🚀 go-pugleaf

look@my.sig (Geoff) wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 23:24:46 GMT, d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss)
>wrote:

>>weaver1@world.std.com (Frank Weaver) wrote:
>>
>>
>*snip*
>>>document, AFAIK, but prominent in an American one). 
>>
>>Australia is a signatory to the UN universal declaration of human
>>rights, so I can confidently quote:
>>
>>"Article 3:
>>Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

>>Since the declaration in an international treaty, the federal
>>government can legally enforce it among the States under the external
>>affairs powers in the Australian Constitution.

>You've already lost this point several times, David. Where does it say
>the right is inalienable? Why do you believe 'right' equals 'can be
>forced to'?

You surprise me twice in only one paragraph Geoff.
First when you claim I have already lost this point several times,
when we both know this isn't true. Second when you left such a glaring
opening for me.

The rights described in the UN declaration are indeed inalienable, as
stated in the first paragraph of its 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,"

You also ask why  I believe 'right' equals 'can be forced to'.
I don't.

I believe 'right' equals 'can not be given up or assigned'.
For instance I have a right to free speech, yet I can choose to remain
silent. That doesn't mean someone else has the right to prevent me
speaking should I change my mind.

Similarly I have a right to life. I can choose to deprive myself of
life voluntarily, but no-one else has the right to kill me because
that  act would deprive me of any further opportunity to exercise  my
inalienable right to life.

>I guess your next trick will be to force an end to volunteer work,
>because everyone has a right to equal pay, don't they, and if one
>person is a volunteer and another is paid for the same work, the
>volunteer is obviously abrogating the other persons rights.

I seem to remember that argument surfacing during the Weipa industrial
dispute, and didn't you argue against it ?

The difference in that case (as with volunteers) is that the salary
workers have a contract of employment. In this case the award workers
have an award agreement. The employer can expect certain conditions to
be adhered to as consideration for the agreement, and provides an
award wage as his/her own consideration. There is a buying and selling
of expectations as well as labour and productivity. The same is not
true of a volunteer, who is free to work, or not, without loss of
renumeration.

>Time you got the dictionary out. Start with 'morality' and then move
>to 'consistent'.

You are beginning to resemble  Rip Van Winkle, Geoff.
You have been asleep on this issue for so long you have forgotten who
posts checkable facts, and who makes things up as they go along.
(Peter Mackay has a particularly good description of what you just
tried to do)

To refresh your memory I have a copy of the UN Declaration of Human
Rights on-line at my Australian Politics Resource, under
"13.Legislation and documents ", just under the Euthanasia issue.

David Moss,
personal opinion only.
try http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics for Australian Politics