Do you think we are enjoying our human rights?

[Prosofina_G]

Before going down to outline what human rights are I think we should critically look what human rights is.
To me human rights can be seen as a freedom or a fundamental positive right enshrined in the rules of law given to human to operate on as part of life.

THIS RIGHTS INCLUDES
1. RIGHT TO LIFE
2. FREEDOM OF SPEECH
3. FREEDOM OF EDUCATION
4. PRIVACY
5. RIGHT TO WORK

Just to name but a few,  in my own emphasize on number 1 right to life, I really don't think if majority of people in this country have right to their lifes, because the way and manners they are slutering people in this country shows that people don't actually have right to their lifes.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: This is another lies about people having freedom of speech.
In as much as I am  concerned this country has no freedom of speech to their citizenship, before you have freedom of speech in this country you might have known your way or else you will be a died man.
Therefore there is no freedom of speech.

FREEDOM OF EDUCATION: this is the worst I have ever seen in this country,  the educational system is died and gone this is where students pay just to pass their course.
And the have turned it into the highest bidder got it all.

RIGHT TO WORK: our system is not working at all we have multinational companies how much of our people are working in those areas non?
The children of the common men are largushing in different countries hustling just to make life better for them self, while their country are selling off their crude and monitizing their company to strangers.

With all this I think I am convinced that human has no rights anywhere whatsoever no matter how it has been enshrined in the constitution is non and void .

[Joy- maker]

Well let me also give my own definition of fundamental human rights, fundamental human rights are Those basic rights and freedom we humans are entitled to irrespective of our nationality, colour, language, sex, religion, and other status which I didn't include that is suppose to be included. And  in some countries this fundamental human rights are been given to their citizens, while in some countries it is vice versa. My Country Nigeria for instance we the citizens are been denied all this fundamental human rights and freedom, especially right to life and freedom of speech. We don't longer have the right to life humans beings are been slaughtered like animals in my country Nigeria and the government is doing nothing about it, talk more of freedom of speech, in my country Nigeria you dare not talk anyhow, because if you do your owe is finished.

[Jegileman]

Well let me also give my own definition of fundamental human rights, fundamental human rights are Those basic rights and freedom we humans are entitled to irrespective of our nationality, colour, language, sex, religion, and other status which I didn't include that is suppose to be included. And  in some countries this fundamental human rights are been given to their citizens, while in some countries it is vice versa. My Country for instance we the citizens are been denied all this fundamental human rights and freedom, especially right to life and freedom of speech. We don't longer have the right to life humans beings are been slottered like animals in my country and the government is doing nothing about it, talk more of freedom of speech, in my country you dare not talk anyhow, because if you do your owe is finished.

No any country does the citizens gets to enjoy all the fundamental human rights even if it is stated in the law of the country. When you have access to some, your access to some are limited and you can’t just misuse or overuse it. I think all these are kept so in order for the full power and authority to remain with the government.

What is happening in Nigeria is banditry and cannot be equated fully to fundamental human rights. Insecurity is a very serious issue that when a country is bound to it is always used for the benefit of the government. I still remember one of the past leaders of Nigeria that said if any insecurity situation lasts for more than 24hours then the government has a hand in it and that’s what we’re facing here now.

[passwordnow]

If there are no human rights, you won't be able to post in the forum anyway because everything will be censored. So, that could be at least give some hope that there's still some human rights that are being followed. But I agree that not all of these privileges are being passed on to us, we are not enjoying all of the benefits of human rights because of how political colors have set the boundary for all of us and on how our leaders work for their people. I think that we're on a better situation compared to the people that have been isolated like North Korea or have been judged with the prejudice of being a bad country and having a bad society.

[Joy_learns_crypto]

because the way and manners they are slutering people in this country shows that people don't actually have right to their lifes.

What’s the name of the country and who is doing the slaughtering of the people. You have the right to live but not the right to control another persons actions because the law is supposed to judge everyone fairly and if the law is working in your country anyone doing that should be jailed.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: This is another lies about people having freedom of speech.
In as much as I am  concerned this country has no freedom of speech to their citizenship, before you have freedom of speech in this country you might have known your way or else you will be a died man.
Therefore there is no freedom of speech.

Death is not the only scare against freedom of speech, you can get canceled, lose your jobs and relationship because of what you say and even the government are using people to set example to others about the thing they say.

[programmer3666]

well, on paper we all have human rights but in reality!!! many of those rights are not respected at all. the right to life is just meaningless when insecurity and violence take people’s lives almost every day ant the thing is that freedom of speech exists only for those who can speak safely!! while ordinary citizens risk harassment if they talk about the wrong things going on in society. education and work opportunities are supposed to be basic rights too but like you pointed out!, the system is just too broken students pay to pass and many graduates still end up unemployed and at the end of the day only few enjoy the real benefits.

[BADecker]

The people themselves are not acknowledging their rights. They don't hold the courts to the major thing... "show us the harm or damage we did, and prove that we are the ones who did it." Rather, the people get attorneys, thereby placing themselves under the authority of the courts.

And the big thing that people don't do is to form Private Membership Associations, thereby removing themselves from 99+% of government regulation.

[caroasi]

I'm very happy you brought up this topic, and based on your list and brazen rudeness of assuming the USA is where most people live if they are on the internet, I'm supposing you live in the USA. The world has become a lot more authoritarian in the past few decades. Costa Rica has been losing freedoms. Singapore has been losing freedoms. Hong Kong has been losing freedoms. The USA has finally found a landing under Trump because of his supreme court picks, not so much him who doesn't seem to care much about that. Few people are gaining freedoms anywhere in our world right now. The ruling elites also started to imprison their political opponents in what were first world countries such as France. The USA managed to reject the concept of imprisoning political opponents to their great credit.

The USA remains the most free country in the world overall in my personal opinion, but the concept of constitutional amendments has not been used to protect most of the missing rights. Rather than building on freedoms as was done early on, it seems like the focus was on finding ways to ignore human rights.

Yes, freedom of speech and weapon rights are gateway rights that lead to other rights, which are important to our overall success. But, even these rights were not respected from the beginning upon their amendment because of the legal concept of the politician's mantra being 1) line your pockets 2) reward your friends 3) punish your enemies. So, we are left not only with unprotected fundamental human rights as expressed in constitutions across the world, but also additional unprotected rights you just don't hear about by anyone in today's world:

"1. The freedom (right) of association. Most constitutions do not assure people the right to join any person or organization they wish, and therefore law can punish or disallow membership to any specific organization of people of the government's choosing.

2. The right to possess and use property. The USA constitution text "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." can and is interpreted to mean any piece of property can be taken for any reason as long as there is a "due process". The number of banned items is probably over 1,000 in the USA plus classes of items that add infinite numbers of items. Furthermore, just owning a piece of property doesn't necessarily mean you can also use it.

3. The freedom (right) to exchange money. It is consumers, we the people, who are responsible for regulation of business through ethical shopping decisions. It is not the responsibility of the government to treat them selves as the elite ruling deciders of who is and isn't best qualified to do their job properly. Ethical shopping is not just a fantasy, it is required in today's global economy for effect of law, as shown by jurisdiction shopping of large corporations. (ref. jurisdiction shopping)"
(from 11 Unprotected Rights We All Have)

This is why I started the idea of the Cooperative Republic, because the governments we have don't adequately protect our rights. If you follow my signature reference below you can learn some more about that idea as the Caroasi publication is there which suggests an alternative bill of rights that is much more comprehensive and leaves much less to be ignored by reinterpretation of language that was plain but has to be made even more plain.

[Accardo]

In a world where people are getting arrested for sharing information on social networks, no. Free speech is now a thing of the past, chaos are all over Europe, young people getting arrested for saying things or reacting to a certain post online. What more in the real world, people are harassed in the streets by immigrants, and the government isn't doing much about it, more than 116,000 phones were stolen last year in london. Shouldn't there be a right to ownership? Things are no longer normal as usual. Human rights are not certainly available these days, even Trump's X account was taken down in 2021 for causing violence online

[o48o]

Before going down to outline what human rights are I think we should critically look what human rights is.
To me human rights can be seen as a freedom or a fundamental positive right enshrined in the rules of law given to human to operate on as part of life.

THIS RIGHTS INCLUDES
1. RIGHT TO LIFE
2. FREEDOM OF SPEECH
3. FREEDOM OF EDUCATION
4. PRIVACY
5. RIGHT TO WORK

I guess that depends where you live.

These are ideals to reach for, but because every ideal can have paradoxes they can't be any absolute rules without exceptions.

1: I have this and so does every born human in my country
2: I definitely have freedom of speech, but that comes with some contradictions. Like you can't use your speech to manipulate people using violence against someone else.
3: I have free, and mandatory education
4: GDPR exists here to assure confidentiality and privacy, but people seem to confuse privacy as some kind of right to use it to evade regulations.
5: Technically i have it, however this is more like supply and demand issue where supply decreasing more and and ways to do it get more niche.

[caroasi]

Before going down to outline what human rights are I think we should critically look what human rights is.
To me human rights can be seen as a freedom or a fundamental positive right enshrined in the rules of law given to human to operate on as part of life.

THIS RIGHTS INCLUDES
1. RIGHT TO LIFE
2. FREEDOM OF SPEECH
3. FREEDOM OF EDUCATION
4. PRIVACY
5. RIGHT TO WORK

I guess that depends where you live.

These are ideals to reach for, but because every ideal can have paradoxes they can't be any absolute rules without exceptions.

1: I have this and so does every born human in my country
2: I definitely have freedom of speech, but that comes with some contradictions. Like you can't use your speech to manipulate people using violence against someone else.
3: I have free, and mandatory education
4: GDPR exists here to assure confidentiality and privacy, but people seem to confuse privacy as some kind of right to use it to evade regulations.
5: Technically i have it, however this is more like supply and demand issue where supply decreasing more and and ways to do it get more niche.

Your idea of absolutes is quite questionable There can be absolute rules without exceptions. The good part of that is the simplicity, while the bad part is that the "greater good" exceptions are sacrificed. And to some people, a greater good attempt is two wrongs that have attempted and failed to make one right. Or put another way, a wrong is never a right according to some philosophies. One could say instead that there are absolutes and there are weak points of freedoms as fully respected, but they should remain intact for the sake of simple living as one cannot memorize tens of thousands of exceptions, now can they? And can you expect someone to follow a law they don't know exists? No, therefore you don't get infinite exceptions before your system is clearly unfair. So, how many exceptions do you have?

The problem with the exceptions you have is unless you outline what those exceptions are, that is effectively saying the same thing as having zero freedoms of any kind. For example, I could say you have the freedom to do anything you want, with the one exception that it is EXACTLY the same thing I want. Wow, that one exception actually doesn't leave me with substantial freedom.

So while you're satisfied with your freedoms, there are probably people out there who would consider what you have in your location insufferable amounts of tyranny.,

[o48o]

Your idea of absolutes is quite questionable There can be absolute rules without exceptions. The good part of that is the simplicity, while the bad part is that the "greater good" exceptions are sacrificed. And to some people, a greater good attempt is two wrongs that have attempted and failed to make one right. Or put another way, a wrong is never a right according to some philosophies. One could say instead that there are absolutes and there are weak points of freedoms as fully respected, but they should remain intact for the sake of simple living as one cannot memorize tens of thousands of exceptions, now can they? And can you expect someone to follow a law they don't know exists? No, therefore you don't get infinite exceptions before your system is clearly unfair. So, how many exceptions do you have?

The problem with the exceptions you have is unless you outline what those exceptions are, that is effectively saying the same thing as having zero freedoms of any kind. For example, I could say you have the freedom to do anything you want, with the one exception that it is EXACTLY the same thing I want. Wow, that one exception actually doesn't leave me with substantial freedom.

So while you're satisfied with your freedoms, there are probably people out there who would consider what you have in your location insufferable amounts of tyranny.,

Obviously there are people who would consider anything tyranny. That's free speech and they are allowed to their opinion. Ironically that is one of those examples where you can't please everyone and that having absolute rules is just matter of opinions, values and interpreted definitions of those rules. That's why judges and courts for example are needed. Absolutes exist only in mathematics.

Also, about that tyranny... Especially people in the US don't seem to understand how much their own freedom they are restricting by pushing their own idea of freedom.
This seems somehow tying into the communism panic, where everything else, but exploiting people freely is communism and unamerican.

[Prosofina_G]

The people themselves are not acknowledging their rights. They don't hold the courts to the major thing... "show us the harm or damage we did, and prove that we are the ones who did it." Rather, the people get attorneys, thereby placing themselves under the authority of the courts.

And the big thing that people don't do is to form Private Membership Associations, thereby removing themselves from 99+% of government regulation.

Your right sir, or ma'am actually the people doesn't hold on to their rights,  but come to think about it can the people hold to their rights when the courts of law who are meant to protect the citizens are being hijack by the politicians.

[Ricardo11]

Before going down to outline what human rights are I think we should critically look what human rights is.
To me human rights can be seen as a freedom or a fundamental positive right enshrined in the rules of law given to human to operate on as part of life.

THIS RIGHTS INCLUDES
1. RIGHT TO LIFE
2. FREEDOM OF SPEECH
3. FREEDOM OF EDUCATION
4. PRIVACY
5. RIGHT TO WORK

Just to name but a few,  in my own emphasize on number 1 right to life, I really don't think if majority of people in this country have right to their lifes, because the way and manners they are slutering people in this country shows that people don't actually have right to their lifes.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: This is another lies about people having freedom of speech.
In as much as I am  concerned this country has no freedom of speech to their citizenship, before you have freedom of speech in this country you might have known your way or else you will be a died man.
Therefore there is no freedom of speech.

FREEDOM OF EDUCATION: this is the worst I have ever seen in this country,  the educational system is died and gone this is where students pay just to pass their course.
And the have turned it into the highest bidder got it all.

RIGHT TO WORK: our system is not working at all we have multinational companies how much of our people are working in those areas non?
The children of the common men are largushing in different countries hustling just to make life better for them self, while their country are selling off their crude and monitizing their company to strangers.

With all this I think I am convinced that human has no rights anywhere whatsoever no matter how it has been enshrined in the constitution is non and void .

Legally, human rights are defined as the birthright of each of us. We all have the right to life, freedom of speech, the right to education and the right to work. However, in reality, in many countries, people do not get these rights. Due to political, social or administrative obstacles, although freedom of life is on paper, in reality, many people cannot experience it.
There are many countries where freedom of education and freedom of work are limited. The education system is also not very effective, not only leading students to achieve passing marks, but in the workplace, they are discriminated against and limited opportunities do not allow them to enjoy their rights.
Human rights are ensured depending on the social environment and implementation, human rights are not guaranteed only by the existence of a constitution or law.

[_Miracle]

No matter what the stated "rights" are: None are free until all are.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLzUhjf7XQU   <---Finlands president addressing the United Nations
I would link my own presidents speech but it is quite embarrassing.

[yixichloro2xx]

Because rights are supposed to protect people, it’s painful when they only exist on paper but not in reality. From what you pointed out, it’s clear that many of these so called rights don’t really work the way they should. For instance, how can we say people have the right to life when insecurity is so bad that lives are being taken every day? Or talk about freedom of speech when speaking your mind could even put you in danger.

The same goes for education and work. Schools are supposed to be places where students earn their grades through hard work, yet corruption makes it more about money than learning. Jobs too are often given based on connections, while ordinary citizens are left struggling, even though multinational companies are making money from the country’s resources.......All of this shows that rights can’t just be written in the constitution, they have to be enforced and protected. Otherwise, they’re just empty words, and people will keep feeling like they don’t actually have any rights at all.

[Ishicryptic]

I think that it depends on the country, from what I heard people in America, and many European countries enjoy human rights, the government of these countries respect the dignity and rights of their citizens. But the same cannot be said about most developing countries, citizens in these countries are denied their human rights because they don't have a voice. Their justice systems favors the rich and influential people, they can get away with crimes and abuses, the system shields them from prosecution. The poor are treated like they are nothing, their rights are taken away from them and there is nothing they can do about it. Most of these countries that don't respect their citizens human rights are mostly poor and backward, they don't like the poor to have a voice to speak out against them.

[caroasi]

Your idea of absolutes is quite questionable There can be absolute rules without exceptions. The good part of that is the simplicity, while the bad part is that the "greater good" exceptions are sacrificed. And to some people, a greater good attempt is two wrongs that have attempted and failed to make one right. Or put another way, a wrong is never a right according to some philosophies. One could say instead that there are absolutes and there are weak points of freedoms as fully respected, but they should remain intact for the sake of simple living as one cannot memorize tens of thousands of exceptions, now can they? And can you expect someone to follow a law they don't know exists? No, therefore you don't get infinite exceptions before your system is clearly unfair. So, how many exceptions do you have?

The problem with the exceptions you have is unless you outline what those exceptions are, that is effectively saying the same thing as having zero freedoms of any kind. For example, I could say you have the freedom to do anything you want, with the one exception that it is EXACTLY the same thing I want. Wow, that one exception actually doesn't leave me with substantial freedom.

So while you're satisfied with your freedoms, there are probably people out there who would consider what you have in your location insufferable amounts of tyranny.,

Obviously there are people who would consider anything tyranny. That's free speech and they are allowed to their opinion. Ironically that is one of those examples where you can't please everyone and that having absolute rules is just matter of opinions, values and interpreted definitions of those rules. That's why judges and courts for example are needed. Absolutes exist only in mathematics.

Also, about that tyranny... Especially people in the US don't seem to understand how much their own freedom they are restricting by pushing their own idea of freedom.
This seems somehow tying into the communism panic, where everything else, but exploiting people freely is communism and unamerican.

How many exceptions do you have for the basic human rights? It seems that you're saying whether someone is living under tyranny is a matter of personal opinion.

[Fiatless]

I think that it depends on the country, from what I heard people in America, and many European countries enjoy human rights, the government of these countries respect the dignity and rights of their citizens. But the same cannot be said about most developing countries, citizens in these countries are denied their human rights because they don't have a voice. Their justice systems favors the rich and influential people, they can get away with crimes and abuses, the system shields them from prosecution. The poor are treated like they are nothing, their rights are taken away from them and there is nothing they can do about it. Most of these countries that don't respect their citizens human rights are mostly poor and backward, they don't like the poor to have a voice to speak out against them.

You are not wrong. Most countries with reports of violations of human rights are underdeveloped or developing. But people from developed societies also face human rights issues; however, in less severe measure. Freedom of speech, association and right to life might be infringed, but others might be limited. There are also rich countries with a high rate of human rights violations, and a typical example is Saudi Arabia. The killing of Jamāl Aḥmad Khāshqujī by agents of the Saudi government is fresh in my memory.      

[Mhizlove]

We all know that human rights are meant to ensure the freedom of the citizen's self worth and integrity. But if you look into reality many of these rights are not fully enjoyed because people know they have right to speech or freedom to speech yet still they can't speak out. Education is said to be one of these right but poverty and lack of proper facilities keep many children from going to school. Justice and security are promised yet the corruption, violence and inequality continue to rob people of peace.

The rights only exist in paper and not practiced, as making them a reality in daily life is still a struggle to the citizens or individuals. Real advantages of human rights will only be achieved when every individual can only feel them.