Ady Los Zonga

This conversation is closed.

Where is The Protect the Humans Act?

We are drowning in our own law system. Law system that recognize the Property of Corporations but not the right of humans to choose and to be protected against the ones that want to take our liberties away.

When we will understand that protecting LIFE is more important then copyright? When we will issue a universal recognized law that sets all humans equal - no matter the country, language, ancestors or place of birth?

Having a fair system is so difficult when 1% of humans control the other 99% - this is slavery, modern man slavery.

  • W T

    • +1
    Apr 17 2012: It is very difficult to believe that imperfect man will be able to bring peace and security to all living on the earth, much less equality.

    The most valuable thing we have on this planet are it's people. Some just don't want to see us united and under equal footing.

    Divide and conquer.......that seems to be the prevailing attitude.

    Your question very thought provoking. I enjoyed reading Kevin Tinholt's reply. He has educated me with the link he provided....I was not aware of such information.
  • thumb
    Apr 17 2012: Have you ever heard of: "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights"?

    Rights have to be adopted, not imposed. This adoption goes through different stages of development, with the last being true implication and adherence to that law. However, there can never be a Universal Act if there is not an global body who has the legitimacy to punish wrongdoers (like you government does) outside of its borders. This is a tricky topic, because for such a thing to exist countries have to give up some of their autonomy/ sovereignty, which has already proven to be difficult within our own European Union.

    * Edit: You might say that these articles are to broad and vague, but this all directly leads to jurisprudence, which is the science/philosophy of law and the conglomeration of previous judgments combined.
    • thumb
      Apr 18 2012: Kevin, If there is a global declaration which needs a global bureaucracy to ensure it is followed, are there any suggestions as to how that bureaucracy can be prevented from deviating from its initial purpose, and becoming an organisation whose priority is its own self preservation?

      Most bureaucracies will, after a longer or shorter period of time, degenerate into something which is interested in its own survival at the expense of the people it is supposed to serve. These days that can happen in a surprisingly short time, especially when the lead comes from career politicians rather than those driven by their convictions, or by career bureaucrats whose focus is career rather than service.

      The Gates Foundation has chosen to offset this risk with a structure which requires all its funds to be distributed within a specified period following the death of the founder. How would it be possible to achieve the same with a global human rights act and its administrators?
      • thumb
        Apr 18 2012: Presumably:

        Unlike general elections (Parliament or House of Representatives) most institutions don't undergo any change, at least not at the higher levels. Higher officials, especially boards of advisers exert a tremendous amount of influence on the representatives, because ministers overall are merely representatives with their own ideas without that much of a background. Jigher officials will always try to gain a leading role in affairs for their own interest. I mean why shouldn't they? They should have the upper hand.

        Bureaucracies are known to perform inadequately in times of sudden uproar, it would be weird if they didn't. Policy makers will always go to higher officials, which mostly leads to cronyism. Which is rational because higher officials have no stake in the consequences, and if they do the system of checks and balances (trias politica) will make sure that not they but the representative (Department's Minister) will pay the price for any misfortune, which of course means he will get fired instead. There should be some sort of liability act for established institutions, not only for the board of directors, but also for the prolonged established advisory board.

        Some time ago there was a study about levels of corruption in companies that had women in their board of directors. The results were that companies with women were less corrupt and more productive. All nice and easy, but no correlation why they performed better. They just did. Until a fairly recent report/study came across the possible answer. It seemed that companies with a fairly new board performed remarkably better than their peers. Although this report was later renounced due to protest, it does provide us with a possible answer.

        There is no single answer. In the end it all comes down to the theestablished order's agenda. Plus we have to specify who is paying the price, this generation or next? Most of the times it's next and when there are unavoidable problems solutions often arise.
        • thumb
          Apr 18 2012: That lack of change is in itself a problem. There is a degree of answerability arising from the electoral process which is absent in a long term bureaucracy. The problem with a global organisation is to generate that answerability.

          Even the electoral process is not particularly effective at providing checks and balances. If you think about it, electoral representation came into being as a way of creating a balance between the unpowerful individual and those who hold power through riches and influence. Very few if any operate on that basis.
    • thumb
      Apr 20 2012: Hi Tim and thank you for giving us the heads up on this matter.

      The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a start on instituting a legal system that recognise humans as having rights on the individual level. I am quoting Mary M. ''It is very difficult to believe that imperfect man will be able to bring peace and security to all living on the earth, much less equality.''

      Looking back into history there always have existed two classes of people: the oppressed and the oppressors, and this psychology in using other fellow humans to create and maintain our material needs or status is perpetuated even today.

      TUDHR is far from Protect the Humans Act since is keeping the same patters and is fitting the Humans in the Legal system when it should be the other way around.

      My question to you and others that already are giving they feedback on this matter is simple: since on the common law, humans are actually ''Human Capital'' and children are registered on this system as human capital using names (just like companies or corporations) how we can protect the humans against the Economical Business System?

      You, and others, may understand that today's governments acts as Human Race Representatives and take decisions in our behalf, decisions that people and future generations have to obey (never being aware of it or agreed with) and more then that HAVING NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.

      Since freedom (independence) is the essence of having a choice in pursuing your personal life (whatever the targets or domains you want to follow) i am wandering if the current system that provides no other alternatives and actually is created to destroy other alternatives, is not against humans in the first place?

      Common Law is using an old system to give Names to people in order to use Corporate or Company laws to make them give they human rights away.

      In my oppinion No Human Law can make you give your human rights away under any circumstances.
      • thumb
        Apr 20 2012: Not sure if this was meant to me, but Tim is not my name, haha.

        I don't think anyone quite understands how this system has had its creation. All of us got born into it, so protection from it was futile as we were already part of it from the start.

        These laws were not created merely to protect a single human. No single human is important enough to deserve such an extensive amount of resources and labor. These acts were to protect society as a whole and different classes within society against each other, or the rest of society from on a single person.

        A system that only gives privileges is deemed to fail, this is not how the universe works. Where rights are being created obligations must exist.
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2012: I am sorry for confusing your name Kevin and i hope you will forgive me for starting on the wrong foot :)

          Happy to see that ''out of the box'' free thinking people relate to this subject and i just hope that more comments and opinions will follow in the next days.

          Being part of the system is the best way to be aware of it and help stirring in the right direction, the right direction that is right for most of us or if you like for many of us, not a single human. Believing or not, the system protects one human, and this is what the question in cause is about. This one human is the top of the food chain - if you like. The system that gives privileges doe's not exist, 'au contrare', we have a system that creates only obligations to you, me, others that follow and they don't even exist yet.

          The universe works by allowing options (diversity) to co-exist in harmony. If Universe was this system made... i don't even want to imagine what that will look and feel like. Happy that is not man made :)

          At this time, just as we speak, other people are taking decisions in our behalf, with no transparency, protecting their interests (hidden and obscure most of the time) and the current system protects them. Is their system, not ours, not yours or mine.

          Fairly, we don't have to obey that since it has nothing to do with us. But, do we have a choice to a better system to obey to? To give credit to? To involve our energy or creativity into? None.

          Even this, only this it shows that humans are not protected against other entities by themselves or other humans and having no other viable option to organise us harmonically gives birth to corruption, abuse, privation of liberty, deceit and death.

          How come fewer people are manifesting critical thinking? In a fear planet, there is any chance for TUDHR to become a reality?
      • thumb
        Apr 20 2012: "See so in this way, by seeing that nothingness is the fundamental reality, and you see it’s your reality. Then how can anything contaminate you? All the idea of being scared and proud is nothing, it's ignorance. So cheer up." ~ Alan Watts

        I had to look up this quote by Alan Watts. Where he defines the nothingness of human life and emotions. Though different people will disagree with what he has to say. It is however quite amazing how in the perspective of reality, society itself is giving value to these made up ideals like money, power and influence.

        As an aspiring scientist I must disagree with that statement, that the universe is in perfect harmony. This is not true. It is however true for life, biology. While the Universe is trying to be as disorganized as possible, where pure energy is favored, the ecosystem is trying to create a world of collaboration. Collaboration between people has led to great achievement, but it has also given rise to power over individuals specifically. Let me ask you, what would you prefer? A tribal nation, where conflict and disease are the daily routine, or a civilized integrated society where there is still corruption, but people can live in peace with each other and not worry how they are going to survive the next day. What would you choose? I'd prefer the second one, even though the first one would give me more personal freedom.

        If these human deficits, such as greed and hatred, really give rise to an uncontrollable society can we discuss whether we can engineer people before they are born to behave in a more preferable way, so that we can give them that freedom without fearing that they will harm others. Though this might be a bit of an extreme thought, such a technology might be viable within our lifetimes. How are we going to deal with such an option, when we know that other attempts have failed.

        I don't think that they are not thinking less critically. It's just that priorities shift, especially when in comfort.