Roger Scruton: How Socialism got Repackaged into Human Rights
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2024
- Sir Roger Scruton made these remarks while delivering an address to the Institute of Public Affairs, Australia’s premier free market think tank. To learn more about the work of the IPA, visit www.ipa.org.au.
Sir Roger Vernon Scruton is an English philosopher and writer who specialises in aesthetics and political philosophy, particularly in the furtherance of traditionalist conservative views.
In recent years he taught courses in Buckingham University, Oxford University and University of St. Andrews.
In this clip, he talks about human rights and socialism. Complete videos edited with permission:
• Roger Scruton: Liberty...
--
This channel aims at extracting central points of presentations into short clips. If you like the content, subscribe to the channel!
If you enjoy this talk, also check out Roger Scruton on "How Fake Subjects like Women Studies Invaded Academia": czcams.com/video/98tWAHAv2BI/video.html
marrakech compact on migration
the UN is pushing this on us, even though the USA said no to this... and they promised they wouldn't force migration onto any nation that didn't want it
Practical Idealism: The Kalergi Plan to destroy European peoples Paperback - January 14, 2019
by Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi (Author)
Paneuropean Union - president Alain Terrenoire
this is the group behind this movement
"There is an extraordinary ability of people to take offence when it suits them." Spot on.
@reallity9 , and Roger Scrotun are offended of people that are offended, that shows him as a idiotic retard.
A classic & true comment " By the time it's got to rule 26, we know that's something gone wrong" 😬
Well, Im phobo-phobo-phobic, It means I take offense to your offense of my offense, and since its a phobia you have to respect my offense to you.
Im afraid not for us, but for our children and their children and how the death and suffering of socialism and communism will be forgotten as our education
systems are plagued.
I am offended and will now state a thing about myself that means that my offence is more important than your offence. And if you are offended by that then you are doing violence to me.
@ eric, I understand joking aside it seems there are young adults now that want the real world to reflect the safespace daycare institutions that they have graduated from. The reality is that the real world workplace can and sometimes does kick the shit out of you. Even in Leftist leaning institutions your going to find people that behave unfairly and what have these kids been trained to do? Cry about it? There is no spine in Democrats but they sure want everyone to just roll over its beyond ridiculous and meanwhile at the top is nothing but a bunch of criminals that just haven't been caught yet.
A classic example of knowledge, experience and wisdom in action. Beautifully articulated, and so bang on the money.
Articulation is not necessarily the same as intelligence.
@@stephenrioux6821
Your point is?
This is a classic example of superficiality and deepity.
Calling Liberalism "Socialism" is as bad as calling Farrakhan "White supremacist".
But one needs proper education to see this.
@@Conserpov
Well, one lives and learns!
@tipple58, yes he is very articulated and use a lot of words to explain on that he is offended by people that are offended HAHAHAHA..........
My father always tells me that for every right there is an obligation. Yes, you have the right to speak freely, but then you have the obligation of thinking about what you say. You have the right of having drinkable water, but then you also have the obligation of taking care of that water. It's not a "the government gives you all you want" mindset, it´s a "If you get something show that you care for it". People is always asking for rights and so on, nothing wrong there, I think the problem begins when they don't take responsibility of the obligation that comes with that right.
As an example: imagine we have a cake, perfectly divisable in 8 pieces. Then, I cut the cake to get my piece, fair enough. The problem is when I cut a piece in the middle of the cake and create a massive hole, because while I did only grab what corresponded to me I grabbed it in a way that hurt everyone else's piece.
Are you describing Screwtop??
I commend your father however it is even more than he told you, the relationship between rights and obligations is not solely within you, but one that is imposed upon others by those who have the right. The correct understanding therefore is if you have the right to express your opinion, then everyone else has the obligation to listen to your opinion. It is, naturally, a nonsense right.
My experience has been that people confuse rights with privileges.
When he started talking about the “extra” rights, those which can’t necessarily be achieved by an individual, I noticed that there’s a difference there.
The first rights, freedom of speech, thought, religion, to pursue happiness etc. are all “the right to DO something”.
The latter rights, to health, education etc. are all “the right to HAVE something”.
Maybe that distinction is something to look out for. Once people start demanding the right to HAVE, it requires others to DO (and thereby implicitly limits their freedom).
Good point to think about
@@ahmedabdullahi8180
Why would there need to be an opposite? I’m not making the claim that different kinds of right are “opposites”. Only that they are different in that some are the right to DO something (like express yourself freely), the others are right to HAVE something (like an education).
By the way I personally think that society should offer free education and health care, if nothing else because it’s beneficial to society as a whole to have an educated and healthy work force. But it’s a political decision, not a right.
@@ahmedabdullahi8180
You pay for the gun yourself don’t you? You have the right to use your own money to buy a gun.
The right to an education would necessarily mean the right to spend other people’s money.
That’s the difference.
@@ahmedabdullahi8180 A rich benefactor doesn't change a thing. Everyone still has a right to buy a gun or a semester.
@@OddityDK The right to an education would not mean the right to other's money. Some people think that, because public education is the only paradigm they operate in.
Any antidiscrimination law that doen’t include every group is in itself discrimstory. Bring that to the courts.
They will never be able to grasp that because they think too myopically. They think that just because they use the term "anti-discrimination" that whatever they say after it is inherently right.
@@billmelater6470 😱
With all that has been seen of the hateful outcomes and the stupidity of legislating for discrimination against so called 'minorities' we still have the awful 18C bill. Please God conservatives stop being cowed into submission to the Left and re group and get on with standing up for the values they are supposed to represent and maybe just maybe they would get back into a majority in both houses and wipe this legislation off the books.
Which groups are being excluded?
@@billmelater6470 No, it is your myopia, self pity and inadequacy that is the issue.
This is yet ANOTHER great mind of whom I only became aware after his passing. Hitch was the first and greatest loss. This gentleman is equally worthy. Now that I've retired I can see myself doing some serious binge watching to catch up.
I miss Hitch whenever the public issues of today come up. And Hitch was no conservative. But he resisted any force he deemed infringing on the inherent rights of man, so he of course would have loved to do battle with today's loony left.
He's a great mind, Liberalism is Socialism, and Saddam's WMD is real. Hilarious.
The only way you can have a right "to have" is if you have the ability to take from someone who does. You can't have a right to "have a house" because the house must be built, just as such basic necessities as food or water must be acquired and do not appear by magic. It does not come to you "by right". These things must be pursued and worked for. It is only the pursuit of those things that can be logically considered a right. Any right to guarantee of result is a fanciful nonsense notion. For you to have a right to those things or anything, someone else must then be required by whatever force necessary to provide it if you do not or cannot do so for yourself. For you to have this positive right to other people, means that they do not have the right to refuse or require prior compensation and by extension, it cannot then be held that a person owns themselves in their entirety since other people will then have a claim on you. This internally contradictory stance opens up a host of violations with regards to personal rights. Socialism is built on that contradiction and is antithetical to rights.
And so begins the "But what about people who ______" attempts at rebuttal to the above. To them I will redirect you to that very same above statement. Someone not having does not undo or otherwise refute what I have said. What I pointed out is a very basic reality.
Yep, proclaiming you have a "right" to housing or food is essentially saying you have a right to enslave other people.
Well said.
They're basically confusing rights with entitlements.
My right to bear arms does not mean I get a government issued Smith & Wesson.
I actually don't even agree with their concept of entitlements either.
Brilliantly stated. The small second paragraph nails it.
Free everything! Just need 80% of your paychecks
William Dinkel
"Force you to pay for" Does not sound as good as "Free"
Discrimination is a virtue and tolerance is worthless without integrity.
The goal of communism (alias socialism) "is to remake society according to a new model." Actually it tries to remake humans, and have always call for the creation of a "new man."
Yep
Socialism makes the mistake of profoundly misunderstanding humanity itself. It is idealism without regard to reality of humankind.
It's a religious movement and new cults are always trying to recreate humanity in a form that they find satisfactory. That necessitates violence against the recalcitrant. What we're having is a religious war masquerading as politics.
I bet you also believe in Saddam's WMD.
Communism is like another religion. Everyone has to be completely brainwashed for it to stay in power.
Fantastic speech. I love it when the Brits drop some elbows on the regressive left. They're so dignified and proper whilst dealing with these screeching idiots that it's like watching a butler tossing out a rabid opossum that wandered into some wealthy guys estate. "Oh I say, this will not do at all. Off you go." as he whips it over the fence by its tail.
Hear hear
Good show
Do you think we have many opossums in the British countryside?
@@therespectedlex9794 Do you not know that we have many British butlers in the great houses of possum country in America?
@@dixonpinfold2582 Ah, so it wasn't just Bruce Wayne. Fair enough old bean.
brilliant! i'll be checking out more by Scruton.
Check out David Irving as well.
@@SgtSteel1 thx for the suggestion!
What a beautiful and brilliant man.
who cannot draw a proper breath and speaks like Hugh Grant. Utterly tiresome.
love your channel, always good quality videos
Society is not like Hegel’s step pyramid, but more like a plumbing system or computer software system, because when you try to fix something, you usually always create several other problems. These problems are unintentional side effects. I think the term has a name, but I do not recall now. The system changes to the circumstances, which can be productive, efficient or also backwards.
2:30 - 3:20 bravo! This generation needs to understand the difference between a right and want. The former is guaranteed, the latter is up to us!
You need to understand the difference between Liberalism and Socialism.
You can tell when someone is really intelligent, they don't spent too much time worrying about their appearances. :0)
Really intelligent.....that was funny
I knew there must be some good reason I dress badly.
Claims not only against the public purse, but also language, speech, law ... everything that the state could possibly enforce by force.
Scruton has written an interesting book on social liberals and left-wing intellectuals. Being a conservative, Scruton convinced me to become a social liberal. The power of freedom of thought, the main liberal value...
Just being exposed to this intelligent and articulate Man , Thankyou !
he looks like he got changed in a hurry after taking the 4th form to P.E.
Without individual rights, individuals are screwed.
Using "I Robot" logic (the movie, not the novel), "To guarantee human rights, human rights have to be curtailed."
Excellent analysis.
We have a new right that comes under non-discrimination here in the US - the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of ability.
You got the right to do whatever we tell you to do without question, sounds about right.
'THE OFFENCE MACHINE.'
SO TRUE. 👍
our whole way of life has been threatened for decades and we're just like 'this is fine'.
We're sheep.
He personally enjoyed all these rights just like everybody else in Western societies who condemn them. Excesses are to be condemned but ridiculing them altogether is questionable at best.
A massive intrusion into the sovereignty of the individual...
Fuck..just the title is so enlightening . Never thought about this topic with these words .
Marx hidden in morality
You basically said that you didn't read a single book in your life. Not just Marx, but any book.
"A Conflict of Visions"
These rights have been described as negative & positive liberty. Negative liberty being classical liberalism, and is the first government Sir Scruton described. The state exists to maintain order so people associate & act of their own free will, unable to coerce each other. The second is the idea that people are entitled to some material, that the government must provide. The former preserves a free society that maximises individual agency. The latter demands the state create an equal playing field. Whether it be economically or socially, the belief is that the government must act upon an individual's behalf through collective force. "Positive liberty" (represented though Social Liberalism & Progressivism), despite good intentions, gradually sees the reductions of liberty and the expansion of state powers.
In the first example people are free and self-responsible. This will inevitably produce inequalities, as some will make better decisions that others, and be dealt better hands by life. It creates a society where people voluntarily engage with each other, as the only way to take someone's wealth, time, ect... is through free will.
In the second people are entitled, and ultimately can use the state apparatus to compensate for the disparities present in life. There is the expectations & laws that society must be made to act a certain way, or fund a certain program. Individualism is curtailed if the state deems it necessary.
"Positive liberty" is not liberty. It is statism parading as liberalism.
A few quotes by Sir Roger Scruton,
“A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.”
“Intellectuals are naturally attracted by the idea of a planned society, in the belief that they will be in charge of it.”
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power- directed system of thought.”
“Conservatism starts from a sentiment that all mature people can readily share: the sentiment that good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created.”
“Beauty is an ultimate value-something that we pursue for its own sake, and for the pursuit of which no further reason need be given. Beauty should therefore be compared to truth and goodness, one member of a trio of ultimate values which justify our rational inclinations.”
“It is an ancient view that truth, goodness, and beauty cannot, in the end, conflict. Maybe the degeneration of beauty into kitsch comes precisely from the postmodern loss of truthfulness, and with it the loss of moral direction.”
Originally, human rights meant such things as freedom of speech, or religion, or association, the right to a fair trial, the right to vote etc. Note that these are all restrictions of the state against the citizen. Anti-discrimination and anti-offense laws are something else: restrictions by the state against the citizen.
Great distinction, very important. Thanks you!
East Germany had a similar (mis)understanding of Human "rights" as a pretence for more state power.
In socialism politics has a purpose: if that doesn't raise the hackles..
🐵
Growing up in a family situation can leave some people with the false impression that they are always entitled to food, home, healthcare, etc. provided for them in adulthood simply because they are necessities of life. For these people the idea of socialism might seem like a good idea. The negative side of course involves the heavy hand of the state to unfairly take from some people to give to others. Socialism is easy to vote into practice but you almost always have to shot your way out of it.
2023. He is right about the offence machine.
Mr. Scruton. May I transcribe your speech for an article that I want to write, while linking to your podcast and giving you credit? I live in America and have called out the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
Come on you Scrutons of the now: speak up, be bold and hold forth. We need you.
Can we truly claim respect for the rule of law when Congress'es two houses and two political parties can not compromise for the good of the country?
Where is respect for the law when the two parties have not successfully pasted a budget without the use of continuing resolutions?
Never trust anybody that speaks against a 'generalized other'. The first clue? Referring to the 'other' as they. Next, listen for references to opinions that have never been articulated, or people that don't exist. Finally, listen for catch words and buzz phrases ('socialists', 'the Left' with a capital 'L', 'well-meaning liberals', 'modern courts', etc.). You get the idea.
In summary: A right for slavery.
Say what?
@@stevenlight5006 Socialism gives people rights to the fruits of other people's labor. This is slavery. Natural rights (like the U.S. Bill of Rights, English Common Law, etc.) require nothing from others other than they leave you be.
@@daviddechamplain5718 Socialism is irrelevant to modern life.
You are just fucking lazy and cowardly.
@@ondolite3789 I wasn't saying socialism is good. I was agreeing with the OP that it is essentially a form of slavery.
@@daviddechamplain5718 I did not say that you said that socialism was good.
Why do you noobs always refute stuff that has not been said or even implied.
Capitalism is probably more akin to slavery and you know this.
Rights and wants. Wants and needs. Something indeed 'has gone wrong.'
Thank you!
Awesome
"everyone has the right to be recognized as a person under the law" this is how they get you
Get u ?
Why do you cut the video off before he is done speaking???
Because it's an excerpt.
Because he is talking $#!t.
Scruton: "The conservative view is that politics exists to in order to maintain peace and the rule of law and permit civil society to develop and to grow and to flourish according to it's own natural logic..." They demonstrated this by having two world wars within thirty years that resulted in the deaths of near 40 million people and the destruction of untold wealth and property, to say nothing of the incineration of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the deaths of millions of Jews by poison and fire. The fact Scruton can keep a straight face when he makes this statement is a testament to either incipient insanity, or extreme acting skills.
✌️
If we are to take modernism / egalitarianism / socialism to be a religion, a religion of the individual, then modern offence culture and prosecuting people as such, is akin to blasphemy laws of the past. Only its blasphemy of one individual against another, against the highest ideal of the lands, individualism itself. Possibly leading to nothing short of complete social paralysis.
Pick one.
Uh, petrol cars are most efficient at 56 or something, so high speeds are better than low speeds with stop start.
I can't believe he has the gall to say that ICEs are less efficient on motorways.
I think human rights is a bit misleading. It's not a right, it's a contract. I promise this if you promise that. Better call it social contracts. Contracts can be negotiated, rights can't.
Human right: treating people differently based on their skin, race, religion, sexuality, etc due to perceived ills which occurred before those people’s parents were even born
Not a human right: being able to retain your own organs, which you are killed for due to being Muslim, Christian, Folun Gong, or speaking/thinking against the party.
The silence of the “human rights” groups in the face of CCP atrocities is deafening.
I bet you believe in Saddam's WMD too. And you never ever ever questioned where did Rockefeller get his 7 hearts.
Why did this stop at the “Concept of the phobia”
Why does the author of this clip make fun of the speaker looking like he's developing a strawman about a petty subject of personal rights when the real battle is between humans striving to find equity in society between the common public and the powerful elite. I wonder if there is an argument within the whole talk?
The vast wealth inequality we have today occurred because of the change in Keynesian economics to a twisted version of neo liberalism in beginning in the 1970's . In the 80's Thatcher and Reagan brought in globalization , the privatization of public assets , the quackery of "trickle down economics " and they destroyed the unions .
There are 2 types of wealth inequality - income and asset .
Recommend reading " Three Good Rules for Pundit Behaviour " by Miles Corak - its on line .
Also - here is Thomas Pikitty
czcams.com/video/JKsHhXwqDqM/video.html
.
Now the bizarre part circa 2015 - the neo liberal media started pushing this marxist ideology
using intersectionality to grade people's victim status . They also started attacking our heritage and national identity in order to push a corporate globalist agenda .
.
"Equity " is a neo marxist ideology which is designed to sound reasonable - but its actually an attack on the Enlightenment idea of Egalitarianism .
We have gimme grants here active looking to trap an American into discrimination in order to sue them. One Brazilian ho-bag actually has a CZcams channel where she does this.
That is capitalism for you.
I am unaware of Americans who have to pay fines because of saying something against other groups. Can someone help me here? Is he saying if I insult some group or other I can be legally fined in the United States? My instinct is to say he has it wrong, but maybe I am missing something?
Have you heard of 'hate speech?' It is now enshrined in American law, yes.
@@simonestreeter1518 No it isn't. The Supreme Court explicitly ruled 9-0 a few years ago that "hate speech" is protected. "Hate crimes," not that I agree, are enacted in law, but they require an actual crime.
@@daviddechamplain5718 Can't believe I missed the good news. Thanks David!
0:32 politics exist to divide the people, always have
a few royal families own everything
It is 'sir Roger Scrutton.'
It's them/they
The UN legitimised - with the help of Sin Fein - terrorism as a means to wage war without consequences for those involved viz. 1972, "human rights for all combatants".
If the economy ever goes down the sewer all bets are off
My mother told me that discrimination is the ability to discriminate between good and bad, right and wrong. If one follows the nondiscrimination thought, then the Jews should have entertained the Nazis in the 1940s.
I committed an act of discrimination today, I took a walk.
Practical Idealism: The Kalergi Plan to destroy European peoples Paperback - January 14, 2019
by Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi (Author)
Paneuropean Union - president Alain Terrenoire
this is the group behind this movement
'And how I'm against both'.
In discussing "conservatism" and "socialism," Sir Roger leaves out "liberalism." Of course *modern* conservatism is part of the classical liberal tradition, but it didn't necessarily have to work out that way. Liberalism, too, seeks to use the power of the state to liberate truly oppressed minorities because the principle of equality is very much at its heart. "Civil society" that oppresses certain people simply for how they look or how or to whom they pray is *not* a legitimate "civil" society.
However, fast forward to today, and the concept of "equality" has been perverted by the Left. The equality envisioned by the Enlightenment generation AND the equality envisioned by the FDRs, JFKs, an Tony Blairs of the world is most certainly NOT what today's Left values.
They don't even use the word "equality" any more. Instead it is "equity." And all that means is equality of outcome, not just opportunity. Of course, there can never be total equality of outcome--that is how people live and work day-to-day in the real world . . . unless you use the heavy hand of the state, with the implicit understanding that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
The kooks of the Far Left today don't want concentration camps--sorry Q-Anon people. However, they certainly would have no problem preventing anyone who disagrees with them from having any influence whatsoever . . . in school, in the workforce, in government, etc. Purging the non-woke from public life is quite literally the goal of many on the Far Left.
And that is why a voice like Sir Roger's is needed when it comes to today's battles.
Two hundred fifty years ago, I'd gladly be "liberal" American colonial fighting against the "conservative" British crown!!
He doesn't leave it out, he deliberately mislabels it as "Socialism".
Calling them "Socialists" or "Left" is like calling Farrakhan "White supremacist".
If you facepalmed with both hands before 4 minute mark, then congrats - you have above average intelligence and good education.
Calling Liberalism "Socialism" is as bad as calling Farrakhan "White supremacist".
What happens when you're offended ??
Do you get a disease ??
Do you get leprosy ??
Nothing happens when you get offended
If you are an adult you move on
If you're a child with a victim mentality you yell and scream and demand an apology and or compensation
A 'child with a victim mentality'??!
I live in the UK where no child is safe.
Is it socialist to expect freedom from traditional British child abuse?
Do you understand the existence of the psyche or of trauma?
How do you perceive them?
@@ondolite3789cry 😢
Yes, if a person internalizes their stresses and "offenses", they can give themselves diseases and maladies like hypertension, hemmorhoids, and GERD or ulcers.
Living proof that ‘conservative intellectual’ is an oxymoron.
dad, who is this id10t!
Roger is a great writer and has incredibly important messages for us.
Perhaps he should let someone that doesn't have the difficulties he has deliver those messages.
The Human Rights Act was originally written to pass death sentence on dangerous individuals that were not prosecutable by conventional law because what they did was at the time and in the place they did it not a violation of the laws that held juristiction at the time and place when it occured. Now, the Human Rights Act is primarely used to protect proven dangerous criminals, that very well can be found guilty of violation of the law that held juristiction at the time and place of the crime, from the lawful and just consequences of their crimes.
The best definition of Socialism I have ever heard is "The process of social engineering towards a dystopia in the neverending pursuit of a promised Utopia"
Outlawing discrimination is in principle not a bad idea. The problem comes from not aplying the principle equally on every demographic without exception, such as, as it is currently applied, it seems perfectly permissible to discriminate against white people, against people of heterosexual orientation and against men...and most of all it seems almost mandated to discriminate against white heterosexual men, especially if they are not members of the forced diversity activism.
The Anti-discrimination laws have been turned into a declaration of a demographic or race of "undesirable subhumans", the exact opposite of what the laws were claimed to do. Where discrimination should never be outlawed is where sentiment clashes with reality.
Employers should be allowed to be "ableist", only hire the best person for the job that they can afford to pay the demanded wages for, rejecting anybody who is not good enough, regardless if the insufficiency is due to biological limitations, medical issues or lifestyle choices.
Further, strict discrimination on grounds of biological or medical realities needs to be practiced in physical competition of leisure and professional nature (athleticism and sports leagues, Olympics, etc...) to ensure fairness.
The "hate-speech" laws are created for the purpose of arbitrarily criminalising political and ideological opposition. For this reason, they are deliberately written to be subject to subjective interpretation. Anybody who says anything that can/might/may be construed as perceived as offensive at any time in the past or future by anybody in the world is guilty acording to how the law is written and interpreted; it's applicability is chosen selectively acording to political and ideological utility to discredit or even ostracise anybody not in support of the current ideological doctrine.
I am by no definition of the term a morning person, not by any stretch of the imagination. If saying something that might offend somebody was truely a crime, then anybody who has ever uttered the phrase "good morning" needs to be prosecuted and convicted because the sentiment that there might be anything "good" about a Morning is offensive to me.
_> The best definition of Socialism I have ever heard..._
Do you also believe that the best description of Farrakhan is "White supremacist"?
American "pablik ejukayshun" at its finest.
I don't want to be forced to support the broken way the medical industry is run! It is separated from a market, you go in and get told what to do and if it's covered! A market would tell you what cost what, and we could hire consultants that are financial accountable to give us the best options with known science! A MARKET can allow this. NOT beurocrates! Diet is more effective then many drugs. why should I be forced to pay for smokers when I eat super healthy and exercise?
Callous nonsense.
You miss the point of society.
Which begs the question: What is "a right"?
It should do.
The Magna Carta 10 June 1215 accorded certain rights to individuals. And one effect was that the King was no longer above the law.
It is a value or exercise which the winners get to claim.
@@simonestreeter1518 Agreed. Owning land is not a 'right' in China because the Communist Party was the winner. Whereas it is a 'right' in the UK, where landowners were powerful.
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was drafted by British lawyers in 1950 and subsequently adopted by 46 countries, as there was a concensus, after WW2, that it was right that the powerless and vulnerable had some protection from those wielding the full power of the State.
@@jeremymanson1781 Thanks for the bit of erudite conversation, Jeremy!
Prejudice is not uncommon or isolated, in fact it is the norm, I see it in all, the high and mighty or people with an elite following, I see it in ghettos and slums, poor people holding extremely infllexible views. Prejudice helps a group to build stronger bonds, offer it an action plan.
Is the human mind even capable of operating without prejudice? I think it is too big an ask. We will lower our gaurd a bit, group forming to human mind is as instinctive as is thinking itself.
Human rights platforms, which presume there is an impartial and non prejudiced mind, hope all human deserve a fair treatment. This is to say, the higher has the responsibility to use his power and resource to include the ones he has traditionally hated and mistrusred. Has the condition for hating or mistrusting another/foreign changed for him/them to do so? Not much.
Chinese may not like the Japanese, the Indian may find the Arab lacking in modernity, the spainish may find the French too frivolous and inflexible, the American might feel the English are broody and lacking fun. Prejudice is a group psyche more than it is individual.
Human rights would in conclusion mean upholding law of a land as much as possible. Build the condition necessary for some minor transact. We are groups, a functional mind needs a group, as individuals we are as fair a group can be or as rude a group is.
This blokes a gem' regarding the right to own a house. Socialist governments consider this is a civil duty that society requests OR exploits from their on sense of poverty by the hard done by who quiet probably never sacrificed any thing in their existence to get ahead' with their misconception of what a senile and existence in this life is!!
wow,you discovered Richard Wolf;well,woopsy-do,good for you!for you that`s discovery,for me that`s an old claptrap .
"Right to health... is a claim to public purse"
Health and education are not rights. They are public goods, like roads, bridges and street lights. Everyone benefits from healthy and educated populace. Wanting them to be luxuries is classism. Claiming that you care about public purse with that is a marvel of hypocrisy.
Excellent point! I'd scribble that down as value claims but I agree with you and like the phrasing.
I don't see how he can be labeled an intellectual based on how he thinks about these things other than the two dollar words and the accent he employs. His deeper thinking isn't that impressive. I got suggested this video based off of another interview/discussion he was engaging in and on that small sample size it's hard to give a fair assessment of the person but he isn't off to an impressive start.
@@justanothernick3984 Well, a value claim is a broader and often subjective thing. A public good on the other hand is a barebone notion, one that can be quantized in man-hours. A quantity, which people claiming to care of *public purse* ought to be able to comprehend.
@@LukeVilent
Fair point.
Why dont you start with DeSantis In Florida where the conservatives ban books ?
If I was a little mermaid I would want to swap with the witch , because she took everything away from her, ever her voice, there was nothing at all only noise . That jelly black octopus is the real Mermaid Winner she beat up the witch and won entirely not flying against the wind (fart) instead fighting water and monsters black ink on paper. So, you do not have to be a monster to destroy a monster, children need to know that, just learn from the Octopus 🐙
How does a guy who knows so little about political philosophy graduate, let alone become a famous intellectual?
Daily Torygraph readers and Michael Gove take care of his propaganda.
Soviet constitution gave you so many rights too
"The right to health" just means the right to afford it. If private healthcare leads to many people dying early only because of someone else's right to make profits, then Mr. Scruton he's saying poor people don't deserve to live as long as the wealthy. Which is to say that life is not so important or precious on itself. So why are Conservatives against abortion?
@@damianop100 Forcing someone else to give something against their will is exactly what the State does by collecting taxes. The Law forces you to obey. Anyway, regarding your explanation on "the right to health", well that's you who don't understand the premise. The Left never argued for the right to live, which of course depends on innovation, technology ecc.. They argued for the right to have affordable care by raising taxes progressively. That's what it means.
@@damianop100 You don't know how to debate! You just don't know how to answer my point and decided to denigrate me. Well done! I was exactly on point, because what a State can or cannot force you to do depends on how citizens decided to vote. A State HAS the right to force you to do something to keep others alive! By public healthcare. If the majority of people want public healthcare and that becomes law, then you have to obey. In Europe it works that way, and we're a democracy, way more than, let's say USA. I feel bad for you if you didn't know that. Instead, you insulted me twice, providing no insight whatsoever. Is that debating? You told me to "re-read" comments and now that I don't know how to debate. That's not an argument. It's passive-aggressive behavior.
Ps. God doesn't exist, moron.
@@960john If Americans want the right to affordable care, then I want laws restricting them from accessing that care if they partake in any unhealthy things.
When our rights are violated we got offended.
But that does not mean everytime we got offended that means our rights arw violated.
Example, when I try hitting a woman in a bar, and the woman said "no hance in hell i would go with you ugly!" sure I am offended but that does not mean my rights was violated, because for her to go out with me is not my right.
There is a problem of establishing what is a rights and what is not a rights.
"They" are trying to mix to confuse (babel), between what is a rights and what is not a rights.
Gin,
I'm assuming you mean "hitting on" not "hitting".
Is this a riddle?
Sounds like you have issues with women.
@@hamnchee Both really poor activities.
I would never do either.
@@ondolite3789 Do women ever hit on you?
@@hamnchee Constantly.
I am a toothless old bald guy so
this is baffling
communism is the state authorization and legalization of tyranny. but then, so is oligarchy and oligopoly.
Only the ignorant human would ever self censor what a crazy thing to do.
Erm no, it is vital for progressive society.
You are why the UK is riddled with child abuse.
The greatest evil we face today...
And now in charge at the White House.
Let's go Brandon!
🤡
The entire planet are having a WHITEMARE ! 😮😮😮😮😮
"We conservatives are being oppressed but we are the natural order" and so on and so on 😅
The natural order ? Why ? It is natural to have the privilege to own a factory which you create with PUBLIC resources, high tech and subsidies .. And the work of people who work there ?
You can slap a name on any fundamental concept. You can call what Christ preached "socialism' just to vilify it, and many of his so-called adherents do just that without realizing it.
I’m not a Socialist, but only dopes think that unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism, where a small percentage of people own 99% of the wealth and pay less in tax to support their own endeavors than their Secretaries controlling more of government than large groups of other citizens. I have become comfortably well off due in great part to the center of capitalism, the stock market. And I will do just fine the way things are, but I hate to see how multinational corporations control our government and only allow law’s benefitting them to be passed by a government that they bought and paid for. Welcome to the United Corporate States of America.
Isn't better and moral the pubic to control this enormous wealth since it is produced mostly by public funded high tech , public subsidies. and the people who work for these companies ?
@@dsgio7254 I think a much larger part of the enormous wealth of the very few should be taxed and in so doing, spent to modernize our infrastructure. After all, who depends more on the infrastructure than those building great wealth (flying private jets, having several mansions and yachts). They need to pay more than I do as I have only one house and no yachts or jets. I think part of this tax should go into making state college tuition-free and for healthcare to be paid for like it is in every other modern country in the world. The super wealthy would still be mighty rich but would be giving back to their country much more.
This guy makes the best titles for his talks. The actual talks don't quite live up to the title though.
Come on man. No one has human rights or any other rights. You just get left alone for a while until the rich want you out of the way.
lol you're really gonna argue against a right to health? As long as its not written in a way that makes it unenforceable this law is absolutely a great thing... People who argue against healthcare for people who can't afford it disgust me...