The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

:)is this for real

I do NOT want to live in a Utopian world
It makes everything boring.

Here comes the World Hegemony.
Enjoy your new moral overlords.

You'd rather people didn't get their basic human rights because it makes life more interesting? 1) You live in the first world, that's easy for you to say. 2) These are /basic/ human rights, like food, shelter, education, not being tortured or killed, etc. If they're followed, we still won't have utopia.

I disagree with that thing. We have no rights. Only privileges chosen by the society we live in to make living in a society easier.

Actually, I think we might have the right to freedom. That would be the exception.

We have the right to life. That is all.

Rights are simply morality. Saying everyone should have this or that is just another set of 10 commandments.
Freedom is essentially the amount of choices you have. Not everyone is born with the same amount of choices.
Any difference between two people means that one person will be better at something than the other person. This is why evolution happens. Because slightly flatter feet are better for swimming, or slightly sharper claws are better for cutting. And most of the differences between people have nothing to do with skeletal structure or outer colors, but with the brain and organs. Not even twins are the same, and therefore no one is equal to anyone else.
Dignity is just a psychological attribute. No two people have the same psychological attributes.
Calling everyone brothers and sisters just makes those words meaningless.
No two people have the same reason and conscience.
"Everyone should be friendly towards each other." Ok, well I should have a pot of gold, and the moon should be within walking distance. What is the point of wishing for this? This propaganda doesn't make people friendlier, it just establishes justification for whatever these people want us to do or allow them to do.
Entitlement is a legal word. If my heirs are entitled to my wealth, that means the government states it to be so. In saying that "every single human being is entitled to what we say" you're saying you want a universal government.
If I have the right to safety, does that mean the government is obligated to come into my house and remove all the sharp objects?
I don't see what's wrong with torture and "things that are like slavery" if there is no law against killing.
"The law is the same for everyone." There is no sovereignty.
"You have the right to a fair trial." What is fair?
"No one shall be arrested without good reason." What is good?
"You have a right to a fair salary." How can minimum wage laws allow for the right to work?
"Each work day should not be too long." Says who?
"You have the right to expect a free standard of living."
"You must respect the necessary social order."
"No one must set forth to destroy these rights."

To sum it up: "You have the right to happiness. We dictate what exactly that means. We are everywhere and you cannot escape us."

AbsintheAndCarnations, you don't understand how destructive this is to human progress because you live in a country already ruled by this movement and cannot see how its attempts to pervert the whole world to its ways affect others. Without heterodoxy there can be no evolution.

@FailAssassin
I doubt that you'd be saying that if you lived in a 3rd world country without running water, electricity, heat and air, or at least one meal guaranteed to you everyday, and having to run for your life on a regular basis from crazy militia groups that get hi out of their minds on cocaine and want nothing more than to torture and kill innocent people for entertainment. Secondly, have you never studied the industrial revolution in the U.S. or Britain? There are plenty of extremely detailed accounts describing the horribly squalid conditions people worked in and how people were maimed by the machinery they worked with, all while making, oh, a dollar a day...maybe, for working up to 16 hour days if not more. Then there were the tenements that people had to live in because they couldnt afford anything else. Imagine sharing one bathroom with ten other families. Thirdly, about getting fair trials, how would you like it if you could be arrested and thrown in jail for the rest of your life for no reason other than someone was like "i dont like that guy, do away with him." im not gonna discuss everything you wrote but you can guess were i would go with it. So how about you think before you say something stupid next time?

I wouldn't be saying that because I would not have the education or knowledge to say so.
So is your argument is that a one world government which ensures economic rights to people will be able to lessen inequality and improve conditions? This is Marxism. I just hope everyone who advocates universal human rights knows what that entails and what the Ten Planks of Communism are.
I contend that these bad conditions are caused by foreign intervention and incompetent governments which intervene in the market. For instance, banning opium and cocaine create violent drug gangs and leave the drugs 'underground' and make the problems they cause less visible.
On a free market it is impossible for someone to be coerced into a job, meaning that whatever job someone takes and for what wages they take it at are completely voluntary. I'm not saying that's the case but sometimes jobs that seem horrible to us are necessary for people with no education, so that they can gain work experience while feeding their families. Prohibiting by law low wages or long hours means that people will go unemployed. If the government hands out these people jobs that aren't necessary or pay too much the tax payers will suffer.
Local courts should decide what is fair and what is not, not a multinational government. I would be a lot more comfortable with my neighbors deciding if I should be on bail or not rather than some UN appointed judge.

If the government gives us our rights then the government can take them away from us.

"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."

If the state allows us freedoms it naturally disallows every freedom not mentioned, the 9th amendment be damned.

How is the constitution self evident? How is a right a truth, unless it is actually inalienable (the Earth has the 'right' to orbit the sun.)
How is the right to life or liberty inalienable if anyone with a gun can take one or the other away?
The only justification ever given for these things has been religion. Outside that, "they make us happy" or "it makes society work better" does not make something true, self-evident, or inalienable. "They are a reflection of our beliefs and values" is not valid either. If people were left to their own devices, the divided America of today would become much different.
The founders saw the evils of the state, but could not bring themselves to abolish it. Therefore they had to make arbitrary rights up to try to restrict the beast.

Look at some of these proposed amendments to the constitution:
The right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality.
The right of all citizens of the United States to a public education of equal high quality.
The right to a clean, safe, and sustainable environment.
The right to decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing.
The right to full employment and balanced growth.

These are almost identical to the ideas in this Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Because not everyone can have the same level of healthcare as millionaires, to make everyone's coverage exactly the same, everyone's healthcare quality decreases except for the bottom 10%, and then it continues to decrease for everyone because the government is running it.
Because not everyone can have the quality of education of millionaires, everyone's education worsens except those with the worst education. Then it continues to worsen because it is run exclusively by the government. Equality not only means bringing the poor up but bringing the well-to-do down, and that means abolishing all private schools. Otherwise people could just use their earned money to purchase better education than the state provided.

Do you see where this is going? To make everyone equally privileged despite a variety of incomes being the default, you have to create complete monopolies. To make everyone equal in everything you end up with communism. I just hope people recognize this.