Thomas Edison, in conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone, March 1931
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
1. Possible or impossible?
when we erase borders and, sharing everything,
live for the sake of others."
It is not a big jump from a nation like the United States or Europe to a world government. The only difference is scale. Throughout history, From Alexander to Napoleon great personalities have gone to great pain to realize an ideal of unified government. It has never worked, not so much for lack of effort, or even opposition; but for a unifying system of communication and “cultural” adhesive.
In this day and age we not only have instant communication on every level from the individual through to trans-governmental bodies; but we also have a unifying system of “culture”: Hollywood: movies, TV, video, "the pop culture", etc. and the Dollar (substitute EU if you like) a universal currency/financial system.
It, then, is only a matter of time before the present governmental bodies become superfluous.
___________________________________
1 “Sapor” See Merriam-Webster definition for “culture”
(not to be confused with the Bismarckian “Kultur”)
___________________
2. Why? How would it be implemented? What prevents it being implemented?
"We better learn to live together first,Dangling Fury (A Philosopher from Montana)
think globally second,
and quit killing each other.
"Together we stand, divided we fall."
If not we all go up together in a mushroom cloud."
As stated above, it seems that the natural progression of ever more inclusive models of governance has been moving forward throughout history. The only thing preventing it from reaching a conclusion previously were the cohesive elements. They have arrived. Not only that; but the advance of science and ever more effective worldwide distribution systems have allowed everyone from pole to pole to participate in the “good life.” There are certainly pockets of poverty and disease as well as unrest but these are becoming smaller every year. Even in the case of natural disasters a united world level response cleans things up quickly and effectively.
On the other hand, Hollywood has never made a movie that represented a world government in glowing terms. It is usually always (except maybe “Star Trek”) displayed as an evil, big brother construct. I don’t know many evangelicals who run Hollywood, so other than some websites run by immature Americans, I wonder why the staunch cultural rejection of a world government? Perhaps we need to reflect more deeply on the negative connotations of Bismarckian “Kultur” in our "liberal" and "free" cultural media.
I would say that if people were nervous about a world government it would be for a more practical reason: Washington didn’t understand nor care about us after hurricane Katrina so how much harder would it be if the government were in Geneva? Even is a country as advanced and homogeneous as Japan the ineptitude of government in dealing with local natural disaster is staggering; and the over inflated self-pride that prevents others from picking up the ball slanderous.
Of course, conversely, the local leaders in Myanmar don’t seem to care about the people in Bogalay from Cyclone Nargis so a world government might be something the local people would very much appreciate. And the governments of the Indian Ocean, in desperation, reached out for immediate outside assistance after the Tsunami of December 26, 2004.
Frankly, if I were an Evangelical Christian and believed that a world government would facilitate the second coming of Christ, I would be in the front of the united world bandwagon. Unless, of course, unless I wasn’t so sure of what Christ might think of my lifestyle. Hmmmmm.
One road block to world governance being implemented, is not an imaginary devil but a real one: the patriotic feeling attached to smaller government units.
A second road block, and one ever so much more dangerous is religion.
There is one possibility for a model of government. This model, though very practical and a proven workable model, is perhaps the most dangerous to its neighbors and the world community. It is the Theocratic State. There have been many in history: Tibet, The Roman Catholic Empires (the sponsors of The Inquisition – not to be confused with the ever popular witch burnings of their Protestant imitators) which now only reside in the Vatican and of course the Islamic State. One may argue that the Islamic state is a democratic republic model with a president or king and parliament. I would suggest to them that they are quite naive and should look more closely at the history of Islam and the governmental system.
Sunni and Shiite squabbles have gone on for centuries and will likely continue and may become more openly hostile to each other. I believe that this open hostility is becoming more dangerous as the result of outside forces playing one against the other, esp. now in Iraq, the birth place of the Shia. Iran would surely like to recover its most holy places, which the "Americans" are responsible for desecrating.
As for Turkey and its historical hegemonic role, this could go either way. Would they join Europe? This would not solve and might even serve as a fuse to ignite more Kurd and Armenian resentments. Would they join The Islamic state? They in concert with their “brothers” would likely put their infighting to rest but is would possibly cause tension in Southern Europe where there is no reason to assume that Albania and Kosovo might not want to join the Islamic state as well. With Turkey in Europe, Europe is secure. With Turkey in the Islamic group things could ultimately be dicer. Either way, you still have Israel added to the mix, so the Middle East is a sensitive issue in any scenario for some time to come. (See Addendum 1)
Again we need to remember that in Islam there is no separation of religion and state. A king or president is only the head of a central organizing tool of state used as necessary to confront an outside force. The Saudi rule Saudi Arabia but the real powers are the religious leaders and Sharia court. For the neighbors of the Islamic state, this could possibly lead:
Addendum 1:
The Guardians of the Rock (Tradition!) vs. The Followers of Ali (THEM!)
Sunni and Shia are like twin brothers, one older by only a few minutes. One day the elder waylaid the younger whilst praying. The younger trusted the elder completely but was deceived. This younger brother never forgot and never forgave.
For the rest of their lives they have used every device and every neighbor to avenge the act and gain final victory over the other. The two brothers will never see eye to eye and will never support each other. They will never recognize the legitimacy of the other. The younger will never honor the elder until the elder apologizes and submits.
So, why doesn’t the older just apologize? He cannot because in so doing he must admit that he is NOT the older but the younger, in fact, is the rightful elder.
Thus, the neighbors (China, India, the US, Europe, Russia) are all played against each other as tools of revenge and one-upmanship. The errant uncle (Judaism) is irritating to them both and due for a good back-hand, but not actually germane to the struggle.
The Shiites believe that the descendents of Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib are the rightful leaders of Islam and the the House of Āl Suʿūd are the usurpers. Obviously, the Sunni do not.
An interesting note: Because of this split, the Shia have a “Second Coming” tradition. This leads to another interesting note: the Bahai are a “Second Coming” Shia heresy.
3. Can a paradigm be worked out? What kind?
Regardless of these “stumbling blocks,” we can see in Europe, where most of the strongest willed nationalists reside, borders are breaking down. And with the emergence of level heads in Islam, the step by step process of being cured of the disease of separation will move forward. Yes, there may be a few relapses, but the tide of history is moving forward in the recognition that the family of man lives in a very small house that needs to be properly cared for with everyone healthy, happy and hopeful of a safe future.
1. The United States model: Out of an initial few; a central government was formed. The new central government asserted authority over the few with limited success but with each additional state accrued more power to itself. Consolidated power to become a strong central government, constitutionally sharing power with the states; but for sake of argument, less and less. Human rights protected by the Bill of Rights. It is very hard to change the constitution. Three balancing divisions of central government.
2. The EU/UN model: A weak central government competing for power with the constituent parts. Each new state retains its independent government. Strong Legislative and Judicial but weak executive. The Legislative and Judicial bodies can effect changes in the constituent states, but the executive powers of foreign policy and defense are atrophied; little more than ceremonial. Human rights are protected in theory and tradition but practically by a mediocre constitution.
3. The Soviet Union/Peoples' Republic model: A strong hegemonic power asserting control over its clearly defined sphere of influence as recognized by hegemonic powers of equal influence. Any new states added have very little control over their internal affairs. The central government controls the state and the Legislative and Judicial are weak compared to the Executive. Constitutional protections and Law enforcement are directly affected by the Executive. Human Rights are protected but often diluted.
Any combination of the three is possible, including all three models competing in a hegemonic relationship with each other.
Nations are like families. You have some very prosperous and successful, some pitifully slow; but most are just roaming the middle going from day to day – the middle class of nation states.
A global “group hug” will not likely come all at once. Neighboring nations have issues with each other. Just ask Mexico about the US and China about Japan; Greece about Turkey. But it will come in increments sooner rather than later. After all, if ALL of Germany's neighbors can get along with Germany then the other relationships will work out too, eventually.
The "hegemonic" model requires on state powerful enough to provide the impetus to motivate the uity in the group. In today's world that impetus is likely to be economic rather than power, though power cannot be ruled out as an option. The "hegemony" may fade in time much like in the United States where in the beginning a few states held power over the smaller, but over time, that power was dispersed throughout the nation.
The regional hegemonic model, (each region initially centered on one causal state) with 6 or 7 hegemonic powers made up of the present "traditional spheres" will certainly come first. Some prosperous spheres will form first: North America (Canada-USA-Mexico) and Europe (West-East-Russia); with the middle class next: East Asia (Sino-Korea-Nippon), and the Indus region (India-Nepal-Southeast Asia) forming to counter balance the Sino-Korea-Nippon group with Latin America centered on Brazil following along. The Islamic group (Middle East-Central Asia-North Africa?) will take a bit longer and be a little trickier, and Turkey has to decide where to jump. The poor family of Africa, much like the Germanic states in Europe will take the longest but could potentially be strongest.
Some of these unions will be, perhaps more out of survival than desire: Russia with Europe as it will be otherwise caught between a resource desperate Sino group and an Islamic Central Asia. Japan will go with China as Taiwan and Korea fall in line and the USA bows to China’s wishes. Egypt and the North Africa Islamic states will join the Middle East, dividing Africa in half.
One very interesting possibility is that Mexico and the Hispanic migrant population in the USA could be the glue that binds all of North and South America into a single unit. If this happens, Europe and Africa could quickly join them. Then the single world government would be all but complete.
These powers will make alliances for their own benefits and may squabble like neighboring families but they will set up fences and agree not to steal each other’s apples. The beginnings of a global nation.
4. What about the EU, UN, Nato, IMF, WTO, ASEAN? What happens to these, can they be reformed to fit a one world paradigm?
In a unified world civilization it is unlikely that these organizations would be necessary, though some might take on the status of “NGO.” Most, Like the IMF and WTO would probably be rolled into government departments.
If, however, we are looking at the hegemonic model, it is quite possible that the 6 or 7 hegemonic powers (possibly made up of the present "traditional spheres") in relationship with each other, may use many of the above organizations as they now function . Even the UN may continue, perhaps constituting only a “Security Council.”
If, however, we are looking at the hegemonic model, it is quite possible that the 6 or 7 hegemonic powers (possibly made up of the present "traditional spheres") in relationship with each other, may use many of the above organizations as they now function . Even the UN may continue, perhaps constituting only a “Security Council.”
5. What about leadership and the rights of people?
The American model of the division of the three arms of government seems to be the safest. It is the most balanced. How the executive is constituted, whether a “presidential” system or prime minister or both a head of state and prime minister I leave to others.
The rights of the people are probably a thornier issue. While we might all agree that murder and racism are bad, do we all agree on freedom of the press? Freedom of religion (what is religion?), freedom of expression (how much is too much?)?
These rights, when agreed on, must be protected by a strong judiciary and rule of law (as well as respect for law) to prevent the whims of an executive from stepping on them.
The rights of the people are probably a thornier issue. While we might all agree that murder and racism are bad, do we all agree on freedom of the press? Freedom of religion (what is religion?), freedom of expression (how much is too much?)?
These rights, when agreed on, must be protected by a strong judiciary and rule of law (as well as respect for law) to prevent the whims of an executive from stepping on them.
6. Will this lead to collapse and therefore national paradigm again?
I would assume, if the government respects the value of human rights, people will be free to follow their hearts and express themselves through “culture”1. If human rights are broad enough; if people are free to home school or independently community school and raise their children in whatever surviving sapor are left then the world civilization will hold. The problem and breakdown will come when the rights of the minorities are trampled. These rights MUST be respected regardless of what the majority is comfortable with.
As stated above, the acknowledgement of human rights in the constitution is probably the thorniest issue and their debasement will be the most likely cause of the collapse of a unified world civilization, or at the very least, the chipping away at the edges –the ebb and flow of a united governance.
"For this reason, the success of a world government, or any government is directly relational to the percentage of the “image” of human rights that it puts into the “form” of law and practice." – LM Shea
As stated above, the acknowledgement of human rights in the constitution is probably the thorniest issue and their debasement will be the most likely cause of the collapse of a unified world civilization, or at the very least, the chipping away at the edges –the ebb and flow of a united governance.
7. What are the strengths and weaknesses?
Potential Weaknesses:
1. Educated ruling elite vs. a “trailer park” common mass.
2. Disconnect between governmental power and the rights of the people/minority.
3. Disrespect for the value and safety that a “separation of power” structure provides.
4. A leadership at any level that does not truly “feel your pain” and “understand your need” of those under it.
5. A complacent and docile population that would lead to any of the above.
Strengths:
1. Better able to care for the needs of the people, ensure peace and a stable society, and overcome the adversity of calamitous events quickly with minimum effort and cost.
2. Ensures respect for and the rights of ALL members of the society regardless of location on the planet and potentially “off.”
3. Allows for the balanced and equitable distribution of ALL aspects of civil benefits with total awareness of need as well as desire.
1. Educated ruling elite vs. a “trailer park” common mass.
2. Disconnect between governmental power and the rights of the people/minority.
3. Disrespect for the value and safety that a “separation of power” structure provides.
4. A leadership at any level that does not truly “feel your pain” and “understand your need” of those under it.
5. A complacent and docile population that would lead to any of the above.
Strengths:
1. Better able to care for the needs of the people, ensure peace and a stable society, and overcome the adversity of calamitous events quickly with minimum effort and cost.
2. Ensures respect for and the rights of ALL members of the society regardless of location on the planet and potentially “off.”
3. Allows for the balanced and equitable distribution of ALL aspects of civil benefits with total awareness of need as well as desire.
8. What is the quality of citizenry necessary to the quality of life in a peaceful world?
"... if the family is right the community will be right,Confucius
if the community is right then the state will be right,
if the state is right, then the nation will be right."
A peaceful world civilization cannot be created from the top down. That is a dictatorship of educated elite who believe that it knows best how "I" should lead my life. This is the foundation of an elitist leadership. It cannot last long.
World Peace begins in me and with my view of you. Do I respect you? Does my family respect your family? Does my community respect your community? Does my state respect your state? These are basic questions needing an answer because without this foundation a leadership will not arise that respects the people. This leads to the weaknesses pointed out above.
This leads to the value of education. The Marxists knew this very well and it is also one of the major reasons for the problem in the Japanese educational system. Conversely the Roman Catholic Church understands it, which is why the Catholic school system is so widely respected and parents of non-Catholics seek to send there children to its schools. Understanding this point by Moslems is also the reason why the Islamic fundamentalist Madrasa is so feared by the west, yet sought after by the parents of Islamic children. And why so many parents in the west are so desperate that they home school their children.
The only people who seem not to understand it are the people who need to – like politicians and local public school teachers.
What is central to education and when does it begin? Is science and math most important to being educated? How about art or history? What is the most important aspect of education.
If a scientist invents something what determines more than anything whether or not it will be used for the good of humankind or bad?
The fundamental component in education is “character” education. Without this aspect the addition of arts and sciences creates a person of dubious character who is likely to be short on ethics and concern for or respect for their fellow man.
The problem with modern western public education is that this component is lacking – until perhaps university when it is way too late to have an impact on the budding psyche. Why is it lacking? Because of the almost paranoia of separation of church and state, the teaching of moral education is lost to all but the private religious schools.
Because of the connection between instruction in morals and the connotations of morals and religion, instruction in the subject in a non-religious environment is avoided. Thus we are seeing the maturation of young people with a relativistic view of life and licentious lifestyle. They have little regard for authority or the feeling of others. This kind of person seeks power for power's sake and views the situation of others as of secondary importance to his/her own.
One of the most central individuals to effect the formation of this present trend in society, I believe, was Dr. Benjamin Spock. He’s theories of infant and childhood education and discipline, I would say, is a root cause of “the fall” of western civilization. A striking if not shocking thing to say, perhaps.
9. The Ideal: True Civilization
A “civilization” consisting of potentially thousands of mutually dependent yet unique autonomous states that guarantees the integrity of each, respecting the traditions of all; no member state rejecting such traditions, as accepted in any member state, from being practiced whole or in part within the boundary of its state; such civilization capable of maintaining the honor and integrity of every individual as a noble man/woman.
The guarantee of the free flow of citizenry to come and go, live and work in any corner of the civilization in compete security and respect for their person, family and tradition.
Education of the citizenry in the ideals of internal noble character, as recognized by all member states; as well as external knowledge in fields, as expected by the society, necessary to achieve success in life must be guaranteed.
Freedom from need, whether of health or happiness and the freedom to pursue goals by all members of the citizenry as well as the freedom to achieve fulfillment of reasonable expectations consistent with a responsible citizenry must be guaranteed.
The guarantee of the free flow of citizenry to come and go, live and work in any corner of the civilization in compete security and respect for their person, family and tradition.
Education of the citizenry in the ideals of internal noble character, as recognized by all member states; as well as external knowledge in fields, as expected by the society, necessary to achieve success in life must be guaranteed.
Freedom from need, whether of health or happiness and the freedom to pursue goals by all members of the citizenry as well as the freedom to achieve fulfillment of reasonable expectations consistent with a responsible citizenry must be guaranteed.
10. A World Government: Euro-Centric or Sino-Centric
"Reiko, call the travel agent. We need two tickets to “Capital City.” Where did you say that was again?"
Most Euro-American thinkers and idealists naturally (or UN-naturally) believe that the center of civilization will be Europe – Geneva? Or America – New York? Both UN cities. This thought in itself is racist and shows that we still have the “white man’s burden” to save the world and give it a proper government.
As I have written before, I have lived on four continents and in each I would have been quite comfortable with the capital of the United States being in any one of them.
If the world were to be united into 6-7 hegemonic spheres or eventually into one civilization, where is the "UN" or the capital?
The “capital” of the world has gone from Babylon to Rome to London to New York. Is there any reason to doubt that it will continue to move west?
Addendum 2:
Self-Refection in China - A House of Mirrors
China is an enigma even to itself. Unlike Japan when self-reflection of one is self-reflection of the nation, The “America” of Asia is a fruit pie of different peoples, each with a personality that cannot, nor has ever been, suppressed by the ruling state or empire.
While the “Han” are a homogenous people, they are no more homogeneous in thought than the “white” people of Europe or America. To imagine that they are “Chinese” as in “Japanese” is to live in a delusion.
When someone in China looks into a mirror what do they see?
Most Euro-American thinkers and idealists naturally (or UN-naturally) believe that the center of civilization will be Europe – Geneva? Or America – New York? Both UN cities. This thought in itself is racist and shows that we still have the “white man’s burden” to save the world and give it a proper government.
As I have written before, I have lived on four continents and in each I would have been quite comfortable with the capital of the United States being in any one of them.
If the world were to be united into 6-7 hegemonic spheres or eventually into one civilization, where is the "UN" or the capital?
The “capital” of the world has gone from Babylon to Rome to London to New York. Is there any reason to doubt that it will continue to move west?
Addendum 2:
Self-Refection in China - A House of Mirrors
China is an enigma even to itself. Unlike Japan when self-reflection of one is self-reflection of the nation, The “America” of Asia is a fruit pie of different peoples, each with a personality that cannot, nor has ever been, suppressed by the ruling state or empire.
While the “Han” are a homogenous people, they are no more homogeneous in thought than the “white” people of Europe or America. To imagine that they are “Chinese” as in “Japanese” is to live in a delusion.
When someone in China looks into a mirror what do they see?
Coming soon
11. Human Rights: Natural, Endowed, Inalienable, Illusion?
Foundations for Human Rights:
Where do human rights come from and are they absolute or relative?
We have two views of human rights.
The Traditional Theistic View:
The US Declaration of Independence
“ … We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….”
The Natural Rights View:
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"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."
Supposition:
If a person commits an act of any nature towards another, what is the response – positive or negative? If negative, we often say, they didn’t do “right” by you. Where does this feeling come from that things that happen to us by others is not “just life” but actually an offense against my person? If something happens and others did not intentionally commit the act then we can say, “that’s life.” One of the acts is defined as a crime, the other is "sorry, life happens".
If an injury is done to another by a person or state apparatus then we say that their rights were impinged upon or violated. As long as we have this feeling, we recognize a norm of relational conduct has been abrogated.
This is how we can understand the existence of rights and their value in the conduct of our life and relationships.
Are rights absolute? Do I have rights even though I do not recognize them? Do I have rights even if my government does not recognize them?
There are levels of rights. My rights as a citizen of one country may afford me different, greater or lesser rights than the citizen of another country; my rights as an executive or professor may allow me a wider range of rights than a line employee or student. These rights are relative to the position held.
We can say a person in an ancient society such as the Greek State of Athens has the rights associated with what that society recognizes as prudent, respectable human behavior, while the modern state of France would have all those same rights plus more. Socrates paid a heavy price for what a National Assembly member could do every day with impunity: express dissent. Does that mean that a citizen of France has more rights than a citizen of Athens? Yes and no. ......... What?
The relative rights of the immediate position: professor, student; boss, employee; citizen of Athens or France or the Congo changes. The absolute rights, from which those relative rights are derived, does not. We could say that “Human Rights” are the image and the “national rights” are the form. The form can be more or less encompassing of the image.
As we evolve in intellect we recognize the existence of the image more completely and are thus more able to avail ourselves of our “rights.”
Where does the “image” come from? According to your view, either from the creator God or the creator nature – it is inherent in the design. "Comes with the model." so to speak.
"For this reason, the success of a world government, or any government is directly relational to the percentage of the “image” of human rights that it puts into the “form” of law and practice." – LM Shea
Resources:
Philosophies of human rights"
“… Since by our (human) nature, we seek to maximize our well being, rights are prior to law, natural or institutional.” Thomas Hobbes
The theory of natural law (humankind's natural rights): a law set by nature and therefore is valid everywhere in nature. Natural law is the structure within which a rational human being seeks to survive, act and prosper.
A natural right is the concept of a universal right inherent in the nature of living beings, one that is not contingent upon laws or beliefs, but the right of human beings to follow their nature as a natural right antedating and not bestowed by government.
More considerations:
What are the qualities of the “Noble One?”
Is it prudent to control freedom?
Where does freedom of expression end and licentiousness begin?
Where does good moral conduct end and lasciviousness begin?
Are either one wrong?
What is sin?
Is sin specific to God or a term that defines an act? Sin = crime?
Are either of these characters undesirable or not? Why?
Lust (Latin, luxuria) or chastity
Gluttony (Latin, gula) or abstinence
Greed (Latin, avaritia) or generosity
Sloth (Latin, acedia) or diligence
Wrath (Latin, ira) or patience
Envy (Latin, invidia) or kindness
Pride (Latin, superbia) or humility
What about teaching morality? Is it valuable or not?
justice
temperance
fortitude
prudence
faith
hope
love
What is the definition of Ethics?
Are the ethics the same in America and China and India and the Congo?
Is there an "image" and "form" dynamic in Ethics? If so, what are some examples of this?
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
See:
10. Human Rights: The Universal Declaration Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Monday, May 12, 2008
11-A. Human Rights: The Universal Declaration
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Overview of the rights:
Article 1.
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 live, have 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 offence 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 defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, 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 offence 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 of 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.
Overview of the rights:
Article 1.
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 live, have 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 offence 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 defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, 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 offence 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 of 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
