My post on Yellow Jackets World Awakening NZ Branch asking the question what is a leftist?: Mine is a human rights perspective. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is said to consist of two sets of rights. There are civil and political rights (freedom and democracy or perhaps conservative) and economic, social and cultural rights (social justice or perhaps leftist). During the cold war between America and the Soviets of Eastern Europe it was the major ideological battle (by ideology I mean rather than universal human rights truth as in the UDHR, which is meant to rule over us, ideology involves only selective rights invariably to suit elites and/or Corporations). While America did have some welfare system which deals with social justice and a constitution (which to some extent reflected civil and political rights) the Soviets had an enormous welfare system reflecting economic, social and cultural rights i.e. employment, housing, health and education were provided free but the Soviets seriously lacked in civil and political rights so those who dissented from the State could be sent to gulags. Those States which suppress dissent are often called authoritarian while those that permit some dissent are often regarded as more democratic. While economic, social and cultural rights provided a socio-economic bottom line so protected against exploitation what is most fiendish about authoritarianism is that it often wants total control – people cannot think for themselves and must be totally obedient. Essentially authoritarian States often want robots or peaceful slaves not human beings.The Soviets lost the Cold War but there are times e.g post-depression and post-epidemic when greater social justice is required otherwise there would be mass unemployment and numerous deaths. I promote ethical human rights which requires that States ensure for their people, at least, the core minimums of all the rights in the UDHR (so it contains both sets of rights). It is the prime duty of the State to ensure ethical human rights for their people (so the emphasis is on sovereignty rather than globalization or a OWG) but where it can be afforded there are also global duties to help States which cannot provide ethical human rights. Ethical human rights are universal i.e. for all, whereas ideology strongly favors elites and/or the Corporations. Ethical human rights by allowing dissent would protect against authoritarianism but also provide a socio-economic bottom-line to protect against exploitation. While ideology strongly favors elites and the Corporations ethical human rights emphasizes small/medium business rather than the corporations. Or rather than a global free market, it emphasizes the domestic free market. It is often said that Corporate empires have a detrimental effect on wildlife (reducing habitat) and possibly climate change. Because ethical human rights only deal with the core minimum of human rights it would not be overly expensive and most likely attainable by nearly all States. Ethical human rights enable sufficient survival and self-help rights to enable individual self-determination i.e. the seeking of truth, hopes and dreams and enable a country to forge new paths into the future. In my view, the major distinction between counties and tribes is intelligence and ethical human rights encourage the best and brightest rather than exclude them e.g. there was a mass exodus of the best and brightest from NZ so now there are very few articulate enough to stand up for it. There is not enough space to describe ethical human rights in full here but I have written two books on ethical human rights. There is a copy in the Birkenhead library. Also see my blog, outsiderethicalhumanrights.home.blog.
Outsider, Ethical Human Rights 