UN massive fail

[MilitiaJim]

It has to have so many vague, weaseling compromises to be acceptable to Common Law nations, Civil Law nations, nations without the rule of law, and what have you.

So sleazily wishy washy it's worthless.  Unless I can print it on really fine paper, put it on a tube of cardboard, and skip the bidet.

It's better then nothing, probably.

I don't think so, and I don't think the UN has been useful over the past fifty-some years.

The only part of the UN that has been worth anything has been the WHO.  As some sort of moral authority, the UN is as useful as a mafia don.  

[MilitiaJim]

So men aren't endowed with an intellect that they may judge whether particular actions are good or evil?

Correct. 

Any application of intellect to morality is a product of training and indoctrination.  If training is based on false assumptions then it will be neigh impossible for people trained in that school to make good judgments, and while the UN's Declaration of Human Rights was constructed well enough to get it passed, it is not a good document.  In many ways it aids and abets evil, as the UN as a whole does.

[MilitiaJim]

Does the Declaration define conscience? What are you using as a definition for conscience? Here's my working definition: conscience is a judgment of the intellect concerning a particular course of action, whether past, present, or future, whether it be good or evil.

From Merriam-Webster Online
1 a: the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b: a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts c: the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego

[Falkus]

If it is not explicit, it is not there. 

It's not explicitly stated in the United States Constitution either, does that mean the Supreme Court was wrong in ruling that self defense is part of the Second Amendment?

And any document that states that people are endowed with conscience is already reasoning on faulty assumptions.

Does anybody, aside from the mentally ill, think that they're evil, think that their actions aren't justified by some moral code? All sane people have a conscience, but it's not an objective one, it's a self defined one.

I don't think so, and I don't think the UN has been useful over the past fifty-some years.

The Human Security Report of 2005 states that the UN is partially responsible for the global decrease in violent conflict and genocide since the end of the cold war.

1 a: the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b: a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts c: the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego

Conscience: A person's moral sense of right and wrong, chiefly as it affects their own behaviour

[MugMug]

Even if the UN was strong-armed because their rent was due, which meme I reject, that would certainly demonstrate the organization isn't worth much.

Any charter on human rights that does not include self defense is not worth the paper upon which it is printed.

Don't think I disagree. We share substantially the same views on this issue (and, I suspect from later posts in the thread, more generally on issues of liberty and probably governance).

It's not explicitly stated in the United States Constitution either, does that mean the Supreme Court was wrong in ruling that self defense is part of the Second Amendment?

However, the U.S. Constitution is explicit in preserving the means of defending liberty (to include life) -- the 2nd Amendment [EDIT: and, more indirectly, the 1st Amendment]. Further, in reading documents of the time related to formation and adoption of the Constitution it is clear that 1) this simply enumerates a natural (i.e. innate, not granted by the State) right [Federalist #84]; and 2) the enumerated right serves as defense against tyranny (largely from the State, but any source applies) [Webster, Noah. (1787). An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution.].

Incidentally, as an amusing note transparently intended to divert an otherwise serious discussion, the Constitution grants Congress the power to grant Letters or Marque. I sense a mission arc, or even an entire campaign.

Walter

[Bill Whitmore]

Even if the UN was strong-armed because their rent was due, which meme I reject, that would certainly demonstrate the organization isn't worth much.

Any charter on human rights that does not include self defense is not worth the paper upon which it is printed.

Don't think I disagree. We share substantially the same views on this issue (and, I suspect from later posts in the thread, more generally on issues of liberty and probably governance).

It's not explicitly stated in the United States Constitution either, does that mean the Supreme Court was wrong in ruling that self defense is part of the Second Amendment?

However, the U.S. Constitution is explicit in preserving the means of defending liberty (to include life) -- the 2nd Amendment [EDIT: and, more indirectly, the 1st Amendment]. Further, in reading documents of the time related to formation and adoption of the Constitution it is clear that 1) this simply enumerates a natural (i.e. innate, not granted by the State) right [Federalist #84]; and 2) the enumerated right serves as defense against tyranny (largely from the State, but any source applies) [Webster, Noah. (1787). An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution.].

Incidentally, as an amusing note transparently intended to divert an otherwise serious discussion, the Constitution grants Congress the power to grant Letters or Marque. I sense a mission arc, or even an entire campaign.

Walter

That last part was the core idea used in my last campaign.  The idea was that the people got fed up with the CIA's tactics and the operation divisions were disbanded, though the information analysis portions were kept in place.  Then, private organizations sprung up to fill the vacant niche left behind, usually headed by former CIA officials that left during the downsizing.  The governement then gave these organizations the power to act in the defense of the state, with the old CIA being used as a information repository.  Any of the private agencies were required to report their activities to the CIA but they all had access to the information contained, if deemed relevant to a case they were working on.

Since the most successful agencies got the most funding, this led to some potential inter-agency rivalries.

[MilitiaJim]

It's not explicitly stated in the United States Constitution either, does that mean the Supreme Court was wrong in ruling that self defense is part of the Second Amendment?

You know what?  You're right.  The purpose of self defense is not mentioned in the Second Amendment.  It does say that no government can lawfully deprive you of weapons.  (That when a government does try it is the Duty of the citizens to overthrow that government is spoken to by the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist papers.)  But what is the point of rights if you have no way to defend them?

On a lighter note, this ex-CIA group sounds like their worth joining.  Any chance we can get paid to bump off Robert Mugabe?

[OverNinja]

On a lighter note, this ex-CIA group sounds like their worth joining.  Any chance we can get paid to bump off Robert Mugabe?

You missed the last two opportunities: UN meeting in Rome and the African Union meeting in Cairo.
But since he likes summits such occasions present the best opportunities.

[Krensky]

Technically, although the right of self defense exists in US legal philosophy, there is no protection of it in the Constitution beyond the Tenth Amendment and the acceptance of natural and common law.

Personally, I always interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting me against unreasonable shoulder dislocation and amputation and my right to wear a t-shirt or tank-top.

[Golden Dragon]

Technically, although the right of self defense exists in US legal philosophy, there is no protection of it in the Constitution beyond the Tenth Amendment and the acceptance of natural and common law.

But then I don't read the Constitution as trying to enumerate all of our rights.

I remember a George Will editorial about the European Constitution, where he said that the purpose of a Constitution is to divide power. Nowadays, we want to use them to enshrine policy choices so that they are practically irreversible.

[MilitiaJim]

I think self defense is mentioned in a few state constitutions, though I haven't checked enough to back that up with anything.

And about Mugabe, every time I see those "save the children" people on the street I feel tempted to ask if they're putting together funds to whack Mugabe and others of his ilk to make some of these countries safer for their people.  I need to stop being in such a hurry when I go walking.

[MilitiaJim]

But then I don't read the Constitution as trying to enumerate all of our rights.

It doesn't try.  The Bill of Rights is a list of areas that are to remain free of governmental interference.  Most are designed to defend against a tyranical government.  (Much more of a danger, especially when you consider the logistics of invading across an ocean and finding an armed and hostile populace.)

[Krensky]

Please note my tenth amendment reference. That's the one that roughly says "If we didn't mention it already, the federal government can't do it."

[MilitiaJim]

Please note my tenth amendment reference. That's the one that roughly says "If we didn't mention it already, the federal government can't do it."

Huzzah!  Now I just need to become chief justice of the supreme court so I can declare over reaching bureaucracies unconstitutional.  Can I have congress-critters hanged for contempt of court they exhibit in drafting laws?  That would be nice.  (That dragnet would get most of them and good riddance.)

And about Mugabe, every time I see those "save the children" people on the street I feel tempted to ask if they're putting together funds to whack Mugabe and others of his ilk to make some of these countries safer for their people.  I need to stop being in such a hurry when I go walking.

[Wolverine]

You missed the last two opportunities: UN meeting in Rome and the African Union meeting in Cairo.
But since he likes summits such occasions present the best opportunities.

Ahh, if only it was that simple. Taking down Mugabe would turn him into a martyr amongst his followers (who are maniacal enough already) and send the country into a downward spiral which would lead into further violence. You would also have many other African nations falling in behind them in support. Not the best situation for any country to get into.