(Part 2) Best human rights law books according to redditors
We found 185 Reddit comments discussing the best human rights law books. We ranked the 82 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
![A Nation Betrayed: Secret Cold War Experiments Performed on our Children and Other Innocent People[Annotated]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41eJHpYr6eL.jpg)
From an economics perspective:
From a social perspective:
From a moral perspective:
There's many more than just these, and there's a lot of underlying philosophy that modern conservationism is based on. I'd also categorize these books as a basis for "intellectual conservatism" as opposed to say "cultural conservatism". Something to note is that little of the conservative mindset is focused on policy and politics, per se. There is instead a strong emphasis on personal action and collective culture, the value of morals, and a focus on introspection. So while these books will perhaps help you understand a conservative perspective better, they will not likely provide a good basis for engaging in political debate. For that maybe you want a book by Ben Shapiro or something.
There's an extremely good book about infrastructure vulnerabilities out there, Stephen Flynn's 2007 book The Edge of Disaster. He's a former Coast Guard commander who was tasked by the Bush (the younger) administration, after 9/11, with identifying places where a well-informed terrorist could do the most damage with the least effort.
There turned out to be almost too many to count. Wait until you get to the chapter about how it's basically inevitable that sooner or later everybody without their own generator from Pennsylvania to Maine is going to lose all electricity for months, even without a terrorist attack. It turns out that the northeaster electrical grid is highly dependent on a string of coal-fired electrical plants that all use the same canal for refueling, that have no way to store coal on site, that have no plausible alternative delivery system that could keep up -- and the canal's locks are absolutely going to fail soon, because it can't be shut down long enough to rebuild them, and they're way overdue for a rebuild and already leaking. Lots of things like that.
tl;dr: The last guy the gov't tasked with studying this concluded that if we don't spend at least hundreds of billions on upgrading our infrastructure, and spend at least billions on upgrading our disaster response, then who needs terrorists? Our infrastructure will destroy itself, and our economy, faster than al Qaeda could do it.
Classical liberalism, is libertarianism. They're synonyms. Liberalism today is very different than the liberalism your referring to in his time. On a tangent this is a classic example of "First they take the words, then they take the meanings," George Orwell. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill.
​
As a quote:
"One of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism, he contributed widely to social theory, political theory, and political economy. Dubbed "the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century",[6] Mill's conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state and social control."
​
I encourage you to read this book to truly understand john mill, and some of the concepts of pure liberalism, and not the distorted view we see today: https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Dover-Thrift-Editions/dp/0486421309/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1536238974&sr=8-4&keywords=john+stuart+mill
​
Edit: As the very condescending user /u/Mikkels_ pointed out, it's they're not their.
Update: Physical edition is finally out.I've been following the popularly named "New Atheism" since 2007 out of high school, I really enjoyed their works and critiques. I had a slightly different intention when first beginning this project, hoping to demarcate positive aspects of religion from negative ones, but the more I looked into it . . . the more I recognized that Christopher Hitchens was right about religion poisoning everything. I think the Eastern religions can still reform (perhaps its my own bias due to my religious background), but I don't believe Islam or Christianity can reform at all. I explain why in the book. Judaism . . . I'd like to believe can reform, but the evidence isn't pretty and I don't mince words.
I'm not sure how well this'll be received. I still consider myself Hindu, albeit a Hindu Anti-Theist, if such a thing is possible and I explain my thoughts in the section on Sanatana Dharma (the real name for all Indian religions). But, if they can't reform, then Hitchens was completely correct and they should be obliterated like the Abrahamic faiths. I've really changed my views in these 4-years with emphasizing more of an anti-theistic perspective and I think Hitchens was right about a great many issues that people are still uncomfortable with acknowledging. So, this is my own small contribution. I had hoped to do a double-release with a digital and physical copy, but the physical edition is still in Amazon's review process and could take up to 72 hours. It's also going to be a lot more expensive than the digital edition because Amazon takes a cut from royalties for every page count used. It's still more money than traditional publishing though. Anyway, if any of you are interested, then I hope you enjoy. I don't mince words for any of the major religions, including my own religious background of Sanatana Dharma.
Update: Due to popular feedback, I decided to make split versions of the ebook edition for anyone who found 2554 pages too daunting but are still interested in reading my book. In case any of you are still interested.
Part I Only.
Part II Only.
Explanation on pricing can be read here.
Some that I've really enjoyed:
The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World by Michelle Goldberg
How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex by Cristina Page
Life's Work: A Moral Argument for Choice by Dr. Willie Parker
Lovejoy: A Year in the Life of an Abortion Clinic by Peter Korn
This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor by Susan Wicklund
Willing and Unable: Doctors' Constraints in Abortion Care by Lori R. Freedman
Who Decides: The Abortion Rights of Teens by J. Shoshanna Ehrlich
The Story of Jane: The Legendary Underground Feminist Abortion Service by Laura Kaplan
The Abortionist by Rickie Solinger
I'm sure there's a lot more I'm forgetting, as well as ones I have yet to read but are on my list, but all of these were ones I found important/fascinating, and easy-to-read (no dense academic texts).
I self-published, since I just can't deal with the social dynamics of traditional publishing. I think next time, after I can afford to, I'll use IngramSpark rather than Amazon, as it has better distribution.
.
My fiction books are,
Fullness of Time:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07N91615Z/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_hSNzDbAMPVSWT
& Story Fragments:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07NKDCCBQ/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_QTNzDbJ888710
The third is somewhat of a political rant, by which I just expressed my views at the moment and was hoping to get free marketing by trolls essentially, it's Created Equal:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07NKYY37P/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_SVNzDbGDTM535
.
.
.
Yeah, I know they suck for now. :(
Hopefully I'll be able to finish the novella's series, and turn some of my short stories into books also. Soon though, I have to get back to wage slavery again, so as to have money to invest in them. Everything I've done so far, I've done without help, so unfortunately it looks shoddy. After I can afford editing and cover art, they should be far better.
.
One really cool ENFP friend with good taste offered to go through and make comments, to help me better self-edit basically, though she has chronic fatigue syndrome and it might take her a fair while. Between now and then, I hopefully will have saved up enough money to invest and improve my work otherwise.
.
I'll get the cover art, self-edit according to my friend's suggestions, then pay an editor to go over it, and publish it as a second edition before moving on to the next book, Station of Darkness, of which I made a visual outline with imagery from Pinterest: https://youtu.be/PwAi0ElUIUM
And I made Pinterest boards for it also,
Characters: https://pin.it/7tkddhpx73ap4m
Settings: https://pin.it/rknnwfo5diisf5
Props: https://pin.it/y5n4wbuim7hsr3
.
It's the best I could do, but of course it's like how things always go. At the beginning of a fad, people are more accepting of low quality crap like my books are presently, but as time goes on the standards keep being raised. Like most early science fiction would be rejected by publishers nowadays, party due to tropes and clichés people got bored with quickly, though also because they wrote at 12th grade level rather than 5th grade. I'm nowhere near as good as Lovecraft or Campbell of course, but such is the arbitrary nitpicking I decided to avoid by independent publication.
Nää kun lukee niin tulee vähän paska housuun. Ei välttämättä näitä ennen edes osaa paskoo housuunsa. Silmä ei nää asioita, joita aivo ei ymmärrä.
Three books I'd suggest, in the order I'd read them:
Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman
The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek
Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick
Outside the libertarian canon, Rousseau's On the Social Contract and Rawls' A Theory of Justice should be on everyone's reading list. Rawls and Nozick are probably the two most influential political philosophers of the late 20th century and understanding their arguments about the justification of property rights and the original position are the ABCs of modern political debate.
The case you pose involves a young adult (18+), which seems like it would fall outside any special parent-child relationship. As for any other special duties to close friends or family, it would seem that, at least for perfect duties, the whole spirit of deontology is that these duties are universal, and not contingent on whether someone is a close relation or a stranger. We might, however, have imperfect duties to friends and family that we don't have to strangers. If it's imperfect duties we're wondering about here, it would seem that the morality of keeping a secret from a friend or family would hinge on the extent to which that secret was corrosive to the relationship in question, and the extent to which that would hinder the respective participants' efforts to perfect themselves (and each other).
Things get a bit more sticky if the child in the parent-child relationship is much younger than the scenario you pose.
Kant (and most philosophers of the modern era, for that matter) is notorious for not exhibiting much sensitivity to cases that don't involve fully developed rational human beings. These days, we seem to lend some credence to the notion that no one just pops out of their mother a functioning moral agent, but rather that the sorts of capacities Kant is working from have a temporal component and develop as we grow, and some people (e.g. those with profound mental disabilities) may never fully develop those capacities.
Late edit: it should probably also be mentioned that these capacities can also diminish with age, something that's becoming more and more prevalent in contemporary society, and is no small moral issue. This raises significant questions about care-taking duties that children have toward their aging parents, and those conversations are not exactly analogous to parental care-taking in a deontological framework, since we're not really looking to develop an aging parent into a future rational agent.
The parent-child relationship is one that not only involves an agent that seemingly wouldn't qualify as the sort of person that Kant explicates perfect duties for/to, but also involves a relationship geared toward nurturing that being for their own sake, while making judgements for them for their own good. So the usual deontological reasoning regarding the perfect duties that stem from the various formulations of the categorical imperative are at the least, peculiar for these contexts, if not inapplicable altogether. That's not to say that some working deontological approach to the parent-child relationship isn't available, just that I'd be awfully surprised if you could pull it directly out of the Groundwork. Martha Nussbaum offers a pretty trenchant critique of the Kantian approach to these sorts of problems, and argues that her capabilities approach (c.f. Creating Capabilities) does a much better job.
Late edit, part II: Nussbaum also does a much better job with the aging-parent question mentioned earlier.
Here's an excerpt from the Science of Right that represents one of the few times Kant writes about this issue. I believe there is a similar discussion in the Metaphysics of Morals (note: not the same as the far more widely read Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals)
Yes. A brilliant work!
Gulag Archipelago (Volume one , Volume two , & Volume three ) – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
These books are quite long. There is an abridged version by the same translators in the links above. The abridged version is all volumes in one book. In my opinion, his experience and the effect he had upon this world is too great to only read the abridged version.
Half the Sky
A more serious addendum:
Carol Rutz's book on her experiences in MKULTRA/ARTICHOKE
And John Mark's book as well
A lot of people have been and are doing this work.
Who is it a "huge blind spot." for exactly?!?
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/speech-project/10-must-read-books-about-online-harassment-and-free-speech
https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Autonomy-Speech-Feminist-Amendment-ebook/dp/B004H0O1MC/
I'll assume you're asking rhetorically...?!?
One stab I've seen at this is part of Peter Westen's The Logic of Consent. While he's primarily focused on the setting of consent to sexual relations, he branches out a bit when talking about what he terms 'prospective consent'. I remember a couple primary examples.
The first primary example is a classic: Odysseus tied to the mast. He knew ahead of time that he was going to be in what he considered a weakened mental state, less capable of making proper decisions, so he ordered his men to prioritize his prior consent to be tied down over his later desire to be freed.
The second example I remember was a reluctant skydiver. This person has gone up in the plane multiple times, only to be overcome with fear and shying away from jumping out. On the final ascent, she says, "Look, I know I'm going to freak out in that one moment; I'm going to be incapable of making the decision that I really want to make. I trust you to be safe about it, so when the time comes, if I can't do it myself, I want you to push me out of the plane."
He discussed three or four factors that he thinks people weigh when considering whether or not to accept prospective consent, but I don't remember them all in detail. I don't him recall making many strong conclusions (especially with respect to the instant topic of consent to sexual relations), but rather trying to open the conversation to further work in this area.
> Original goal of the UN: Prevent WW3
WW3 having not occurred since the 50s was not orchestrated by the UN, or at the very least, WW3 would not have been any more likely to occur had the UN not existed.
>Then there's the humanitarian missions, the Nobel Prize and the other Nobel Prize winners for their work at the UN.
If you wanted The Red Cross, there's not need to call it the UN. Likewise with university research.
This whole conversation sounds like someone defending US Healthcare as being good because someone didn't die from a surgery. That, by no means, mean US Healthcare doesn't need a serious overhaul. And for UN, imo, the overhaul should be abolishment and a handing out of necessary designations to other countries. If you think I just hate the UN, think again. I used to want to work for them. Sure, they do some good work. But they are, on the whole, unnecessary.
Further reading (or just search Reddit):
http://www.amazon.com/10-Reasons-Abolish-Daniel-Greenfield-ebook/dp/B005QQM3QW
http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-The-United-Nations-should-be-abolished/1/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_United_Nations
The most recent publishing I would begin with is The Tolerance Trap or Queer by Choice.
In summary, they represent changes made in Queer studies of the past five years which criticize how the current LGBT movement have become severely misguided outside the original challenges of gender and sexuality offered by LGBT academics during 1950-80s, which were not motivated by genetic determinism [born-this-way argument].
Essentially the LGBT political movement in the early 1900's rested on this notion that sexuality is biological truth, despite scientists never fully advocating this and evidence that early environmental factors still play a role; this notion became internalized and unchallenged leading to sexuality developing into a comprehensive biological identity similar to being a women or african-american. The issue still remains that no conclusive evidence has proven that sexuality is anything more than genetically predisposed (with environmental factors also having influence). A double-edged sword comes along with that since many undesirable things, such as schizophrenia and alcoholism, also have genetic predispositions.
These newer books, as well as contemporary Queer theorists in their line, want to challenge the moral claims of sexuality and develop out Queer morality that have nothing to do with biological aspects. In effect sexuality could be a personal choice rather than a genetic punishment. Some queer theorists I have talked with are critical towards the LGBT categorization system, which require and reinforce the uneven foundations of genetic determinism for authentic meaning. Personally, I believe the system hyperinflated nonsense; sexual preferences should not constitute personal identity in that degree.
Some earlier works I would recommend is "Compulsory Heterosexuality" by Adrienne Rich or The History of Sexuality by Foucault. But I would add that Foucault's historical record [which has some problems] is not as important as his critique; One Hundred Years of Homosexuality by Halperin is seen as the better alternative to defend Foucault's views. These theories, however, are within the postmodern era and carry significant problems that are associated throughout the tradition.
I highly recommend Sex and Social Justice by Martha Nussbaum, which argues that so far our history has supervised sexuality rather than proven anything resembling moral truth.
Synopsis: Last week, without warning, the Trump administration cancelled over $200m in funding for research into teen pregnancy prevention. Sex education instructor Liz Cavill found out she was out of a job from reading about the funding cut on Twitter. She joins to talk about the ramifications of the administration’s short-sightedness, and the importance of speaking truthfully and frankly about sex. Her blog, the Sex Positive Parent is here
Michelle Goldberg is a writer for Slate and New York Times who has kept an unrelenting focus on what it means to have an admitted sexual assailant as our Commander in Chief — it’s a conversation no one ever wanted to have, something we don’t like to think, but that we have to talk about. You can find her work here and here
Her book, The Means of Reproduction, is as relevant as ever
Maybe you should update Wikipedia as it credits Liberal Democrat MP Lynn Featherstone with the bill
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Featherstone
Also someone should tell the publishers of her book that it was actually the Tories:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01A91WXD6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
I've read a few biographies of people that were in the government & all credit her with the initial idea & Nick Clegg for twisting Cameron's arm into doing it.
Cameron apparently was worried it might annoy his backbenchers & some Conservative donors.
> For instance we get caught up in new relationships and sometimes we obsess and desire that person so strongly we inherently want to consume and be consumed by them. Is this a bad thing?
Probably not. I mean, it can cause people to do bad things, but overall love's probably a good thing. You aren't going to find many philosophers saying we shouldn't fall in love, although you might investigate the Stoics and the Epicureans, both of which have interesting arguments about why it is bad to grow too attached to any specific person.
> Do we rationalize why adult child relationships are bad. Who can we cite when we feel its wrong and the ancient greeks felt no wrong?
I think the sexual abuse of children (and it is abuse, assuming they are too young and immature to consent to sexual relationships, which I take to be a pretty fair assumption) is pretty obviously bad, which is the rationalization we use today for saying that pederasty as practiced by the ancient Greeks is not okay even if they did mentor the children they abused.
> I know some things are wrong because legally they're wrong in some states however this does not equate to immoral sex especially if you happen to love.
You're a little confused here - you say "I know some things are wrong" but then a little later you say "I know illegality doesn't necessarily equate to immorality." I think the safe thing to say here is that you don't know some things are wrong, and in fact sexual relations between two consenting adults are pretty much never wrong.
> Then there are aspects found in muslim culture where honor killings and revenge killings are seen as immoral by westerners but acceptable within the confines of say an afghani pashtun farmer who is humiliated by his educated daughtee who doesn't want to be sold through a dowry?
I'm going to go ahead and say the Afghani farmer is incorrect to claim that it is morally acceptable to kill his daughter for reasons of honor (assuming he makes the claim).
> How do I find out my own understanding of love and its ethics and fundamentally do we come to the conclusion that the old adage "don't hate the player hate the game" is an accurate and succint way to conclude on this thought?
I don't understand what you are asking here.
As long as we're here, I might as well link the SEP entry on love and point you towards some of the essays in the second half of Martha Nussbaum's Sex and Social Justice, plus of course Plato's Symposium.
For the readers amongst us; the article draws on the work of constitutional professor Randy E. Barnett. Here are some links to his books.
Capitalist Nodes:
Pirate Nodes:
You can have law enforcement without it being restricted to vigilantism or a single monopoly provider.
I can't really give you a complete answer in this medium. However, there's a lot of writing by libertarian anarchists on this topic; let me point you to a few resources:
Books:
Articles:
There is no "right to freedom of movement" or any other such nonsense. Universal human rights is also a bogus concept.
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Human-Rights-Alain-Benoist-ebook/dp/B007W34JIW?ie=UTF8&keywords=human%20rights%20new%20right&qid=1464468737&ref_=sr_1_6&sr=8-6
That's a free market perspective that is increasing understood to be inadequate. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum would say that the government is responsible for helping people realize their capabilities, is another perspective in the liberal tradition.
Very true and ironic.
Terrorism needs to be stopped. Here is an elegant solution.
http://www.amazon.com/eliminate-Shabaab-Taliban-without-firing-ebook/dp/B01APXVD5W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453774706&sr=8-1&keywords=guide+to+eliminate+isis