ahhh... a double-edged sword sometimes...

yep...plus the fact that the two words usually have completely different meanings in coversations than they do in reality...

very true

Are people still concerned with the notion of liberty and freedom? I think people are more preoccupied with the postal rate going up one penny or which long-distance company to choose. I don't think people give a damn about their rights unless they're exploit the 1st amendment.

Hmh, I wonder if the NRA and the gun culture doesn't vaguely tie in with this... The god-given right to drag a heap of firearms together, e.g., just for fun. And because these times are so dangerous. Or the military, the god-given right to do what the US wants, whereever it wants. The American Liberty culture always fascinated me. How can you declare it to be a sign of freedom, if you have people preaching supremacist ideas, for example? How be free, if the country as a whole discriminates against other countries? How talk of human rights issues, if you crassly ignore them in your own country? All of this seems to be always nicely resolved with declaring "Because it's my %&#�!-RIGHT!"

see, you understand!

No, I don't. Not the least. What makes your right better than Autumn's or Stacey? Or mine, for that matter? Where does that "right" come from? How do you know it is a right?

Alexander... do you believe in human rights? America was founded on a belief in them (certain inalienable rights) NATO supports them beyond that some people believe that they have 'right' to take others rights away... do you agree? do you disagree? Do you have a right to make a living? Do you have a right to make a friend? Do you have a right to make an enemy? Do you have a right to your very own opinion on a matter? Do you have a right to disagree with someone else's very own opinion? In this country, as I'm sure in many others, the lines get blurry when people try to extend their rights to a point where they violate someone else's. Has that ever happened in your country? Have you seen that happen all over the world? How do I know it's a right? well... it's a belief and I'm not going to even attempt to explain that one

Hoh, Fury, hoh! Got you getting lively on that one, no? Got to find proper wording (using a non-native language does, believe it or not, impair my capability to express certain matters).

(mine, too) and the point is our rights (to the point of harming someone else) should all be equal...mine aren't better than anyone else's but they are mine and I should have the right to defend them, express them, enjoy them, hell even sell them if I want as long as I do these things within the context of respecting everyone else's

The question is - does everyone else understand your respecting their rights the way you do, Wer? And what if your rights infringe other people's rights, but you insist on them? And what if constitutions and laws declare a lot about rights, but little about respect? (Stacey, stand by, will take a while to get to that.)

no they don't, thus the need for government... they shouldn't but if they do both of us have the right to exercise them in other locations and manners as well... we are where we are now...

So, I'll try it this way. This is really difficult for me, because it's hard to explain some concepts without going through whole other contextes. "do you believe in human rights?" Hard to say. Yes, I believe in respecting something called human rights in my daily life, and I believe them to be a Western concept typical for the historical phase in which this idea was developed. Idea, developed - right, it's a *made* thing. Not something I have in my body, nor something known to me as self-evident (if this were the case, nobody would have had to develop them, they would have just been there, all the time, all over the world), but something I had to learn about. Since it's an euro-christian idea from the Age of Reason, the concept may or may not be fitting in all times and all places. "America was founded on a belief in them (certain inalienable rights)" Those were rights for those who were accepted as proper citizens at the time (which shows that at least the concept of citizenship had undergone major changes since then). Meanwhile, there are things happening in the US that do not much look like humans rights to me. So, either my understanding of human rights is crooked - as may well be -, or the concept developed into something different, or the environment developed away from the concept. "NATO supports them" No, they don't. Governments and individuals support them (or not); NATO as an institution acts on orders, not - thankfully - on its own (though NATO has its own agenda, no doubt). If the governments of the NATO-member countries were all that *hot* on human rights, they would e.g. have talked quite a bit with Turkey on the matter of the Kurdish people, instead of selling surplus tanks and firearms to Turkey that are used against the Kurdes (who are proper turkish citizens that have been forbidden to even speak their language; they even have been declared away - there are supposedly no "Kurdes", that's all just "mountain-turks"). Turkey is a NATO-member and has the greatest standing army per number in NATO besides the US. They have the death penalty. Turkey would like to join the EU, too. " beyond that some people believe that they have 'right' to take others rights away..." Who gives somebody the right to exert any force against any other person? Who gives states the right to incarcerate people who did things thought to be wrong by the majority? Even mercilessy take their lives? It's a problematic field. What I consider my right to do something, is a transgression of rights for the next person. "do you agree? do you disagree?" Yes. No. Some bits. Others not. "Do you have a right to make a living?" Do I have a right to live at all? How do I know that? And what am I allowed to make that living? Poisoning the environment, to feed the folks? Killing other so I can survive? Work for the NRA's PR-office? Cheat on taxes? Steal food in the supermarket? Burglar a house? If I have no other options, are my individual interests more valuable than than of another individual? Or a group of people? Do I deserve to survive, if it costs other people their ressources and then their lifes? Who decides? What if I act against these decisions? Who'll have the right to get sanctions in place against violators? "Do you have a right to make a friend?" I hope I still have one in Colorado, after writing all this. I really hope that. "Do you have a right to make an enemy?" What constitutes "making" and what is an "enemy"? How does it relate to my rights, anyway, what I think of people or what people think of me, I wonder? Would I have rights if I hadn't a single friend in the world? Would it be allowed to transgress someone else's rights, if I had very many friends (that sure would make it easier, too)? "Do you have a right to your very own opinion on a matter?" I'm not always sure on that. The way you word it, the suggested and only correct answer of course is "Yes!", and of course I would like to always be allowed my own opinion. But what if you have people marching in your streets preaching racial discrimination and hate? Minorities, true. But do they have a right to scare other groups? Would it not be in the communities best interest to provide peace and stability within itself? So, I would conclude that everybody is allowed to a personal opinion (who would ask you, anyway? You have one or you don't! Who knows what's in that head, anyway!), but perhaps not always to voice it freely, as this disturbs interests of other groups. Very hard thing. I mean, I wouldn't want to silence e.g. the opposition in Yugoslavia (have you noticed the B92-topic in InternationalConflicts?), but I wouldn't want fascists marching in the streets, promoting supremacist ideas. You would perhaps admit to McCarthyism being opinion-control overkill, but does that mean ANYTHING ought to be allowed? THE GREATER GOOD - what is this? "Do you have a right to disagree with someone else's very own opinion?" Who cares what I agree on or not? Right, nobody. What you care very much about is what I communicate, and if that (a) correlates to your ideas, or (b) to some other reason, or (c) to neither of the two, but it's entertaining to read, think through and perhaps get a fit over it. I might also get some serious attention if I were crassly insulting you and your interests, especially if done on purpose. "In this country, as I'm sure in many others, the lines get blurry when people try to extend their rights to a point where they violate someone else's. Has that ever happened in your country?" What a question! Hey, Germans didn't invent the word "Concentration Camp" (that distinction was earned by the British, who first interned the Boers during the Boer War in South Africa), but they sure got a lot out of that idea, to put it this way. But other things, too, - spectacular murders, states firing socialist and communist party members in the Seventies from the jobs in communal administration or postal offices. Neo-Nazis burning refugee-barracks down. Foreigner getting beaten to pulp on our street . That's why I say, yes, I want rights. I don't know if they're human rights, but I want rights, and I accept giving up some of the rights I might possibly have to a greater benefit of my society. I do not need firearms. I do not need the right to voice every obscenity or do any grotesque idea that might come to my mind, if the right to say All and EVERYTHING at ANY TIME would bring the obvious problems it does. "Have you seen that happen all over the world?" Yes, whenever I watch the news. Remember, I'm the naive fool who thinks putting up an International COnflicts topic might help any. It's called the human nature, that's what makes this happen again and again. And perhaps this leads us to what this idea of these "Human Rights" is good for - have something to look up to, to try to achieve, even if it's a ethical ideal that's unattainable. But it gives us a reason to try the GOOD thing, not the egotistic impulse. "How do I know it's a right? well... it's a belief and I'm not going to even attempt to explain that one" That's why this topic is here. I have problems understanding the US's extreme stand on some issues. From my continental viewpoint, it sometimes looks as if some things were beyond the range of possible explanations, as if they were never to be questioned, self-evident truths that have somehow achieved the aura of the holy and quasi-religious.

hmmm...

ahhh... of COURSE you still have a friend in Colorado. He called me up this morning and asked me to stop ranting in your direction! *smile* Seriously Alexander, I enjoy expressing my opinion sometimes and I find it easy to get in deep perhaps to a level where not everyone is comfortable. I didn't intend to make you feel uncomfortable. I respect you views on the points you mentioned above, I don't agree with all of them. And one beef... NATO does indeed believe in the existence of human rights... that's why they 'try' individuals and countries for human right violations. And asking why America takes things to the extremes is kind of a null and void question. America is not really a living breathing entity... people in America take things to the extremes. And why? I dunno. Kinda like a spoiled brat who has everything already... they always want their way... (please don't misunderstand my comments on this country... i like living here and am grateful for the opportunities that US citizenship affords me... i also realize that 'everything' is not perfect here or anywhere else that I know of)

a quick add-on to my comments above: what a lot of people don't realize is that having rights means having responsibilities...they just want the right to be irresponsible...

or could one argue that you do indeed have the right to be irresponsible with your rights (as long as they don't violate others rights?) truly a semantics game now, no? And I'll be definitive... Being reckless w/ Human Rights--- suicide (why is it illegal anyway?) smoking --- it'l kill you driving --- most dangerous daily activity (excluding some professions I'm sure)

You two are just great! And thanks, Stacey... Wer, it is - literally - a truism that rights come with responsibilities and duties. But it's a truism those people who yell "Because it's my %?�!-RIGHT!" do not only cheat on their taxes, don't vote and don't anything, and they would never think any bit about responsibilities and duties. Who can something so *OBVIOUS* be so unknown about? Telling them is like, heck, no way I have words to describe this. So, no truism after all? Anyway, one mistake perhaps, Stacey - NATO doesn't put war criminals on trial. They try to contain these people to hand them over to the International Court in Den Haag, which is not - to my best knowledge - a NATO-institution. It's a civillian court of law. NATO does, howwever, try to detain people who are accused at this court to be war criminals, and to bring them to trial. As observation in the Bosnia-conflict shows, many sought war criminals lead nice comfy lives in areas where IFOR-troops keep the peace (IFOR troops are mainly from NATO member states and have a proper UN mandate to watch the ceasefire/peace progress and recostruction). Often it is well known to these units that war criminals sit daily in certain caf�s and sip their coffees. They don't do a thing, unless one of these people would stumble unwittingly into a detention cell in a IFOR troop barrack, thus forci g them to acknowledge this person's presence.

I stand corrected concerning NATOs involvement with war criminals! (thanks for the clarification... now would someone please explain why they called the city THE Haag and not just Haag!!!! Does this stand for something I don't know???) Anyway, I do believe NATO 'believes' in the EXISTANCE of human rights... but it seems a moot point now considering everything else we've delved into!

(The Dutch call it Den Haag and the english version is The Hague, I think. Has a nice marine and navy museum. Den Haag is the capital of the Netherlands (NOT Amsterdam...), and you pronounce "Haag" not with a "g", but with a frictinous "ch" as in German.)

FREEDOM... To choose the best- tasting cola. That's what Royal Crown has stood for ever since it was first created in Columbus, Georgia back in 1905. The freedom to decide who you are and what you drink. There's nothing more American that that. So, be free. Drink RC.

Sounds more like capitalism than liberty! Of course, the international symbol of capitalism is actually Mickey Mouse.

Wrong (sorry, Autumn). It's Coca-Cola and Marlboro. (Does Europe qualify as international enough?)

Sure, Europe qualifies, but when you see all those pictures of kids in Central Africa, they're always wearing Disney T-shirts. #2 is either Coke or Barbie, I'm not sure which.

and who decides this illustrious position??

I thought it was Barbie sipping a Diet Coke, wearing her Disney t-shirt and standing near Ken while he smokes his Marlboro...(we all know Barbie is smarter and classier than Ken)

Phone calls? (I'm gonna start ranting in that case...!)

Really, this topic is too profound to be tossed aside so lightly. This hits me at a level so profound I am afraid to dig into it. Too much of me has been posted on the Spring as it is...sorry

What's with the sorry?

I can't really put the feeling into words. If I had not read the entire topic before posting, I would have felt much differently, but now it is too painful for me to think about much...at least, not yet...