tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5325145031187510736.post1081846291322824728..comments2023-10-15T03:59:53.104-07:00Comments on Empires and Mangers: Leviathans and Zombies: Social Contracts and the Walking DeadAnthonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17422741111661150588noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5325145031187510736.post-85002765347326252402012-09-07T06:13:30.072-07:002012-09-07T06:13:30.072-07:00Steve, I'm not sure I'm following your lin... Steve, I'm not sure I'm following your line of reasoning. I may just be dense - I'm not ruling that out :) So the D of I says government exists to preserve rights, which would make sense considering the influence of Locke on the founding of our nation. You're saying the DHR goes a step further and says why we preserve inherent, inalienable rights, and thus is more pragmatic and less magical (did I summarize this correctly?)<br /> I have two thoughts on this. First, our Constitution and Bill of Rights does the same thing, right? They make practical the implementation of rights. Second, I would say the DHR highlights the good/necessary things that follow from the enforcement of inalienable, inherent rights. <br /> I guess I'm not seeing the distinction you are making between the two documents. Both use language that points to a foundation of rights outside of the social contract; both show how they should be implemented. In addition, America revolted because a "contract" had been broken; the DHR says that too is a right, so it's not a pro-Leviathin document either from what I can see. <br /> Thoughts?<br /> Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422741111661150588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5325145031187510736.post-43112083412485646732012-09-06T16:50:09.897-07:002012-09-06T16:50:09.897-07:00There is an interesting difference between the UN ...There is an interesting difference between the UN DHR and the Declaration of Independence. In the intro to the DoI the focus is on creating a government <i>in order to preserve rights</i>, whereas the DHR speaks of the preservation of rights in order to create "freedom, justice, and peace". The instrumental and intrinsic goods have been switched around! So while the DHR may use words like "inherent" and "inalienable" it looks like it's really taking a more pragmatic perspective on rights: the whole thing prioritizes the good things which arise from the possession of and respect for rights over the magical power of the rights themselves. This seems like a much more sensible position.Steve Rublehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10354805604015803912noreply@blogger.com