Human rights

I believe that human rights have to be in the context of a country's economic status and communitarian values.

For any country, human rights develop over a very long period of time. It took the French Revolution before Europe became, to some extent, more democratized. Everything takes time. An individual's human rights is based on the notion that he/she will not infringe on another's or do damage to another human being. This is a social contract which only financially comfortable individuals can aspire toward. A person without money will only think of making money. He/she will not be that concerned with philosophical theories. Even when a poor person heeds philosophy, it cannot be avoided that the person will only see it in the context of how it can benefit him. The person will not see the clear rationale of benefiting other people. The person will only want to think of "me, myself, and I".

Human rights is primarily based on benefiting others, thereby benefiting oneself. Do you honestly see a poor person thinking of food to put on the table to be able to see that? Thus, rich, democratized countries going in to "liberate" other countries is a foolish act performed behind the zealous smokescreen of human rights.

So long as there is no excessive injustice and exploitation, and there are just and capable leaders in the government, is there an excessive need of this noble but sometimes inaccurate application of ideology?

Even when a country excels economically, I also believe in human rights in the communitarian context. Stability is of utmost importance. Since the basis of liberalism is based on a social contract with the end result of stability to resolve the state of nature, is it that wrong that it must be seen in this way? If Hobbes and Locke were still alive, I'm sure that they would want to see it apply in the communitarian context as well.

And this means not speaking irresponsibly, and speaking only when backed with concrete facts. And most importantly, it must be constructive.

Assuming, let's say, that a particular country has complete free speech, but certain ideas or exposition of certain truths will undermine the whole social fabric which is otherwise mostly just, and acts in the best interest of the people. Would you then still advocate complete free speech?

Let me put it in another way to make it simpler. If your parents told you that they do not like a particular act of a relative, and told you to keep it to yourself - assuming if you told that relative what your parents said, it may lead to fallout, as this issue is sensitive. You yourself like this particular relative a lot. Other than that act, all of you get along very well. My question then is- Would you still tell your relative what your parents said?

If you answered "yes" to this question, I have nothing to say. If you answered "no", then I would have conveyed my message.

Politics Saving the Tigers from extinction It was a hurriedly organized citizen’s meeting at Guwahati Press Club, where serious concerns were expressed at the increasing trend of poaching and killing of wildlife in various parts of Assam. more Factzone: The truth about Kim Jong Il 20.Dec 2011 Kim Jong Il, the leader of the free world, has decided to move on to more ferti...read Top 5 Conspiracy Theories Related to John F. Kennedy's Assassination 26.Aug 2011 Since just after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, conspiracy theories abou...read ISRAEL KEEPING GHADDAFI AFLOAT 10.Mar 2011 ...read Glen Beck Is NOT the Anti-Christ! 10.Mar 2011 Hurtful and fiery rhetoric is now media’s default setting! This slippery and m...read Recipe for A REVOLUTION! (10 easy steps - try not to get burned!) THE ASSANGE CASE. CIA INTERFERED WITH SWEDISH LEGAL PROCESSES EXTREME RIGHT POLITICS A DANGER TO EUROPEAN UNITY Opinion The EIP factor - what you should learn from it When we grow older, or get older for the sake of the argument, we tend to start seeing the world only from one side. We tend to believe, no, not believe but know, how things are done. If you are smart, you understand that it shouldn't be that way, you understand this is wrong. more The fight against cyber-censorship 26.Apr 2012 The fight against cybercensorship is more essential than ever. By creating blog...read ET TU, ELAD? or ISRAELIS THINK NETANYAHU IS ON THEIR SIDE 27.Feb 2012 Elad Pressman, to my mind, is Israel's leading deep investigative journalist. T...read World governments charged with criminal negligence (in response to Megaupload case) 22.Jan 2012 EARTH (thecheers.org) - Federal authorities of the universe have charged the go...read The Great OSCARS 2011 – or so it would seem 5.Mar 2011 So, how exciting......a morning off, the Academy Awards. I wish I could say the...read

Travel Teens think life's a box of chocolate, Birdgestone begs to differ 26.Apr 2012 Well, not exactly, but Bridgestone has brought some additional attention to a t...read more Travel Warning 13 September 2010 - DO NOT TRAVEL TO IRAN 13.Sep 2010 TRAVELWISE has been watching the situation in Iran for some months in relation ...read TRAVELWISE TRAVEL ADVISORY 5th June 2010. DO NOT TRAVEL TO ISRAEL. 5.Jun 2010 Given the recent incident whereby the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, used...read TRAVELWISE. 16 APRIL 2010. EUROPEAN TRAVEL ALTERNATIVES 16.Apr 2010 Travelwise issues the following advice in relation to cancelled flights to, fro...read TRAVELWISE 6 APRIL 2010. AUSTRALIAN AIR TRAVEL. THE BEST WAYS TO TRAVEL BY AIR IN AUSTRALIA. 5.Apr 2010 Regular readers might have seen and read the various advisory and no-fly notice...read Sport No Payoff From the Playoffs $16.50 will Get Anyone in the Hall Mr McGwire Stupid Athlete Tricks Technology Pack 'n Go Publishing Taxi Of Tomorrow: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg goes with Nissan Think Big! Think the World's Largest International Trade Show Cheers Jesus' Answering Machine Brown Couch or twelve midgets in the town square How To Be Happy Drugged Out Saturday Nights Muslim Decapitation: Bad, or Simply Misunderstood?