RE: Not providing housing for the homeless is a human rights violation...
I'm sorry, I forgot to make my point clear. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is unnecessary if you live in a Common Law country. The Common Law is very simple to understand in that it basically states that One has the right to do absolutely anything so long as they do no wrong to another human being. The rest of the law is sorting out what is right, what is wrong. This is accomplished under Common Law by court trials and affidavits of Truth. This is contrary to International Law, Admiralty Law, and Napoleonic Law, in which everything is forbidden except for that which is expressly allowed. So, in Common Law, a statute or ordinance is something that is written into "code" that is not allowed. Under Admiralty Law, the only things written into code are those that are allowed, otherwise it's against the law. Think of a sea port with a list of items allowed into the country. The idea of "International Law" declaring rights for Humans is absurd. They don't have jurisdiction (water vs land) to declare something that actually already exists. I hope this makes sense. The only way such rights could be granted to those who don't live in Common Law countries would be through force. So is this a declaration of war?
Thats an interesting opinion @artopium, I read that some muslim countries also claim sharia-law over rides "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights", Im not sure why it was put in place if the U.N countries don't respect it as the ultimate law...
Are you proposing that they are to be seen as "guidelines" more then an actual law? If that is the case what was the point of the whole thing to begin with, sorry Im a bit confused.
Anyway everybody has opinions and we are allowed to share them (I think, wait let me check, hmm, oops maybe not lol)... 😇
Yeah, so that part of it comes down to Sovereignty. You feel you should be able to act freely so long as you don't hurt others and you don't like being told that there are things you can and can't do that would limit these rights. This is called sovereignty and the U.S. is the only country that grants sovereignty to individual humans. In other countries, including other Common Law countries, although the individual has rights, they do not have sovereignty, only the State does. Before the U.S. Declaration of Independence, only the State has ever held sovereignty. For an International body of Law such as the U.N. to declare that it's authority usurps the sovereignty of a particular State, regardless of how it treats it's citizens, is a precedent in how Law and Authority have worked on the planet for thousands of years. It puts the interests of money (water) above that of humans (land). It means that an International Court has more authority than a more local court. And in International law the judges are appointed, never voted. And as I mentioned before, there is no Common Law in International law. They contradict each other. The U.N. should not have authority over the Peoples of another Land. Regardless of it's plea for "Human Rights", the ultimate outcome is waiving of many rights not written in it's list. It's a horrible idea given a great sounding name for a great sounding cause.
But in the end Law is determined by those who have the biggest guns.
Hmm... Maybe you are right, I just read up more about the International Court of Justice, and it looks like the United States are no longer over ruled by this court...
I do agree on the point that it seems that the entities with the most guns make the rules, but Im not a 100% sure, I feel like it might be second to the entity with the most intelligence & money combined...