Question & Answer

Do employment equity programs fit into this new theory of human rights?

Employment equity programs are about designing society, not about rights- that is only propaganda.  Real rights apply on an individual basis, not a group basis (designing a society applies on a group basis). In addition, the relationship of an employee to an employing organization is in essence a contractual one with normally no basis for imputed equity in the organization.

Does the author really think that business will agree that people own what they create on the job? Ha!

It may take 20 years or 200 years but one day people en masse will conclude that a person owns what he/she creates, not only in service for himself/herself but for anyone else as well and that the basis for pay as the sale of one’s time is a fiction.

What is the point of a theory of rights unless a government concurs and enforces them?

The starting point is a correct theory of human rights. The population then creates a government to protect these rights. That is, rights come before government, not the other way around. The theory of universal rights also provides a vital standard against which the conduct of any government can be judged. If it is found seriously deficient the theory provides justification and motivation for taking corrective action even to the point of rebellion.

There is no mention in the book of women’s rights, worker’s rights, gay rights, etc. Why not?

The theory in Human Rights, What Are They Really? expounds on the principle that all people have the same fundamental rights. Therefore, there are no rights of Group X that are more than or different from those of anyone else. The only proper context for “Group X Rights” is if some fundamental rights of Group X have been neglected in law or the enforcement of law.  Possibly some or many people do not understand this distinction; therefore talk of women’s rights, worker’s rights, etc., tends to be confusing and counterproductive.

The UN declaration on rights has resulted in millions of people getting educated, housed, fed and their medical needs looked after, so what’s wrong with that?

In response to the expectations of the people who elected them governments provided education, housing, food subsidies, medical care, etc.  for those who could not afford them on their own. To pay for these things, governments took money from those who had more. Because the beneficiaries were in the majority who elected the governments this system tended to be self-perpetuating and has grown. However, true human rights maintain that a person has a right to security of his/her property, including money. Therefore, a government may not simply take what it needs from whomever it chooses, not even if it is the will of the majority. The common practice by governments of disregarding the right of the individual to security of his money, to solely control what he owns and to choose his associates, under the insufficient authority of the will of the majority is what is wrong with the UN’s declared social and economic rights.
In a nation structured on true human rights there are entitlements of every citizen to actual payments from the exploitation of natural resources and from the profits of the government’s enterprises. In addition, income from employment would be related to the value of whatever the worker created and therefore would be more just. Higher income to every man and woman would enable them to pay for their needs.

Why is the author’s theory of rights correct and the existing doctrine on human rights incorrect?

The existing doctrine came from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  issued by the United Nations in 1948. The sources of this document were the numerous articles written in the 1920’s – 1940’s by idealists whose intent was to eradicate not only the patent mistreatment of people but their deprivations as well. In other words, they were trying to design an ideal society. When rights are invented to support a human purpose they are tied to that purpose and usually to the values, philosophy and possibly religious beliefs of those persons who formulated and supported that definition of rights. Other people with different values, philosophy or religion might choose different rights. Therefore, rights that originate in this manner may not be universal. Articles 22-29 of the UN declaration are called “social and economic rights” and come into this category.

Rights that are enforced on everybody must really be universal rights. To be universal they must be evident to everybody regardless of gender, race, cultural group or religion. Other subjects that fit this criterion are mathematics, the laws of science, and the balance of nature which are irrefutable by any rational person. The source of human rights is, admittedly, not so thoroughly bonded together but can still pass the test of truth apparent to any reasonable person.  From this approach the theory of human rights in the subject book was developed and can properly claim to be universal and correct. Much of the prevalent doctrine on rights cannot.

Latest Articles

Are You Right Wing or Left Wing?

Keep track of your disposition on the issues below and you will find out if your political philosophy is right wing or left wing.

Read More

Open letter to CPC leader Erin O’Toole

2020 Sep 25

To: Hon. Erin O’Toole
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario

Subject: Open letter on conservatism in the CPC

Dear Mr. O’Toole,

I will tell you up front that I did not …

Read More

New book “Governance for a New Era”

This book was published for several months under the title “Government for a New Age” but was unpublished because the title was used before by another author. The re-titled book was published at Amazon on 2020 June 30. It is …

Read More

See More Articles »