Maybe "Anarchist" is Shemp…

Roquefort butter, stooge.

Americans believe education is a public right. Also everybody up until Trumpism: you have to be vaccinated to attend public school

Wouldn't it be nice if some large group of folks got together and discussed the ideal type of society that we wanted to create?

Like, how to balance individual rights mixed with the common good?

I could get snarky and suggest that Congress could be that group, kind of like how the early continental congress came up with inalienable rights which were self evident - but we all know now that body could never function thusly.

concordtom said:

---

Wouldn't it be nice if some large group of folks got together and discussed the ideal type of society that we wanted to create?

Like, how to balance individual rights mixed with the common good?

I could get snarky and suggest that Congress could be that group, kind of like how the early continental congress came up with inalienable rights which were self evident - but we all know now that body could never function thusly.

---

Here you go Tom. The U.S. has not ratified treaties recognizing what many consider fundamental rights. The U.S. is built on freedom but not outcome.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-rights/treaty-ratification

Is said landlord vaccinated?

going4roses said:

---

Is said landlord vaccinated?

---

He probably is. Why do you ask?

It's Florida ?

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Wouldn't it be nice if some large group of folks got together and discussed the ideal type of society that we wanted to create?

Like, how to balance individual rights mixed with the common good?

I could get snarky and suggest that Congress could be that group, kind of like how the early continental congress came up with inalienable rights which were self evident - but we all know now that body could never function thusly.

---

Here you go Tom. The U.S. has not ratified treaties recognizing what many consider fundamental rights. The U.S. is built on freedom but not outcome.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-rights/treaty-ratification

---

I don't think you can say any country is built on freedom that does not explicitly endorse majority rule (with minority rights). The U.S. has many clauses built into the Constitution to stop majority rule.

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Wouldn't it be nice if some large group of folks got together and discussed the ideal type of society that we wanted to create?

Like, how to balance individual rights mixed with the common good?

I could get snarky and suggest that Congress could be that group, kind of like how the early continental congress came up with inalienable rights which were self evident - but we all know now that body could never function thusly.

---

Here you go Tom. The U.S. has not ratified treaties recognizing what many consider fundamental rights. The U.S. is built on freedom but not outcome.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-rights/treaty-ratification

---

I don't think you can say any country is built on freedom that does not explicitly endorse majority rule (with minority rights). The U.S. has many clauses built into the Constitution to stop majority rule.

---

I mean individual freedoms, generally. My point here is that the U.S. does not endorse many human rights treaties. Water and sanitation isn't explicitly mentioned as a fundamental right in the U.S.

"Despite its ostensible position as an international human rights champion, the United States has failed to ratify crucial human rights documents, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and the American Convention on Human Rights, notwithstanding its endorsement of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.

Furthermore, the United States has consistently utilized the U.N. treaty mechanism of attaching Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations (RUDs) to its ratifications, which dilutes the effect and enforceability of these universal human rights documents."

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Wouldn't it be nice if some large group of folks got together and discussed the ideal type of society that we wanted to create?

Like, how to balance individual rights mixed with the common good?

I could get snarky and suggest that Congress could be that group, kind of like how the early continental congress came up with inalienable rights which were self evident - but we all know now that body could never function thusly.

---

Here you go Tom. The U.S. has not ratified treaties recognizing what many consider fundamental rights. The U.S. is built on freedom but not outcome.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-rights/treaty-ratification

---

I don't think you can say any country is built on freedom that does not explicitly endorse majority rule (with minority rights). The U.S. has many clauses built into the Constitution to stop majority rule.

---

I mean individual freedoms, generally. My point here is that the U.S. does not endorse many human rights treaties. Water and sanitation isn't explicitly mentioned as a fundamental right in the U.S.

"Despite its ostensible position as an international human rights champion, the United States has failed to ratify crucial human rights documents, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and the American Convention on Human Rights, notwithstanding its endorsement of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.

Furthermore, the United States has consistently utilized the U.N. treaty mechanism of attaching Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations (RUDs) to its ratifications, which dilutes the effect and enforceability of these universal human rights documents."

---

You don't have sufficient individual freedoms when a minority is empowered to govern over you. That's pretty much the opposite of freedom. Majority rule is step 1 on the path to freedom.

Also, the U.S. fails in regard to individual freedoms regardless of majority rule. States are not individuals. In the U.S. states are empowered to oppress individuals. This allows the Federal government to turn a blind eye.

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Wouldn't it be nice if some large group of folks got together and discussed the ideal type of society that we wanted to create?

Like, how to balance individual rights mixed with the common good?

I could get snarky and suggest that Congress could be that group, kind of like how the early continental congress came up with inalienable rights which were self evident - but we all know now that body could never function thusly.

---

Here you go Tom. The U.S. has not ratified treaties recognizing what many consider fundamental rights. The U.S. is built on freedom but not outcome.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-rights/treaty-ratification

---

I don't think you can say any country is built on freedom that does not explicitly endorse majority rule (with minority rights). The U.S. has many clauses built into the Constitution to stop majority rule.

---

I mean individual freedoms, generally. My point here is that the U.S. does not endorse many human rights treaties. Water and sanitation isn't explicitly mentioned as a fundamental right in the U.S.

"Despite its ostensible position as an international human rights champion, the United States has failed to ratify crucial human rights documents, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and the American Convention on Human Rights, notwithstanding its endorsement of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.

Furthermore, the United States has consistently utilized the U.N. treaty mechanism of attaching Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations (RUDs) to its ratifications, which dilutes the effect and enforceability of these universal human rights documents."

---

You don't have sufficient individual freedoms when a minority is empowered to govern over you. That's pretty much the opposite of freedom. Majority rule is step 1 on the path to freedom.

Also, the U.S. fails in regard to individual freedoms regardless of majority rule. States are not individuals. In the U.S. states are empowered to oppress individuals. This allows the Federal government to turn a blind eye.

---

Just forget I said anything about freedoms. That wasnt my point at all. You missed it.

---

Actually, your point makes a lot more sense given the context I provided

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Wouldn't it be nice if some large group of folks got together and discussed the ideal type of society that we wanted to create?

Like, how to balance individual rights mixed with the common good?

I could get snarky and suggest that Congress could be that group, kind of like how the early continental congress came up with inalienable rights which were self evident - but we all know now that body could never function thusly.

---

Here you go Tom. The U.S. has not ratified treaties recognizing what many consider fundamental rights. The U.S. is built on freedom but not outcome.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-rights/treaty-ratification

---

Do they say anything about how these things would be paid for or provided for?

Because if you stop and think about "humans", at the end of the day, we are merely animals on earth, having to scrounge for food and shelter just to survive. The only "right" we have is the opportunity to achieve such things.

We like to think that we are more "evolved" than that, and so, if so, let's see how we can collectively meet our needs - such as food and housing.
If we can't, and we are okay with some just falling off on the sidelines to their own perish, then I'd posit that we are not all that evolved.

That's the challenge I put forth to anyone. And I certainly don't have it all figured out.

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Wouldn't it be nice if some large group of folks got together and discussed the ideal type of society that we wanted to create?

Like, how to balance individual rights mixed with the common good?

I could get snarky and suggest that Congress could be that group, kind of like how the early continental congress came up with inalienable rights which were self evident - but we all know now that body could never function thusly.

---

Here you go Tom. The U.S. has not ratified treaties recognizing what many consider fundamental rights. The U.S. is built on freedom but not outcome.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-rights/treaty-ratification

---

Do they say anything about how these things would be paid for or provided for?

Because if you stop and think about "humans", at the end of the day, we are merely animals on earth, having to scrounge for food and shelter just to survive. The only "right" we have is the opportunity to achieve such things.

We like to think that we are more "evolved" than that, and so, if so, let's see how we can collectively meet our needs - such as food and housing.
If we can't, and we are okay with some just falling off on the sidelines to their own perish, then I'd posit that we are not all that evolved.

That's the challenge I put forth to anyone. And I certainly don't have it all figured out.

---

That's where the US separates itself. Other countries sign that food and housing are rights. The US only believes in the "opportunity" for food and housing and will not ratify treaties that guarantee such.

I'll ask my question differently:
Given the knowledge and technology and all the cultural and psychological understanding we now have about what it means to be human, what if we started from scratch and designed society.

Would we want to say "every human should and CAN have access to clean water"?
I think, clearly, within boundaries, the answer would be YES, resoundingly! Boundaries would be "if you go to the top of Everest, or Antarctic, etc, you're on your own.

Could we also say that we are capable of providing... go down the list, and tell me where the line gets drawn.

We can accomplish so much more, so much better.
I challenge mankind to do so! Let's not be so every-man-for-himself. We've evolved beyond that.

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Wouldn't it be nice if some large group of folks got together and discussed the ideal type of society that we wanted to create?

Like, how to balance individual rights mixed with the common good?

I could get snarky and suggest that Congress could be that group, kind of like how the early continental congress came up with inalienable rights which were self evident - but we all know now that body could never function thusly.

---

Here you go Tom. The U.S. has not ratified treaties recognizing what many consider fundamental rights. The U.S. is built on freedom but not outcome.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-rights/treaty-ratification

---

Do they say anything about how these things would be paid for or provided for?

Because if you stop and think about "humans", at the end of the day, we are merely animals on earth, having to scrounge for food and shelter just to survive. The only "right" we have is the opportunity to achieve such things.

We like to think that we are more "evolved" than that, and so, if so, let's see how we can collectively meet our needs - such as food and housing.
If we can't, and we are okay with some just falling off on the sidelines to their own perish, then I'd posit that we are not all that evolved.

That's the challenge I put forth to anyone. And I certainly don't have it all figured out.

---

That's where the US separates itself. Other countries sign that food and housing are rights. The US only believes in the "opportunity" for food and housing and will not ratify treaties that guarantee such.

---

Agree.
But I'm suggesting that we could/should evolve and get to the place where those basic needs ARE met.

It requires some re-tooling in the head about life.
We have the technology. We can make society better, stronger, more compassionate.

We can develop young people to think about their relationship to society a bit differently.

We'd always want to reward invention and productivity. I'm not suggesting a ussr state of apathy (!!!).

It's a back to the drawing board quest.
I think the simple UBI campaign promise was an attempt to rethink. But it was incomplete.