So now vacations are a ‘human right’? Seems like more of the same from fringe that likes to claim everything they demand is a ‘human right’ to me, but what do you think?
Source = http://www.ottawacitizen.com/travel/news/Vacationing+human+right+chief+says/2924330/story.html
I certainly feel that companies should give their employees time off in order to take vacations. If you work hard throughout the year, there is no reason why I company shouldn't let you take some time off for a vacation (as long as your requested vacation dates don't conflict with days that someone else already asked for off or you don't ask off certain "black out" days where production is essential and all hands need to be on deck).
Do I think that tax dollars should be buy vacations? Hell no. I don't think vacations are some essential human right and that there is no "right to be a tourist." But I wouldn't object to labor laws requiring companies to allow their employees to take days off every once in a while (rather it's paid or unpaid vacation - I don't care. My point is that you should be able to get time off).
I'm in the age range 18-25 and do not make a lot of money... If only I lived in Europe, I could get a free or cheap vacation... LoL, no. I've never been the type that would be able to take advantage of anything like that... I would rather die than receive hand outs. I have too much pride.
Traveling vacations funded/subsidized by tax dollars? I can't see any reason why that's necessary. I don't believe traveling is a human right. I wouldn't say vacation time (as in time off work) is a human right; I would say any firm that doesn't offer vacation time to their employees or something equal in terms of benefits is a poor firm and may or may not make it in the market.
Well, they say travelling broadens the mind. So maybe it could be an educational experience for some. Who knows, maybe some of those travellers may use this as an opportunity to migrate to other parts of Europe.
Being able to take time off from work might be called a "human right", or something close to it, but having travel expenses paid by the government? I'd say, "surely you jest", but there is the link with the actual politician saying just that.
I'm not necessarily opposed to a scheme to subsidize some vacations, although I don't think it should be done on as broad a basis as this article talks about, and it most definitely should not be suggested on the same page where the word "human right" appears. It would be better if any such plan involved private funds instead of or in addition to public funds. How about a contribution from some of the areas which will be receiving the visits? Good opportunity for word-of-mouth advertising, I should think.
I don't think vacations are a human right, but getting time off work certainly is.
Everyone gets vacations??!! Hell on earth!
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
While I agree companies should allow employees to take time off if they want (no one should be subjected to forced labor), what the EU wants to do goes further. They make the claim that traveling on vacation (not just time off from work) is a 'human right' and therefore taxpayers should be forced to pay for those who can't afford to travel on vacation.
This seems idiotic to me. At the very least it takes away from objections when true human rights are violated (state-sanctioned false imprisonment/detainment, genocide, murder, rape, etc.). By resorting to the claim that every little kooky idea is a ‘human right’, the left is showing how weak its arguments are. What’s next? Is a cell phone a ‘human right’? What about a TV? While the argument can be made that these modern conveniences could have positive social value, they are far from being ‘human rights.’
[whistles and looks a bit shifty]
I'm not going to try to put up a defence here......
That's just silly, if it was April 1st I would have thought it a joke! Of course a job should allow their employees time off, but that's a far stretch from tax subsidized vacations.
Sign me up! I could use a few free weeks in Hawaii
OK...dammit I will put up a defence
Why not a right? The thing about defining it as a right is that you all become entitled to it. I see rights as a progressive idea in that they drive up the minimum standards which we will accept. Years ago that was little more than the hope of some food and shelter. Nowadays it is much more - and why not? Do people really think that we should return to some Victorian notion of charity from the rich being a favour to the other 70-80% of the population?
We have enough wealth in modern nations to be able to set a minimum wage, and a minimum standard of living. Why not aim high? My wife works for a charity that every year takes a bunch of kids from the local schools away for a week camping on Anglesey (a small island in Wales). These kids would otherwise get no holiday because they come from very poor or 'disturbed' families. There is not a doubt in my mind that this helps in no small way to get some of these kids onto the straight and narrow, after otherwise being destined for a miserable life of no ambition, drugs, petty crime and eventual imprisonment. I'd say a couple of hundred quid from the state to do the same for all such kids would pay for itself in fairly short order....
Well does the EU proposal include a requirement for foreign holidays? Not sure, hang on whilst I check...
Hmm...as I suspected. What we have is a Commissioner trying to make a name for himself and the Times being rather economical with the truth'. From there it has hit the wires and been picked up as reported by the times, by the looks of things.
a) It isn't actually being declared a 'right' - that is just a word he used in a speech. To be a right it would need to be incorporated into the Convention on Human Rights and I don't think that is proposed.
b) What he proposes is a scheme for 2011 which is actually little more than an EU sponsored scheme to encourage tourism within the EU whereby the EU give you up to 30% of the cost of the holiday. Not really such a big story methinks...
(I defended something far grander than this, so this is a bit of a let-down....)
Because going on an expense-paid vacation simply isn’t a right. It’s a luxury. It’s as simple as that. Calling it a right doesn’t make it a right, and doing so lessens the importance of true human rights.
So are you saying this wouldn’t be funded at all by “the rich” through taxes? You claim it’s a “Victorian notion of charity” but it functions the exact same way, just at the end of a gun, so I’m not sure what your point is.
Then by all means, donate your own money to send as many freeloaders to an exotic destination as you want. Just don’t expect others to follow suit. I agree that expanding one’s horizons has many beneficial side effects, but learning that you have to work to earn what you get is probably the most important lesson they should learn. (BTW, nice job of inserting the claim that it’s really about ‘fighting for the children’ in there.)
So people don’t have rights unless some state or body says they do? I take the opposite stance and say that people are born with inalienable rights, and the state can only function to encroach on those rights. States/bodies can not expand human rights, especially by adding some language to a document. What they can do is acknowledge that something is a right and that they will respect it, or at the very least codify that they will not encroach on a right, but sorry, they do not give anyone rights.
I’ll let your stance speak for itself. I’m sure others can opine on its merits without me needing to add my $0.02 since I’m sure you know how I feel about the ‘idea.’ It’s an EU issue, so I really have no skin in the game, but if the EU did implement such a stupid idea it would just be a matter of time before some idiot starts using that as an argument why the US should follow suit (as we saw in the government-run healthcare ‘debate’).
The inalienable rights stance is a dream. Nice, but not real. It is just as artificial and constructed as the notion of human rights. Rights are whatever you agree them to be. You can have one man wailing about his inalienable rights. Then you get another, but this one disagrees with some right or other (up to and including the right to life) and deprives him of that right. What price your 'inalienable' right then?
So, no you don't have rights unless they are granted by some body or organisation. I'm afraid that is how any society functions, from the moment you have more than 1 person.
According to you….
Sorry, but I simply disagree. We all have inalienable rights, and attempts by individuals, states, groups and/or organizations to infringe on those rights are human-rights abuses. For example, if a state issues a proclamation that genocide is no longer illegal, that doesn’t mean it’s not a human-rights violation. But it’s understandable that leftists would reject the idea of basic human rights and instead hold that rights are only granted by some body/state/organization/etc.
We're talking about holidays in this thread, but today, which is the start of the weekend where I am, I was wondering whether having two days off for a weekend is a right or a privilege? I would say it is a privilege. I feel lucky that I can work for five days, and rest for two, or at least have the choice of resting for two, as sometimes, given the nature of work one has to contribute some of your weekend time.
I think it is a great idea to provide holidays, to especially children who have never seen the ocean in their lives before or can be given the opportunity of experiencing a foreign country and culture. But organizing something like this would probably be more along the lines of charity and voluntary. Not a right.
I also agree with jmi. The State can't give or take away any of the rights I already have. Including the right of free speech. Unless I break some serious rules of behaviour.
Working hours are a matter of contract and are therefore legal rights.
You still haven't said where these 'rights' you claim come from. If I say it is my inalienable right to murder capitalists, then what 'right' have you to say that this is wrong? If you believe that rights are inalienable, and not 'granted' then what makes your rights any more 'valid' than any set of rights I might care to assert for myself?
I can see your point, and eventually it does get to be a slippery slope where an individual can make claims of ‘rights’ in just about any situation. But making claims that you have an “inalienable right to murder capitalists” is obviously ridiculous, and I would assume you are kidding. But my objection is this idea that rights are only possible if granted by the state. That flies in the face of the very idea of human or universal rights. It’s basically saying there are no real rights, but only privileges granted by the state. There are basic ideals that we can mostly agree on as human rights; right to life, right against false imprisonment, right to personal possessions, right of individual expression, etc. This seems more of a philosophical issue, really, but I would guess at the core it comes down to morality. Yes, certain mores may change a bit from culture to culture, but the basic tenets are pretty much the same. Those cultures that have laws or proclamations against those rights of life, etc. at least acknowledge that those infringements are fundamentally ‘wrong’ but try to justify themselves. For example, I can’t think of any culture where murder is not seen as a violation of human rights. But some individuals or groups violate that right in the name of ethnic/racial superiority (Darfur, Nazi Germany, etc.), preservation of social/political ideology (Nazi Germany, Communist Russia), as crime deterrent (too many to list), etc. My own opinion is that the state should not be in the business of killing its citizens, even as a crime deterrent (and I also acknowledge the controversy of whether is effective as a deterrent). One of my big gripes with the Republican party (and the Democratic party as well) here in the US is its hypocritical stances of the death penalty and abortion. If they take the stance against abortion that it’s a life and we shouldn’t end that life, you can’t then take the opposite stance concerning the death penalty. Yes, the argument can be made that one is ‘innocent’ (depending on your religious beliefs) while the other isn’t, but at the end of the day you are taking a life. Republicans take the hard line on the death penalty because they want to be seen as ‘tough on crime,’ but I would just say make prison really, really suck instead of killing these people. The objective is to remove these dangerous people from society, and that can be done without killing them. No more cable, no more conjugal visits, etc. have them break rocks until the end of their lives and maybe repay society for the damage they have done. I can’t respect the Democrats’ stance at all, however, because they avoid the issue altogether and claim that a baby in the womb isn’t a life and therefore killing it really isn’t ending a life. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
I understand you all are talking philosophy, but for me I just settle on the accepted norms and standards. I'm conservative that way. Vacations are a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 'Nuff said.
Some simple examples : Do you believe that troops have an inalienable right to life and (it follows) that any attempt or effort which puts that life in danger is therefore immoral?
(It is no use pointing out that they are volunteers - surely nobody can gainsay an inalienable right?)
What if the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said everyone has the right to rape you?
Would that be " 'Nuff said"?
The Europeans have some ideas that are strange to those of us in North America.
3-12 weeks vacation in almost all European Countries. 31/2 or 4 day work weeks. It's a different value system and different life over there.
Overall I am supportive of the idea, as we all need a break from work. We get a lunch break, why not guarantee a vacation break (it doesnt mean you have to travel - but everyone deserves a respite from work).
As for the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, I do not feel it is the definitive or final document on human rights. Property and wealth rights are strongly included, but other human rights, especially environmental rights or rights to daily living needs are not included.
I accept that we Europeans have standards and attitudes that are not necessarily shared or even understood by many Americans - that is largely down to history. Most (all?) European countries have a 'mixed' state - a mixture of socialism and capitalism that varies between states. America is the closest country to 'pure' capitalism - although obviously no state is fully one or the other.
The issue tends to be simplified as 'big state' vs 'small state' with the former being characterised as 'left wing' and the latter 'right wing'. This is actually wrong in some important ways. My own political ideals, for example, could be labelled as anarcho-syndicalist. Very much of the left but very much against a big centralised state.
Since when is the right wing a proponent of the 'small state'?
Sure, they claim to be sometimes, but on several issues right-wingers are almost always proponents of government involvement.
And, to be fair, left-wingers aren't always fond of a 'big state'... It's just that certain stances of theirs tend towards a growing government.