your destination ( your chosen end ) and sharing that experience with the people you care about that is the ultimate happiness. We have very often mistaken the sign posts for the the destination to our disadvantage and , sometimes, to our own detriment as in the present case of justifying the means by the end. Let us learn this vital lesson before it is too late and heed the warning provided to us by the failure of Socialism to enable mankind to move on in the right direction.
( d ) Putting politicians in their proper places
It is incomplete to discuss politics without any reference to the politicians. They are a completely separate breed of human beings. I do not mean it as a compliment. They are most of the time a pain in the neck but, on the other hand, we cannot do without them. That is the absolute truth. Therefore, I have come to the sensible conclusion that the best attitude towards politicians should be this. They are to be tolerated but must always be viewed with suspicion. We cannot totally trust them and yet we must keep ourselves informed of what they are saying or doing because sometimes our livelihood and well being depend a lot on the policies they create in our name. We must do our part to make them toe the line of justice and fairness. Now, let us see if this suspicious and merely tolerating attitude of mine towards politicians and other public servants is justified. First of all, I am only aware of two professions that pay its members a good remuneration and provide the great privilege to their members with the chance to make an everlasting reputation in history. These two professions are the politicians and the entertainers ( including sportsmen and sportswomen ). With regard to making a name in history, the politicians are far ahead of the entertainers because the issues the politicians deal with have far reaching effects on society as a whole. So, it is a rosy deal for all politicians. They get both a good salary for doing their job and the greatest privilege of all that is to get a chance to earn themselves a good reputation which will last for all eternity. As I mentioned before, efforts and reward go hand in hand. Therefore, it is only fair that the politicians should be under close scrutiny and subject to harsh criticism from the public for doing such a privileged job. Politicians cannot have the best of both worlds in the sense that they cannot both have their cake and eat it. They must always remember that society and, hence, the government is formed solely for the purpose of serving the people. Therefore, the people should always be the masters. Politicians and political parties are, in fact, further down the hierarchy as servants or members of the government only. The crazy reality is that all autocratic regimes are treating the leaders of their only ruling party ( politicians ) and their own political party as the masters to enslave their citizens. What a ridiculous proposition this is ! So, politicians please take notice of my comments. You are in the privileged position of being capable of doing great things with the power bestowed upon you by popular mandate if you choose to do the right thing and achieve immortality by putting your names in history for good. Despite their ideal position to do just that, many politicians are unfortunately corrupt and only serve the narrow interests of their own political parties and perhaps their own selfish ends. The hallmark of a politician is, as the Chinese saying goes, grass on top of a wall that bends with the wind. For politicians in general, they very often ignore truth and justice in favour of popularity that can win them the vote to keep them in power which in turn means more fortune. They resort to smart talk and legal technicalities when they are in trouble. My humble advice to politicians is this. Take a good look at this universe. Find your rightful place in it. Assume the correct perspective which is no one is invincible and indispensable. However powerful you are on this earth, the Big Blue Marble is still an ordinary planet in an ordinary solar system situated among billions of similar systems in an ordinary galaxy we called the Milky Way that is 100,000 light years across. The Milky Way Galaxy is in turn just another ordinary island universe among billions upon billions of large and small galaxies in the visible universe which is some 150 billion years old ( earth time ) that started at the Big Bang. There could still be countless galaxies and endless space beyond our visible part of the universe. Even within our visible universe, we cannot rule out the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. On top of all these, Strings Theory and Quantum Physics point to the possible existence of numerous universes in different and higher dimensions which scientists have dubbed the multiverse. All these scientific facts should be enough to put our inflated ego which is a very common phenomenon with politicians and other celebrities at bay. On the other hand, these facts do not have to intimidate us into hiding behind our own physical insignificance and to lead us to the negative conclusion that there is nothing much we can achieve in this vast universe. On the contrary, the implications of Quantum Mechanics on the role of human consciousness lend support to the view that our subjective intentions can make a real difference to our future course in life. Therefore, those in power should and must hold a positive attitude to achieving a better future for mankind. Politicians must have the vision and the wisdom to view their public policies in the larger perspective of the whole human race as citizens of our global village and not to dwell on the narrow interests of political parties and their self-interests. Be humble as everyone should. No one is qualified to stay in power forever. Politicians must not immerse themselves in such an unrealistic and unreasonable illusion. Enough is enough. When the people have spoken surrender your political powers graciously. Remember you have been privileged to be given the chance to serve the people and to put your name in history. Cherish and treasure this privilege and never abuse the power that has been conferred upon you by popular mandate. In short, rejoice for having this unique opportunity to make a difference to your own reputation, to this world and to your fellow citizens. Politicians, please put the people as your top priority !
It is incomplete to discuss politics without any reference to the politicians. They are a completely separate breed of human beings. I do not mean it as a compliment. They are most of the time a pain in the neck but, on the other hand, we cannot do without them. That is the absolute truth. Therefore, I have come to the sensible conclusion that the best attitude towards politicians should be this. They are to be tolerated but must always be viewed with suspicion. We cannot totally trust them and yet we must keep ourselves informed of what they are saying or doing because sometimes our livelihood and well being depend a lot on the policies they create in our name. We must do our part to make them toe the line of justice and fairness. Now, let us see if this suspicious and merely tolerating attitude of mine towards politicians and other public servants is justified. First of all, I am only aware of two professions that pay its members a good remuneration and provide the great privilege to their members with the chance to make an everlasting reputation in history. These two professions are the politicians and the entertainers ( including sportsmen and sportswomen ). With regard to making a name in history, the politicians are far ahead of the entertainers because the issues the politicians deal with have far reaching effects on society as a whole. So, it is a rosy deal for all politicians. They get both a good salary for doing their job and the greatest privilege of all that is to get a chance to earn themselves a good reputation which will last for all eternity. As I mentioned before, efforts and reward go hand in hand. Therefore, it is only fair that the politicians should be under close scrutiny and subject to harsh criticism from the public for doing such a privileged job. Politicians cannot have the best of both worlds in the sense that they cannot both have their cake and eat it. They must always remember that society and, hence, the government is formed solely for the purpose of serving the people. Therefore, the people should always be the masters. Politicians and political parties are, in fact, further down the hierarchy as servants or members of the government only. The crazy reality is that all autocratic regimes are treating the leaders of their only ruling party ( politicians ) and their own political party as the masters to enslave their citizens. What a ridiculous proposition this is ! So, politicians please take notice of my comments. You are in the privileged position of being capable of doing great things with the power bestowed upon you by popular mandate if you choose to do the right thing and achieve immortality by putting your names in history for good. Despite their ideal position to do just that, many politicians are unfortunately corrupt and only serve the narrow interests of their own political parties and perhaps their own selfish ends. The hallmark of a politician is, as the Chinese saying goes, grass on top of a wall that bends with the wind. For politicians in general, they very often ignore truth and justice in favour of popularity that can win them the vote to keep them in power which in turn means more fortune. They resort to smart talk and legal technicalities when they are in trouble. My humble advice to politicians is this. Take a good look at this universe. Find your rightful place in it. Assume the correct perspective which is no one is invincible and indispensable. However powerful you are on this earth, the Big Blue Marble is still an ordinary planet in an ordinary solar system situated among billions of similar systems in an ordinary galaxy we called the Milky Way that is 100,000 light years across. The Milky Way Galaxy is in turn just another ordinary island universe among billions upon billions of large and small galaxies in the visible universe which is some 150 billion years old ( earth time ) that started at the Big Bang. There could still be countless galaxies and endless space beyond our visible part of the universe. Even within our visible universe, we cannot rule out the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. On top of all these, Strings Theory and Quantum Physics point to the possible existence of numerous universes in different and higher dimensions which scientists have dubbed the multiverse. All these scientific facts should be enough to put our inflated ego which is a very common phenomenon with politicians and other celebrities at bay. On the other hand, these facts do not have to intimidate us into hiding behind our own physical insignificance and to lead us to the negative conclusion that there is nothing much we can achieve in this vast universe. On the contrary, the implications of Quantum Mechanics on the role of human consciousness lend support to the view that our subjective intentions can make a real difference to our future course in life. Therefore, those in power should and must hold a positive attitude to achieving a better future for mankind. Politicians must have the vision and the wisdom to view their public policies in the larger perspective of the whole human race as citizens of our global village and not to dwell on the narrow interests of political parties and their self-interests. Be humble as everyone should. No one is qualified to stay in power forever. Politicians must not immerse themselves in such an unrealistic and unreasonable illusion. Enough is enough. When the people have spoken surrender your political powers graciously. Remember you have been privileged to be given the chance to serve the people and to put your name in history. Cherish and treasure this privilege and never abuse the power that has been conferred upon you by popular mandate. In short, rejoice for having this unique opportunity to make a difference to your own reputation, to this world and to your fellow citizens. Politicians, please put the people as your top priority !
( e ) Universal standards to protect citizens against all governments
As citizens of all countries are constantly under the possible threats of being bullied by their governments ( sometimes even legally through unjust laws and discriminating behaviour ) a set of universal standards must be put in place to prevent this unfortunate situation from arising. To clarify the apparent contradiction in my above statement a government can persecute its citizens by enacting unjust laws which may be against natural justice. This situation most frequently happens in autocratic regimes with a single party dictatorship which can force the passage of unjust laws. Therefore, being legally bullied can actually happen in reality. We must be fully aware of the important difference between legal and fair. What is legal may not be fair in terms of natural justice. Very often autocratic governments use pretexts such as to maintain stability of the state, a perceived foreign threat or simply to treat any different opinion however constructive as subversion of the state to detain or imprison outspoken citizens or group. This can also happen to a lesser degree even with democratically elected governments when the politicians' interest or power is at risk. Power is the most corrupting thing on earth and all those in power will at some time or another abuse the power vested in them by their citizens. “ Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely “ ( by Lord Acton – British historian [1834-1902] ). This being the case with all governments and politicians a set of universal standards of human behaviour is indispensable. Another tactic adopted by some autocratic governments to delay the implementation of UN's Declaration of Human Rights is to excuse themselves by saying that every country is at a different stage of development. Therefore, the implementation of some part of the Declaration may be delayed till a later stage of the particular country's development which can mean indefinitely. Admittedly, there should be flexibility in the Declaration's implementation but the most basic human rights ( which will be discussed below ) must be put into effect immediately ( which should have been December 10, 1948 when the Declaration was signed and promulgated by 48 member states including all major countries at the time ) regardless of the stage of development of any signatory country. There is, in fact, an annual report by the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations on human rights issues arising in all countries especially those relating to serious human rights violations. Some perpetrator countries very often defend themselves by saying that other founding countries of the UN are also guilty of some human rights violations themselves. This is really a naïve argument. It is just like a murderer saying that he or she is innocent because other offenders have murdered more victims than the subject murderer has done. The fact is that all human rights abuses perpetrated by all countries must cease immediately and all perpetrators are guilty regardless of the number of offenses committed. No excuse whatsoever will be tolerated if we are to live in a humane society.
As citizens of all countries are constantly under the possible threats of being bullied by their governments ( sometimes even legally through unjust laws and discriminating behaviour ) a set of universal standards must be put in place to prevent this unfortunate situation from arising. To clarify the apparent contradiction in my above statement a government can persecute its citizens by enacting unjust laws which may be against natural justice. This situation most frequently happens in autocratic regimes with a single party dictatorship which can force the passage of unjust laws. Therefore, being legally bullied can actually happen in reality. We must be fully aware of the important difference between legal and fair. What is legal may not be fair in terms of natural justice. Very often autocratic governments use pretexts such as to maintain stability of the state, a perceived foreign threat or simply to treat any different opinion however constructive as subversion of the state to detain or imprison outspoken citizens or group. This can also happen to a lesser degree even with democratically elected governments when the politicians' interest or power is at risk. Power is the most corrupting thing on earth and all those in power will at some time or another abuse the power vested in them by their citizens. “ Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely “ ( by Lord Acton – British historian [1834-1902] ). This being the case with all governments and politicians a set of universal standards of human behaviour is indispensable. Another tactic adopted by some autocratic governments to delay the implementation of UN's Declaration of Human Rights is to excuse themselves by saying that every country is at a different stage of development. Therefore, the implementation of some part of the Declaration may be delayed till a later stage of the particular country's development which can mean indefinitely. Admittedly, there should be flexibility in the Declaration's implementation but the most basic human rights ( which will be discussed below ) must be put into effect immediately ( which should have been December 10, 1948 when the Declaration was signed and promulgated by 48 member states including all major countries at the time ) regardless of the stage of development of any signatory country. There is, in fact, an annual report by the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations on human rights issues arising in all countries especially those relating to serious human rights violations. Some perpetrator countries very often defend themselves by saying that other founding countries of the UN are also guilty of some human rights violations themselves. This is really a naïve argument. It is just like a murderer saying that he or she is innocent because other offenders have murdered more victims than the subject murderer has done. The fact is that all human rights abuses perpetrated by all countries must cease immediately and all perpetrators are guilty regardless of the number of offenses committed. No excuse whatsoever will be tolerated if we are to live in a humane society.
( 7 ) The most important human rights and putting them into practice
Which are the most important rights in the Declaration ? The short answer is that all rights spelled out in the UN Declaration are basic human rights and as such they are all important. Comparatively speaking, however, there are a number of rights directly affecting the immediate survival and security of the person which may be considered to have priority over the rest. It is worthwhile to scrutinize each article in the UN Declaration to find out which ones deserve higher priority so that the more urgent aspects of global human rights can be more closely and effectively monitored. Having said that we must not fall victim to the cunning argument by some anti-human rights governments that some rights with less priority can be with held pending better economic progress in less developed countries. I have dubbed this fallacy - “ the fallacy of assumed mutual exclusivity ( http://jkhcforum.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/thoughts-to-you-from-yours-truly-56-feb.html ) “. This is a very common fallacy that affects most of our decisions. Ever so often we find ourselves opposing a proposal, say to allocate a portion of the public budget to the welfare of animals on the ground that we still have many poor citizens that need attention. Behind all such seemingly reasonable arguments there is the implicit assumption that the choices in question are mutually exclusive. This is called the fallacy of assumed mutual exclusivity meaning that we can only have one without the other or that things are all mutually exclusive when we are faced with a choice. This fallacy can lead to excuses that justify inaction while we are morally obligated to do something in the face of injustice. For example, we may feel that we are excused from helping others when we still have some unsolved problems of our own or that we need not help those worse off than us when we are not well off ourselves. This cannot be farther from the truth. It is just an excuse to dodge our moral responsibilities. Next time when we are faced with a choice beware of this very common fallacy that can lead us to wrong conclusions or the shunning of our moral responsibilities.
Which are the most important rights in the Declaration ? The short answer is that all rights spelled out in the UN Declaration are basic human rights and as such they are all important. Comparatively speaking, however, there are a number of rights directly affecting the immediate survival and security of the person which may be considered to have priority over the rest. It is worthwhile to scrutinize each article in the UN Declaration to find out which ones deserve higher priority so that the more urgent aspects of global human rights can be more closely and effectively monitored. Having said that we must not fall victim to the cunning argument by some anti-human rights governments that some rights with less priority can be with held pending better economic progress in less developed countries. I have dubbed this fallacy - “ the fallacy of assumed mutual exclusivity ( http://jkhcforum.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/thoughts-to-you-from-yours-truly-56-feb.html ) “. This is a very common fallacy that affects most of our decisions. Ever so often we find ourselves opposing a proposal, say to allocate a portion of the public budget to the welfare of animals on the ground that we still have many poor citizens that need attention. Behind all such seemingly reasonable arguments there is the implicit assumption that the choices in question are mutually exclusive. This is called the fallacy of assumed mutual exclusivity meaning that we can only have one without the other or that things are all mutually exclusive when we are faced with a choice. This fallacy can lead to excuses that justify inaction while we are morally obligated to do something in the face of injustice. For example, we may feel that we are excused from helping others when we still have some unsolved problems of our own or that we need not help those worse off than us when we are not well off ourselves. This cannot be farther from the truth. It is just an excuse to dodge our moral responsibilities. Next time when we are faced with a choice beware of this very common fallacy that can lead us to wrong conclusions or the shunning of our moral responsibilities.
( a ) Scrutiny of each article
Now let us examine the articles of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights one by one.
Articles ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) deal with the need for equality for all people which has been covered in sections ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of this essay. There are no specific rights set out therein.
Articles ( 3 ) is of top priority as it ensures the right to life, liberty and security of person. There cannot be the slightest doubt about the absolute importance of these most basic human rights.
Article ( 4 ) rejects slavery in any form which is already implied in article ( 3 ).
Article ( 5 ) denounces cruelty and torture on any person which is again implied in security of person in article ( 3 ).
Article ( 6 ) and ( 7 ) spell out the equality of all before the law. This is also of top priority as article ( 3 ) with particular reference to the equality before the law. Both articles ( 6 ) and ( 7 ) imply there should be the rule of law in all member countries.
Article ( 8 ) deals with provision of legal recourse to abuses relating to basic human rights which is an extension of articles ( 6 ) and ( 7 ).
Article ( 9 ) is another practical aspect of the rule of law but it stands out alone as being a very important protection against arbitrary arrest and detention. It serves us well to note that it is another especially vital and practical aspect under the rule of law.
Articles ( 10 ) and ( 11 ) deal with the assumption of innocence of any person being prosecuted for alleged criminal offenses under the law. Furthermore, article ( 11 ) rejects back dating of laws and severity of punishment. These two articles are also within the realm of articles ( 6 ) and ( 7 ) regarding their practical aspects.
Article ( 12 ) deals with the sanctity of personal privacy which must not be arbitrarily invaded. Here, there arises a question of the degree of intrusion into personal privacy. Under national emergency situations such as war or natural disasters this right to privacy which may not caused immediate risks to citizens may have to give way for the common good. Suffice it to say that the intrusion must be kept to an absolute minimum and must be provided by law. The ideal arrangement is to allow legal recourse against such invasions when they actually occur.
Articles ( 13 ), ( 14 ) and ( 15 ) concern freedom of movement, allow asylum from persecution by any government as well as entitlement to a nationality. Apart from the entitlement to political asylum which must be granted based on the principle of natural justice both freedom of movement and the nationality issue are not absolute. Immigration control and other legal procedures have to be put in place to make immigration policies workable in practice. This is understandable.
Article ( 16 ) deals with freedom to get marry according to the individual's own choice and wish and equality before marriage laws. Here again, we must take particular cultural traditions into account unless they contravene the basic human rights.
Article ( 17 ) is one of the most important right to own property and the unassailable sanctity of private property ownership. Without protection of private property no one will be willing to work for a fair remuneration because the fruits of his or her hard work is not protected by law. The whole economy will crumble. We should remember from section ( 6 ) ( c ) above on the fallacy of the Socialist economic ideology and recognize that private ownership of property is the most important motivation for human efforts. Here, there is an even greater issue at stake. Without the protection of the sanctity of private ownership of property the state can seize private property at will to the detriment of the whole economy and society.
Articles ( 18 ) and ( 19 ) set out the rights to freedom of religion, thoughts and conscience and the free expression of opinion and ideas. These are important rights but are again not absolute. The ideal situation is again to provide legal recourse in case of government suppression. Article ( 20 ) allows freedom of peaceful assembly and association including freely joining trade unions. Similar comments to articles ( 18 ) and ( 19 ) are applicable.
Article ( 21 ) is an important right for citizens to take part in government of their own country. Most importantly, it guarantees the will of majority citizens shall be the basis for forming the government. In short, any governments must have a popular mandate from the majority of the citizens.
Articles ( 22 ) , ( 23 ) and ( 24 ) provide the right to social security and employment plus personal development. Protection of fair remuneration and right to minimum rest and leisure. These rights clearly have no set objective criteria. Only comparative standards between countries may be applied. Furthermore, different stage of economic development of different countries can be considered in their implementation.
Article ( 25 ) states the rights to adequate healthy care and living conditions with special care demanded for mothers and children because they are the future of our society. Similar reservations to articles ( 22 ), ( 23 ) and ( 24 ) are in order.
Articles ( 26 ) and ( 27 ) deal with the rights to minimum education and cultural development respectively. Obviously, these rights should be assessed in the context of the stage of economic development of the particular country in question.
Article ( 28 ) is the general provision that every citizen is entitled to a social and international order that make all the above basic human rights possible.
Article ( 29 ) on the other hand spells out the obligations of every citizen towards the country or community in which he or she is resident. This is the check and balance of rights and obligations that will ensure a smooth and fair society.
Article ( 30 ) proclaims that no government, group or individual is allowed to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms set out in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Now let us examine the articles of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights one by one.
Articles ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) deal with the need for equality for all people which has been covered in sections ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of this essay. There are no specific rights set out therein.
Articles ( 3 ) is of top priority as it ensures the right to life, liberty and security of person. There cannot be the slightest doubt about the absolute importance of these most basic human rights.
Article ( 4 ) rejects slavery in any form which is already implied in article ( 3 ).
Article ( 5 ) denounces cruelty and torture on any person which is again implied in security of person in article ( 3 ).
Article ( 6 ) and ( 7 ) spell out the equality of all before the law. This is also of top priority as article ( 3 ) with particular reference to the equality before the law. Both articles ( 6 ) and ( 7 ) imply there should be the rule of law in all member countries.
Article ( 8 ) deals with provision of legal recourse to abuses relating to basic human rights which is an extension of articles ( 6 ) and ( 7 ).
Article ( 9 ) is another practical aspect of the rule of law but it stands out alone as being a very important protection against arbitrary arrest and detention. It serves us well to note that it is another especially vital and practical aspect under the rule of law.
Articles ( 10 ) and ( 11 ) deal with the assumption of innocence of any person being prosecuted for alleged criminal offenses under the law. Furthermore, article ( 11 ) rejects back dating of laws and severity of punishment. These two articles are also within the realm of articles ( 6 ) and ( 7 ) regarding their practical aspects.
Article ( 12 ) deals with the sanctity of personal privacy which must not be arbitrarily invaded. Here, there arises a question of the degree of intrusion into personal privacy. Under national emergency situations such as war or natural disasters this right to privacy which may not caused immediate risks to citizens may have to give way for the common good. Suffice it to say that the intrusion must be kept to an absolute minimum and must be provided by law. The ideal arrangement is to allow legal recourse against such invasions when they actually occur.
Articles ( 13 ), ( 14 ) and ( 15 ) concern freedom of movement, allow asylum from persecution by any government as well as entitlement to a nationality. Apart from the entitlement to political asylum which must be granted based on the principle of natural justice both freedom of movement and the nationality issue are not absolute. Immigration control and other legal procedures have to be put in place to make immigration policies workable in practice. This is understandable.
Article ( 16 ) deals with freedom to get marry according to the individual's own choice and wish and equality before marriage laws. Here again, we must take particular cultural traditions into account unless they contravene the basic human rights.
Article ( 17 ) is one of the most important right to own property and the unassailable sanctity of private property ownership. Without protection of private property no one will be willing to work for a fair remuneration because the fruits of his or her hard work is not protected by law. The whole economy will crumble. We should remember from section ( 6 ) ( c ) above on the fallacy of the Socialist economic ideology and recognize that private ownership of property is the most important motivation for human efforts. Here, there is an even greater issue at stake. Without the protection of the sanctity of private ownership of property the state can seize private property at will to the detriment of the whole economy and society.
Articles ( 18 ) and ( 19 ) set out the rights to freedom of religion, thoughts and conscience and the free expression of opinion and ideas. These are important rights but are again not absolute. The ideal situation is again to provide legal recourse in case of government suppression. Article ( 20 ) allows freedom of peaceful assembly and association including freely joining trade unions. Similar comments to articles ( 18 ) and ( 19 ) are applicable.
Article ( 21 ) is an important right for citizens to take part in government of their own country. Most importantly, it guarantees the will of majority citizens shall be the basis for forming the government. In short, any governments must have a popular mandate from the majority of the citizens.
Articles ( 22 ) , ( 23 ) and ( 24 ) provide the right to social security and employment plus personal development. Protection of fair remuneration and right to minimum rest and leisure. These rights clearly have no set objective criteria. Only comparative standards between countries may be applied. Furthermore, different stage of economic development of different countries can be considered in their implementation.
Article ( 25 ) states the rights to adequate healthy care and living conditions with special care demanded for mothers and children because they are the future of our society. Similar reservations to articles ( 22 ), ( 23 ) and ( 24 ) are in order.
Articles ( 26 ) and ( 27 ) deal with the rights to minimum education and cultural development respectively. Obviously, these rights should be assessed in the context of the stage of economic development of the particular country in question.
Article ( 28 ) is the general provision that every citizen is entitled to a social and international order that make all the above basic human rights possible.
Article ( 29 ) on the other hand spells out the obligations of every citizen towards the country or community in which he or she is resident. This is the check and balance of rights and obligations that will ensure a smooth and fair society.
Article ( 30 ) proclaims that no government, group or individual is allowed to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms set out in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
( b ) The pivotal articles
Based on the above discussion and scrutiny the following articles of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human rights would appear to be the pivotal and most important of all basic human rights :- Article ( 3 ) :- The rights to life, liberty and security of person. Article ( 4 ) :- Freedom from slavery and servitude. Article ( 5 ) :- Freedom from cruelty and torture. Articles ( 6 ) & ( 7 ) :- Equality of all people before the law. Article ( 9 ) :- Freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention. Articles ( 10 ) and ( 11 ) :- Entitlement to presumption of innocence before proven guilty under criminal law and no back dating of laws and punishment. Article ( 17 ) :- The right to own private property without arbitrary deprivation. Article ( 21 ) :- Governments should derive their authority from majority citizen mandate as demonstrated through fair elections.
Based on the above discussion and scrutiny the following articles of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human rights would appear to be the pivotal and most important of all basic human rights :- Article ( 3 ) :- The rights to life, liberty and security of person. Article ( 4 ) :- Freedom from slavery and servitude. Article ( 5 ) :- Freedom from cruelty and torture. Articles ( 6 ) & ( 7 ) :- Equality of all people before the law. Article ( 9 ) :- Freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention. Articles ( 10 ) and ( 11 ) :- Entitlement to presumption of innocence before proven guilty under criminal law and no back dating of laws and punishment. Article ( 17 ) :- The right to own private property without arbitrary deprivation. Article ( 21 ) :- Governments should derive their authority from majority citizen mandate as demonstrated through fair elections.
( c ) The importance of rule of law to give effect to Declaration
Apart from the above pivotal articles the rest are either derivatives from or implied by the above vital rights. Furthermore, we should note that all pivotal rights must be put into effect and protected by the rule of law which must be unbiased and administered by an independent judiciary without fear or favour ( equality before the law ). This will require the separation of the three major branches of government – namely, legislative, judiciary and executive branches which are independent of one another. Clearly, this cannot happen under any autocratic system of government with a single party in power - a ruling party that cannot be replaced or voted out of office by the majority of citizens. As absolute power corrupts absolutely all sorts of vices and abuses of human rights become inevitable. The situation will become unmanageable from the human rights perspective and consequently become most intimidating to all citizens especially when the military machine is under the absolute control of the ruling party to which the military swears its loyalty. The last mentioned scenario is most common in all autocratic governments in reality. Human rights will become a luxury for most citizens under such circumstances and only those allied with the ruling party such as party members and their appointed officials will be able to enjoy all the privileges in terms of public resources.
Apart from the above pivotal articles the rest are either derivatives from or implied by the above vital rights. Furthermore, we should note that all pivotal rights must be put into effect and protected by the rule of law which must be unbiased and administered by an independent judiciary without fear or favour ( equality before the law ). This will require the separation of the three major branches of government – namely, legislative, judiciary and executive branches which are independent of one another. Clearly, this cannot happen under any autocratic system of government with a single party in power - a ruling party that cannot be replaced or voted out of office by the majority of citizens. As absolute power corrupts absolutely all sorts of vices and abuses of human rights become inevitable. The situation will become unmanageable from the human rights perspective and consequently become most intimidating to all citizens especially when the military machine is under the absolute control of the ruling party to which the military swears its loyalty. The last mentioned scenario is most common in all autocratic governments in reality. Human rights will become a luxury for most citizens under such circumstances and only those allied with the ruling party such as party members and their appointed officials will be able to enjoy all the privileges in terms of public resources.
( 8 ) Summary and recapitulation
Society exists for people. Not the other way round. We need a group of people to run our society. These are the government and politicians who derive their authority from the mandate given to them by the majority of citizens. Since power easily corrupts we must supervise the politicians carefully and properly to avoid abuses. Furthermore, as social and political affairs ( including government, international relationship as well as inter personal dealings ) are all conducted by people there must be a set of generally accepted standards of human behaviour to keep society running efficiently and fairly. Based on natural law and natural justice all people are born equal and therefore all should enjoy the same basic human rights. Such basic human rights have been recognized and embodied the United Nation's “ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights “ signed and proclaimed by 48 ( including all major countries ) member states on December 10, 1948. The Declaration sets out the basic human rights that must be protected in 30 articles contained in the Declaration. The most important of these rights include :- “ rights to life, liberty and security of person - freedom from slavery and servitude - freedom from cruelty and torture - equality of all people before the law - freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention - entitlement to presumption of innocence before proven guilty under criminal law and no back dating of laws and punishment - right to own private property without arbitrary deprivation - governments should derive their authority from majority citizen mandate as demonstrated through fair elections “ In order to put the basic rights into effect proper and fair laws have to be enacted to protect the basic human rights of all citizens against the state.
Therefore, the rule of law ( or a healthy, unbiased legal system that must be administered without fear or favour ) is of fundamental importance in the enactment of the relevant laws and protection of basic human rights. Without separating the three main branches of government – namely, the legislative, judiciary and executive branches – to make them independent of one another abuses of power will inevitably occur. Therefore, we must strive by all peaceful means to ensure that our own government must be democratically and fairly elected by the majority of citizens as stipulated in Article ( 21 ) 3. of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In turn, such a democratically and fairly elected government will derive its authority from the majority citizens' mandate to rule that country.
As can be easily seen from the above essay to understand the rationale behind the necessity of putting forward a set of universally accepted standards of human behaviour does not require sophisticated training in political philosophy. Simple everyday common sense will suffice. Only politicians with their own vested interests, political agenda and sinister motive will complicate the issue with a view to fooling the common citizens into letting those in power deny and delay the implementation of these basic human rights to achieve their own lust for power and control over everyone. This is why each and every citizen must learn and understand the rationale in support of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If needed we must defend it by all reasonable and peaceful means. Nobel laureate, the late Dr. Martin Luther King said this about people who passively accepts evil :- “ He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. “ ( in his book – “ Stride Towards Freedom “ ). This is a very sobering thought indeed.
Society exists for people. Not the other way round. We need a group of people to run our society. These are the government and politicians who derive their authority from the mandate given to them by the majority of citizens. Since power easily corrupts we must supervise the politicians carefully and properly to avoid abuses. Furthermore, as social and political affairs ( including government, international relationship as well as inter personal dealings ) are all conducted by people there must be a set of generally accepted standards of human behaviour to keep society running efficiently and fairly. Based on natural law and natural justice all people are born equal and therefore all should enjoy the same basic human rights. Such basic human rights have been recognized and embodied the United Nation's “ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights “ signed and proclaimed by 48 ( including all major countries ) member states on December 10, 1948. The Declaration sets out the basic human rights that must be protected in 30 articles contained in the Declaration. The most important of these rights include :- “ rights to life, liberty and security of person - freedom from slavery and servitude - freedom from cruelty and torture - equality of all people before the law - freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention - entitlement to presumption of innocence before proven guilty under criminal law and no back dating of laws and punishment - right to own private property without arbitrary deprivation - governments should derive their authority from majority citizen mandate as demonstrated through fair elections “ In order to put the basic rights into effect proper and fair laws have to be enacted to protect the basic human rights of all citizens against the state.
Therefore, the rule of law ( or a healthy, unbiased legal system that must be administered without fear or favour ) is of fundamental importance in the enactment of the relevant laws and protection of basic human rights. Without separating the three main branches of government – namely, the legislative, judiciary and executive branches – to make them independent of one another abuses of power will inevitably occur. Therefore, we must strive by all peaceful means to ensure that our own government must be democratically and fairly elected by the majority of citizens as stipulated in Article ( 21 ) 3. of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In turn, such a democratically and fairly elected government will derive its authority from the majority citizens' mandate to rule that country.
As can be easily seen from the above essay to understand the rationale behind the necessity of putting forward a set of universally accepted standards of human behaviour does not require sophisticated training in political philosophy. Simple everyday common sense will suffice. Only politicians with their own vested interests, political agenda and sinister motive will complicate the issue with a view to fooling the common citizens into letting those in power deny and delay the implementation of these basic human rights to achieve their own lust for power and control over everyone. This is why each and every citizen must learn and understand the rationale in support of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If needed we must defend it by all reasonable and peaceful means. Nobel laureate, the late Dr. Martin Luther King said this about people who passively accepts evil :- “ He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. “ ( in his book – “ Stride Towards Freedom “ ). This is a very sobering thought indeed.
Joseph K.H. Cheng
December 15, 2015.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/joseph-k-h-cheng/universal-standards-a-brief-visit/992499057474691
ReplyDelete