"(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
(1) & (2) contractual rights having nothing to do with fundamental rights in that "government" is not fundamental to human life, whereas governance is.
(3) is inappropriate to the Declaration as the "will" of the people cannot be demonstrated as being anything other than arbitrary, the "will of the people" therefore constituting at best nothing more than the caprice of a mob and purportedly justified as authority over the rest by mere virtue of superior numbers. Furthermore, the "will" of one man cannot be demonstrated as having authority over another under "normal" circumstances and where no contract exists ceding such authority to a given man.
(3) addresses no human right whatsoever, but rather a structural issue of governance. Note the complete absence of any constitutional limitations on the "will of the people". (3) also directly contradicts the Preamble (rights are absolute) and all of the articles up to this point. If government is to be based on the "will of the people", then rights as such have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
"Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality."
"Social security" is undefined and therefore devoid of meaning. The article fails utterly on this basis alone. In addition, it describes a benefit expressed as a contractual right and has no place in this Declaration. Furthermore, none of the stipulations make reference to how "social security" is to be provided, who would pay to provide them, who would administer it, by what authority is it to be provided, what of those uninterested in participating and paying, and so forth. There is no supporting argument to demonstrate the validity of the assertion that all people have the positive contractual right to the undefined "social security". While vague, it is still strongly hinted that the right as stated is by no means negative in nature. None of the emotionally charged terms such as "dignity" and "free development" are defined. The article is completely devoid of sense and thereby fails completely ad with catastrophic force.
"(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."
(1) "Right to work" does not imply the right to be provided with a job. Example: if the only position available in the world were that for a rocket scientist and John knew nothing of rocket science but was the only man seeking work, the presumption that he has a right to be provided with a job would directly and with great force imply that either he is to be given the position as a rocket scientist or some nonsense job for which his skills are suited would have to be contrived in order ot put him to work at the expense of his fellows.
(2) fails to define what "equal work" means.
(3) Neither "just" nor "favorable" are defined. Furthermore, favorable to whom? If the worker, what is to be said when he declares $1 million per hour as "unfavorable"? What defines "worthy of dignity"? Who defines it for all humanity? Whence the authority to define it for all humanity? The tacit presumption here is that the standard is the same for all people. What defines "necessary"? What are the "other means of social protection"? Who decides that "social protection" is necessary and just for all people? Whence their authority to decide such things for all people, worldwide?
(4) How could a trade union be deemed a fundamental human right? Do business owners have the same right to reject trade unions for the protection of his interests?
The article is hopelessly vague, thereby devoid of meaning, and therefore fails completely.
"Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay."
"Rest and leisure" are undefined. Can these be defined universally for all people? Does a right to rest and leisure mean the right to be provided with the forms? May John demand a six-month cruise on the French Riviera? If not, why not? If so, who shall pay?
Article fails due to void of definitions and other specificity.
"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(1) Who defines this standard and how are they authorized to do so and impose it upon the world? "Adequate", "well-being", "necessary", "social services", "right to security" are undefined.(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."
(2) Basis for "special care" is undemonstrated and undefined. "Social protection" undefined. Article fails.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(1) Does the "right to education" mean the right to be provided with education at the expense of others? "Education" remains undefined. Upon what basis is the authority to compel "elementary" education claimed? "Elementary" is undefined and thereby devoid of meaning. "Equally accessible" is undefined.(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."
(2) What constitutes "full development of the human personality"? Who decides? On what authority do they decide? Upon what basis is "tolerance", which remains undefined, deemed worthy of special emphasis?
(3) If parents hold the undefined "prior right" to determine the kind of education to be given their children, how does that square with the child's right to choose for himself and what if the parents choose for the child to learn intolerance of some specific thing?
"(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
More undefined terms, rendering the article devoid of specific meaning and thereby does it fail.(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."
"Order" is undefined, nor is the basis of authority established for defining it, much less imposing it upon all men. Fail."Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized."
"(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
(1) What are these duties, who determined them, and by what authority do they presume to impose these obligations upon all men? Where is the demonstration that these duties are absolutely necessary to the "full development of this personality"?
(2) While impressive sounding, terms remain undefined and the stipulation thereby devoid of specific meaning.
(3) Bald-faced tyranny shows itself for what it is in this stipulation. This statement alone voids every purported "right" thus far enumerated in this Declaration and demotes them to the status of a mere privilege if they are trumpet by the "purposes and principles of the United Nations." This is a failre of the most violently catastrophic sort as id demolishes all pretexts of the notion of a right as having any real validity in the eyes of the UN.
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association."
This is a rambling and disjointed nonsense. Article 29 renders it all the more so.
Summary and Conclusion
As any nominally intelligence, educated, honest, and rational adult can readily see, the UN Declaration of Human Rights is a document loaded with strong assertions, yet devoid of any meaning that may be pinned down solidly. Article 29 serves but one purpose: to assassinate any small epsilon of validity that the Declaration may have held when it declared in bald-faced contradiction to the other articles that human rights are actually not rights at all but rather mere privileges to be respected only at the whim and caprice of the UN.
The Declaration would be laughable were we able to simply ignore it. Unfortunately, there are men with guns who will do as they are told by other men calling themselves the "UN". This truth makes the Declaration a singularly dangerous body of blathering nonsense because it threatens to bring with it the caprice of the tyrant backed by the point of the sword under the guise of "law".