Human Rights

[Beef Oven]

Let me repeat: abolish the concepts of "nations" and "borders" (left-overs of tribalism); make it illegal even to speak of them, and all the "problems" go away. It is quite obvious! What is more it is bound to happen sooner rather than later. There is no inherent right to "property."

Catch up Syd, we're already there with EU border control.

I'm off to make a cup of proper tea.

[Pabmusic]

Let me repeat: abolish the concepts of "nations" and "borders" (left-overs of tribalism); make it illegal even to speak of them, and all the "problems" go away. It is quite obvious! What is more it is bound to happen sooner rather than later. There is no inherent right to "property."

A wholly practical solution that manages to bring in thought crime (or speech crime?) and assumes a worldwide agreement. It also ignores the Aweti, Kalapalo and 200 other tribes of the Amazon, the Masai, Adjumba and 7400 tribes of Africa, the Amangu, Winduwinda and 100 Australian tribes, the Tboli, Ifugao and 30 tribes of the Philippines and - well - hundreds or thousands of other tribes worldwide that are 'left-overs' of - what shall we call it? - tribalism. Perhaps we should tell them.

Telling people that ideas are 'abolished' doesn't make them go away.

[eighthobstruction]

Telling people that ideas are 'abolished' doesn't make them go away.

There is no inherent right to "wisdom"....

[ahinton]

Let me repeat: abolish the concepts of "nations" and "borders" (left-overs of tribalism); make it illegal even to speak of them, and all the "problems" go away. It is quite obvious! What is more it is bound to happen sooner rather than later. There is no inherent right to "property."

Repetition indeed it is, since you've put this forward so many times. Further to pabmusic's sensible and detailed response about the "tribalist" aspect of what you write here, the questions remain as to who is to abolish these things, who should decide who is to be charged with doing so and, before either, how could comprehensive international agreement to bring it about be reached? - it obviously couldn't and won't, any more than it could be agreed who should govern this purportedly "united" world and how, especially given that such "unity" would in practice be no more than an administrative exercise and would do nothing to alter the widely differings needs and interests of different populaces.

Furthermore, the likelihood is that, in future, there will be more countries, not less. In the not unlikely situation of Bosnia and Hercegovina splitting from one another, what was once the single country of Yugoslavia will have broken down into the seven separate nations of Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Bosnia, Hercegoviana, Montenegro and Macedonia, of which two are already EU members and the others will doubtless seek to join. Sudan has already split into two, Korea did the same more than half a century ago, the once monolithic Soviet Union has now broken into many parts, some more independent than others and the currently "United" Kingdom may break up and give way to four countries should Scotland become independent next year. None of this renders your apparently hoped-for vision likely, does it?!

As to the "inherent" right to property, even if your remark about it is true, that does not wipe away right to property that is not "inherent", does it?

[Sydney Grew]

. . . the questions remain as to who is to abolish these things . . . the single country of Yugoslavia will have broken down . . .

Mr. H. is right to mention "breaking down," because it is becoming more and more obvious that the abolishment will take place because of the pressure of hunger, thirst, and the irresistible migrations of millions. Chaos can come so soon - does the member not recall those desperate weeks when the supply of lavatory paper dried up in nineteen-seventies London?

. . . As to the "inherent" right to property, even if your remark about it is true, that does not wipe away right to property that is not "inherent", does it?

That is not the Revolutionary Socialist position Mr. H.

[jean]

...the abolishment will take place...

Interesting to see abolishment in place of the now more usual abolition.

I wonder of there is any particular reason for this?

[ahinton]

Mr. H. is right to mention "breaking down," because it is becoming more and more obvious that the abolishment will take place because of the pressure of hunger, thirst, and the irresistible migrations of millions.

I note, albeit with little surprise, that you have so far omitted to respond to my questions as to "who is to abolish these things?", "who should decide who is to be charged with doing so?", "how could comprehensive international agreement to bring it about be reached?", "who should govern this purportedly "united" world and how?"; the fact that I happen to have no recollection of those allegedly "desperate weeks when the supply of lavatory paper dried up in nineteen-seventies London" is surely of little if any consequence by comparison to those questions and the need for you to answer them in order for your stance on such matters to be better understood!

That is not the Revolutionary Socialist position Mr. H.

Did I suggest that it was, or that it was meant to be? Indeed, it is not a "position" at all, as it is a question rather than a statement of belief! That said, were the notion of intellectual property (for example) to be abolished, I would have even greater difficulty in earning a living than I do now!

[ahinton]

Interesting to see abolishment in place of the now more usual abolition.

I wonder of there is any particular reason for this?

Whether you could call it a "reason" might be a matter for conjecture, but it is one of many examples of what one might term "Grewism", a far more common instance being the interpolation of redundant hyphens in words such as inter-net, tele-phone, run-way et al and which make one relieved to find "abo-lishment" escaping this practice, especially given the particular country in which Mr Grew resides...

[Padraig]

Whether you could call it a "reason" might be a matter for conjecture, but it is one of many examples of what one might term "Grewism", a far more common instance being the interpolation of redundant hyphens in words such as inter-net, tele-phone, run-way et al and which make one relieved to find "abo-lishment" escaping this practice, especially given the particular country in which Mr Grew resides...

ahinton, I find something offensive about this - apart from your trademark sarcasm concerning Mr Grew, in this case. But, in short, Mr Grew is more interesting to read than you.

[ahinton]

ahinton, I find something offensive about this - apart from your trademark sarcasm concerning Mr Grew, in this case.

There being neither trademark nor sarcasm here, I apologise for offending you as no offence was intended towards anyone, although you omit to specify what it is that you do find offensive, preferring simply to define it as "something".

But, in short, Mr Grew is more interesting to read than you.

Then please feel free to read Mr Grew in preference to my posts; I shall not be offended thereby. That said, Mr Grew's latest observations might be more interesting than they are had he seen fit to provide answers to the various questions that they raise (which, of course, he may yet do).

[Resurrection Man]

I think you both need to be clearer - being a refugee or an asylum-seeker is by its very nature a traumatic experience, even if only initially. Mostly the trauma lasts a lifetime.

Resurrection Man was having a pop, as is his wont.

Not really. You are making the mistake of assuming that the 'many' are either asylum seekers or refugees. A few are genuine asylum seekers or refugees. However, many are not. Many are economic migrants. I can speak from record on this. Can you?

[Dave2002]

Not really. You are making the mistake of assuming that the 'many' are either asylum seekers or refugees. A few are genuine asylum seekers or refugees. However, many are not. Many are economic migrants. I can speak from record on this. Can you?

What do you mean that you can "speak from record on this"? I don't have any great objection to deporting economic migrants who are in the country, or trying to gain entry to the country, if they have no justification to be here. Why should that be hard, or take time? I have been a kind of economic migrant to the USA, and when it looked as though it wasn't going to be sustainable I simply left and did not renew my visa.

There is a whole grey area of economic migrants in several countries - the USA, the UK. In California illegal immigrants provide very cheap labour for agriculture. Officially they will be deported - usually back to Mexico, and efforts are made to stop them gaining entry to the USA. However, once in, the mutual benefits to the Californian economy, and to the migrant workers themselves, many of whom have children in schools probably getting a better education than they would back home, are such that relatively little effort is made to locate them and ask them to leave. In the UK many such immigrant workers work in hotels and restaurants. We can pretend it doesn't happen, or shouldn't happen, but it does.

Refugees and those seeking political asylum deserve serious consideration.

[amateur51]

Not really. You are making the mistake of assuming that the 'many' are either asylum seekers or refugees. A few are genuine asylum seekers or refugees. However, many are not. Many are economic migrants. I can speak from record on this. Can you?

I'm talking from my experience of working with asylum-seekers (fact) and refugees (fact) What are are you talking about?

[Beef Oven]

Not really. You are making the mistake of assuming that the 'many' are either asylum seekers or refugees. A few are genuine asylum seekers or refugees. However, many are not. Many are economic migrants. I can speak from record on this. Can you?

I get your point. I have a number of years of experience of working with asylum seekers and refugees - I still currently work voluntarily with asylum seekers. It's amazing how naively honest many of them are about their reasons to be here!

[jean]

The problem with this sort of argument is that it attempts to give what can only be anecdote a sheen of objectivity.

Take the word many. How many is 'many'?

(I think I asked that on another thread just recently.)

It's not even true that if you've identified a 'many', what's left can only be a 'few'.