What are these "universal human rights" of which some of you Earthlings speak?
After promoting the virtues of Chinese and American cooperation at the ceremony, the president — the 2009 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize — used the ceremony to deliver a gentle reminder to China, which is holding the 2010 winner of the prize, Liu Xiaobo, as a political prisoner.
“We also know this,” the president said: “History shows that societies are more harmonious, nations are more successful and the world is more just when the rights and responsibilities of all nations and all people are upheld, including the universal rights of every human being.”
At one end of the human rights spectrum are those rights people have just because they are alive -- call them "God-Given" or "natural" as you beliefs dictate. Such things as "life, liberty and the pursuit" of happiness transcend all governments and are not to be violated, ever. At the other end are civil rights, those priveleges granted by government as part of the social contract. They are a product of citizenship; we give up certain freedoms for certain securities. We may use the road as long as we obey the rules of the road, which are subject to change.
There is something in between? There is no such thing as citizenship of the world, as much as some of the dreamers among us might wish there were, so no social contract is possible with the whole world, and if it were, it would be a pretty scary situation. What kind of bill of rights would it be that included things agreed to by both Sweden and Iran? "Universal human rights" is geopolitical gibberish for "You don't treat your people very nice, and if we wrote your social contract, the world would be a much nicer place."
Comments
"At the other end are civil rights, those priveleges [sic] granted by government as part of the social contract."
I really hope you're not referring to the Bill of Rights, because if you are, you surely don't understand what's going on there.
Leo, I know a lot of people like to talk about natural rights or God given rights; but, I submit that this too is just a bunch of happy talk. Rights aren't much more than empty words unless enforced, and without government rights aren't going to be enforced. God or Nature hasn't shown an inclination for intervening to make sure rights are not violated or vindicated after they're violated.
So, my question is, practically speaking, how do "life, liberty, and happiness," transcend the need for government enforcement in a way that's different from "civil rights" or "universal human rights" or whatever?