UN has the right to tell Tahiti that their practices are wrong because they are exercise “contrary to the purposes” of the UN? Further, we have established that government is to exist by the extent of the governed, not by an elite group of tyrannical delegates from cultures that have nothing to do with our own. The United Nations may be under the impression that they are acting for the best interests of mankind, but this is not the case. They are only politicians controlled by politics. Maybe the founders of this declaration were sincere in their motives, but what would happen if another Hitler gained power in the UN? Could he persuade other delegates to join him in a quest for world domination acting under the existing approval of the superpowers of the world who control the United Nations? When the articles within the Declaration contradict themselves, how can Article 30 state that, “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” (N-5)? The UN Declaration was adopted without dissent on December 10, 1948, but I would declare that there is at least one with a dissenting opinion because I would argue that the UN Declaration violates my rights as an individual.While I did not live during the Enlightenment movement, I do consider myself to be a “child of the Enlightenment.” I believe in most of what the Enlightenment stands for, and although nothing seems to be perfect now, I am optimistic that the human condition can continue to improve with work. We must not allow government to exist without the will of the governed, and we can’t afford to allow the “tyranny of the majority” to rule because they outnumber the truly enlightened. My beliefs can be summarized in the famous words of John Stuart Mill: &#...
