UNITE FOR RIGHTS BLOG

Previous blogs have talked about the mission of Unite for Rights and the architecture for carrying out that mission. This one describes the philosophical foundation upon which the mission and architecture rest. 

Unite for Rights puts our social contract, our agreement as to how we will live together on this magnificent planet, into writing.

Today, after thousands of years, humans have an understanding of rules which they live by together. We are not born with rules, we are born without them. But for the sake of security, and personal as well as social advancement, we reach agreements so that we may live in peace with well-being, or at least have the means to resolve disputes through law rather than war, and provide for a decent, if unequal, life for all.

We call these agreements laws, whether they are created in a town, city, state, nation, or internationally. Law is an agreement to live together at each of these levels. 

Law, like physics or psychology, is not fixed; it’s a continuum. Newton’s theories were thought to be absolute until Einstein proved him wrong. So too with our social contract. Though some may claim agreements embodied in law absolute, they are not. Law, like physics, is evolutionary.

The question, then, is what evolutionary path do we take to further develop our social contract, our agreement to live together, at the international level? And how do we make it enforceable for those who govern in all countries?

 Jean Jacques Rousseau, a Swiss/French philosopher, in his famous book Social Contract (1762) said that it is for us, the people, to write the rules for those who govern: “The people build the machine, the Prince merely operates it.” A Bill of Rights, at any level, is the machine.

But what rules do we include, and how do we pick them? Another philosopher, John Rawls, a leading thinker in political philosophy, elaborated on the social contract two centuries after Rousseau, with three masterworks: A Theory of Justice, Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples.

Rawls suggested that in order to choose rights, it is important to think from the perspective of a person who could come out into the world in any place, in any country.

He called the application of this screen “the veil of ignorance.” When the veil is applied it is unlikely that those choosing rights would construct a social contract whereby 80% of the people on Earth are living on less than $10 US dollars a day. Nor would they accept widespread limitations on the ability to speak their minds about those who govern, realizing that they are giving up their personal liberty to tyranny.

Unite for Rights applies this philosophical thinking in our “drafting through dialogue” process. SAYING “BUT COUNTRY X WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS” IS NEVER AN APPOSITE COMMENT WHEN ENGAGED IN THE DRAFTING THROUGH DIALOGUE PROCESS. There is a draft International Bill of Rights on our Unite for Rights website. With Rousseau and Rawls in mind, Unite asks you to help edit this Bill of Rights assuming that you could emerge any place, in any country, so that it can become a social contract for those who govern in all countries, and for us as citizens in our interactions with one another.

The deal is we give representatives the power to govern only when they agree in return that we get a certain set of rights. As we make this list of rights, let’s not think from a myopic view of our own particular circumstances, but from a view for all humanity. As author Paulo Coelho conveyed in “The Alchemist”: “When you conspire on behalf of the world, the world conspires on behalf of you.”

A simple rule of thumb is that when a child is born, wherever that child may be, the rest of us clap, and welcome them into a social contract which provides for a good life on Earth, including rules upon anyone who may govern them.

The philosophy of Unite for Rights is not wishful thinking, it also contains process. After the end of World War I, having personally seen the atrocities of conflicts among nation states, Eleanor Roosevelt spoke out publicly in favor of a “World Court” that could resolve disputes between nations to provide for judicial resolution of inevitable disputes.

After World War II, Eleanor, with Rene Cassin (who also supported a World Court after WWI, where he was maimed in battle) revisited the idea of rights enforceable in courts, this time embodying it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and later in the European Court of Human Rights. 

A political philosopher with whom I studied, Burleigh Wilkins, wrote about the expansion of Regional Courts such as the European Court of Human Rights to form an intertwined array of courts that could be reviewed by an International Court of Human Rights. This map captures such a regional court structure: Burleigh blended the philosophy of social contract with the application of enforceable law.

Few have understood better the evolutionary process of human rights into legal rights, enforceable in courts of law, than Frank Newman, the former Dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of law. I had the good fortune to study with Frank as a law student, and he later was my mentor for my LL.M. 

Frank had a specific benchmark for me as I embarked on my LL.M. He made me promise to “make human rights juridical,” that is enforceable in courts of law. Frank had also served as a Justice on the California Supreme Court before leaving it to return to Berkeley Law and his work to make human rights “juridical,” not just in California, or the U.S., but internationally. 

At Unite for Rights, you have the juncture of social contract theory with enforceable law. A symbiotic relationship in which one is insufficient without the other, and in combination follows the directive of Eleanor Roosevelt that “we must do the thing we think we cannot do,” make human rights enforceable in the courts of all countries, with Regional Courts to provide review when domestic courts fail, so that rights become “fully realized” in accordance with Article 28 of the UDHR.

There were concerns expressed at the time of the drafting of the UDHR. One of the leading legal scholars of the day, Hersh Lauterpacht, expressed his concern that the UDHR would give a false impression that it was law, when it was not. He thought that a situation would emerge whereby the UDHR would be proclaimed, yet remain unenforceable, or that academics would claim it was enforceable, but Judges would refuse to apply it in cases: that is what has happened. 

It’s time to admit that Lauterpacht was right. It is not admitting failure, but rather provides a guide, both philosophical and practical, for our next steps to take. 

 

As we seek to apply a “veil of ignorance” while we draft an International Bill of Rights, that is, we choose a list of rights assuming we might emerge as a citizen of any town, city or nation on Earth after the list is chosen, we can benefit from a global perspective as we draft the International Bill of Rights document. 

We are taught from infancy that we have a particular nationality, and to favor the people of that nationality. We need to temper this teaching with a broader perspective. Let me provide an example. I have friends across Europe. If I ask my friends in Poland “are you European”, unhesitatingly their answer is “Yes, of course”. If I then follow up with “are you Polish”, their answer, also unhesitatingly, is “Yes, of course”. I call this perspective of being two things at once, both European and Polish, “leveling up.”

This “leveling up” is evident with people throughout Europe, be they in Germany, Spain, Denmark or Italy. From a young age, people in 47 different countries are taught that they have a shared identity as Europeans, as well as their national identity. This sense of shared identity is empowering: it provides the open-mindedness needed for finding the rights that the people in all of these 47 countries have in common: protecting the environment, nondiscrimination, freedom of speech, democracy, freedom of religion and many other core values.

The next level up is for people, nonprofits, businesses and governments to see themselves as “Uniters”: Polish, yes; European, African, South American, yes: Uniters, yes. Uniters are not a country, or a region, but the inhabitants of Earth who share a perspective that there should be an international social contract, our agreement to live together, based on enforceable rights embodied in an International Bill of Rights.

There have been great leaders, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Eleanor Roosevelt, and many others, who have urged that we gain a broader perspective of rights for all humanity. True, there is global fragmentatioon still, but the perspective, and expectation, for certain core rights for all on Earth is growing. You can contribute by actively engaging your own mind to have a broader perspective than, perhaps, the one you have been taught.

Looking back to Eleanor Roosevelt, we see that Eleanor did not favor the people of one country over another. She saw the people of all countries as equals saying: “It is wise, I think, to teach children that intrinsically every human being has the same value . . . and to work toward a world where every individual may have the chance to develop his abilities to the greatest possible extent.”

Unfortunately, children are often not taught that “every human being has the same value.” Narrow minded, opportunistic leaders often use nationalistic fervor to stoke fear and divisiveness to empower themselves – it’s an old trick to pit people against each other. The result is that humans now spend close to 2 trillion dollars each year preparing for and waging war. We can do better, and must, for lives of well-being, and to survive.

Fortunately, since we’ve gone to space, we have a new source of insight to level up to a broader perspective.  In the early stages of space travel a Russian cosmonaut, Oleg Makarov, shared this perspective with us. As he looked out the porthole of his space capsule, he had a camera in hand and he was hanging in the orbital module preparing to take a picture. As he trained the camera upon Earth, he said: “it looked like a map.” He explained, “when the porthole is pointing straight down on the ground, you can’t see the horizon, and so you get the impression that you are watching a map glide by beneath you…unconsciously you look for the lines that are on such maps, but they are not there.”

Yes, they are not there. From that vantage, it’s clear that they do not exist – we create them, just as we create the international social order for the people, species, life, on that planet below, Earth. We can think and we can write: with a new perspective looking through the eyes of astronauts, we can unite. Through Unite for Rights we can create an international social order much better than the one that presently exists. One that works for all on that spinning planet below.   

With a new perspective comes a new attitude. Most astronauts return changed mentally. It is so common that astronauts have even coined a term for it “The Overview Effect.” A Saudi astronaut has described the overview effect brilliantly: “The first day or so we all pointed to our countries. The third or fourth day we were pointing to our continents. By the fifth day we were aware of only one Earth.”

We can learn from and gain this perspective. It is essential to the success of Unite for Rights. So take that first step. See through the eyes of astronauts; use courage and set your imagination free to think about enforceable rights for all on that beautiful planet below.

Now that we have thought together about mission, plan, program and perspective, it’s time to think about participation. Margaret Mead provides us a starting point. She famously said “Never underestimate the power of a small group of dedicated people to change the world, indeed it’s the only way that change has occurred.”

Following Margaret’s guidance, Unite for Rights is looking for 1% of people, nonprofits, businesses and governments to join together on the spinning Unite globe and “be a light for an International Bill of Rights”. Unite’s goal is revive the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and renew its intended trajectory as a set of enforceable rights in the courts of all countries. To accomplish this goal, we only need 1% of humanity; we hope that you will be one of them.

I’d like to tell you a story to help explain why 1% is all we need.

Once there was a river that flowed through a town. One day bodies started coming down the river, some were  dead, others seriously injured. The people in the town were caring and compassionate. They started pulling bodies out of the river.  When bodies kept coming, they built hospitals and other facilities near the river. Then one day while a group was taking another body out of the water, a young woman helping looked up and said “this is very important, we have to get this body out of the water, but shouldn’t somebody go upstream?”

She was right: It’s time for 1% of people, nonprofits, businesses and governments to head upstream. If we need inspiration, we can look to those who have gone to war, and are still going to war. Eleanor Roosevelt had seen the bodies from war having personally visited every military hospital in the South Seas during WWII. From there she went upstream to Chair the Human Rights Commission, which drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It’s a difficult climb up to where the bodies are being sent into the water from a flawed social contract, and unending claims of rights that remain unenforceable in courts. It’s a steep climb, psychologically as well as physically, and at times financially difficult.  Most people, nonprofits, businesses and governments will not bother to go upstream, at least not at first.

Unite does not begrudge those who want to keep doing what they are doing, and not go upstream. Valiant work is being done just getting the bodies out of the water. But for the 1% of people, nonprofits, businesses and governments who are leaders, and are ready to go upstream, Unite facilitates taking this path less traveled by.

Of course there are naysayers. Those who tell generation after generation that humans are just war-like creatures, and it will always be so. The book, Humankind, debunks this myth. It presents evidence that homosapiens have not always been at war. Recent writing by Yuval Noah Harari confirms this as well. Homosapiens have become the dominate species on Earth not because of war, but because of the ability to collaborate. The time has come when those of us who believe that we can live as an international community on Earth, surely with disagreements, but with Judges and the rule of law to resolve them, will challenge the worn out myth that war is the norm – particularly as we embark into space. We should go to space together with all of our strengths, rather than carry our outdated mentality of war with one another into space with us.

If you are one of the people, nonprofits, businesses or governments willing to go upstream, you can start by signing on to the globe on the Unite website. It is easy, less than a minute. When you sign your name and country a spark of light ignites on the globe wherever you are. At that moment you are a leader; you are a “Uniter”; you are a light for rights. After signing, the most helpful thing you can do is to encourage people, nonprofits, businesses and governments you think might be also be interested in traveling with us upstream with us to come along.

When confronted with the unwillingness of people to discard the old worn out myths such as “war is just the best we can do,” and bring in the new, an integrated, international community, Dr. Martin Luther King said “people make better taillights than headlights.” Be a leader; be a headlight, others will follow you.

This does not mean that all the valiant people, nonprofits, businesses and governments pulling bodies out of the water our should stop their work! Unite commends those pulling the bodies out of the river! It’s the hardest work there is, and it certainly matters to those who are saved.

But at some point if we do not also go upstream, then we are institutionalizing the violation of rights by not stopping violations from happening.

It’s time to trek together upstream. For participation, let’s spend 99% of our time getting  the bodies getting the bodies out of the river, and 1% to go upstream!

 

 

Just as it will only take 1% of people, nonprofits, businesses and governments to participate, it will only take 1% of philanthropy for Unite for Rights to succeed. Can philanthropy help re-write our social contract so that many of the problems philanthropy addresses can be eliminated, or reduced, so they are not as prevalent?

Julia Stasch, a past President of the MacArthur Foundation, has said that the responsibility to serve the public good “challenges us to periodically revisit our mission, to consider whether our areas of focus, our objectives, and our approaches are sufficiently bold, flexible, inventive, and effective, and to ensure that we are tackling some of the world’s most profound issues as they rapidly evolve.”

In other words, it’s time for rethinking. As President Stasch explains “the times demand that we question long-standing orthodoxies, established assumptions, comfortable practices, and even goals.”

This insight and advice is true: the question is whether it will be applied. Are other philanthropic leaders, foundations and individuals willing to lead to “bring in the new.” Precisely, are they willing to become Uniters? Are philanthropic foundations willing to join on the globe as green lights? Will they allocate 1% of their funding, along with thousands of other foundations, to address the problems of the world in a systemic, rather than a bandage, type of way? Will 1% of them go upstream?

The tension between addressing immediate problems and acting to prevent them from occurring, reminds me of a poem: “An Ambulance or a Fence” written by Joseph Malins in 1895.

‘Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;
But over its terrible edge there had slipped
A duke and full many a peasant.
So the people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally;
Some said, “Put a fence ’round the edge of the cliff,”
Some, “An ambulance down in the valley.”

But the cry for the ambulance carried the day,
For it spread through the neighboring city;
A fence may be useful or not, it is true,
But each heart became full of pity
For those who slipped over the dangerous cliff;
And the dwellers in highway and alley
Gave pounds and gave pence, not to put up a fence,
But an ambulance down in the valley.

“For the cliff is all right, if you’re careful,” they said,
“And, if folks even slip and are dropping,
It isn’t the slipping that hurts them so much
As the shock down below when they’re stopping.”
So day after day, as these mishaps occurred,
Quick forth would those rescuers sally
To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff,
With their ambulance down in the valley.

Then an old sage remarked: “It’s a marvel to me
That people give far more attention
To repairing results than to stopping the cause,
When they’d much better aim at prevention.
Let us stop at its source all this mischief,” cried he,
“Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally;
If the cliff we will fence, we might almost dispense
With the ambulance down in the valley.”

“Oh he’s a fanatic,” the others rejoined,
“Dispense with the ambulance? Never!
He’d dispense with all charities, too, if he could;
No! No! We’ll support them forever.
Aren’t we picking up folks just as fast as they fall?
And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he?
Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence,
While the ambulance works in the valley?”

But the sensible few, who are practical too,
Will not bear with such nonsense much longer;
They believe that prevention is better than cure,
And their party will soon be the stronger.
Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen,
And while other philanthropists dally,
They will scorn all pretense, and put up a stout fence
On the cliff that hangs over the valley.

Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old,
For the voice of true wisdom is calling.
“To rescue the fallen is good, but ’tis best
To prevent other people from falling.”
Better close up the source of temptation and crime
Than deliver from dungeon or galley;
Better put a strong fence ’round the top of the cliff
Than an ambulance down in the valley.

This poem, “An Ambulance or a Fence”, captures the state of philanthropy today. Not only does a bias towards ambulances prevail, but few philanthropies will fund the building of a fence, and even fewer will band together to build the fence.

Given present momentum, it is not easy to convince people, nonprofits, businesses and governments to construct a fence. It takes courage “to challenge established assumptions, comfortable practices, and even goals”, but it needs to be done. Not to replace the ambulance, but to complement it. Considering the cataclysmic problems we face: the prospect of nuclear war; the despoiling of our biosphere for Earth, ever increasing disparity of wealth, we must act at the level where these problems originate.

99% of all philanthopy can, and should, go to building ambulances, but it’s also time for 1% of all philanthropic funding to go toward building a fence. That fence is Unite for Rights to do two things: 1) gather Uniters: people, nonprofits, businesses and governments to unite on the globe; 2) to faciltate Uniters in their drafting of an International Bill of Rights that can be put into a treaty which can be approved and implemented through the United Nations General Assembly.

This is not an epiphany. It is the fulfillment of Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which recognized that the Universal Declaration was unenforceable, and that the time would come (which is here now), when the rights in the UDHR would become enforceable in courts of law, not just the court of public opinion. The International Bill of Rights which Unite for Rights has helped to facilitate drafting for 14 years (you can see the draft on the website) is that fence.

The logo of Unite for Rights includes four intertwined figures: gray for people, green for nonprofit organizations, blue for businesses, and brown for governments

All are Uniters; no Uniter has any more power than any other as to what rights should be included in an International Bill of Rights. Every human brings the same power to the table to draft an International Bill of Rights. True, it’s unorthodox to think that all foundations and philanthropic individuals will direct 1% of their giving to unite for the common good, but as Rene Cassin said when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the UDHR and the European Court of Human Rights: “It works.” It does work.

The realization of the UDHR through the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights is the best protection and enforcement of human rights in the world today. Now, it is time to fund the remodeling and improvement of the African Court for Human and People’s Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with 50 million Euros each, to bring these two Courts up to the level of the European Court of Human Rights. While this is being done, the stregthening and expansion of other Regional Courts, as can be seen on this map, should be undertaken.

People internationally are ready to build a fence of enforceable fundamental rights for all; philanthropic funding provides the means. The situation today is that the people are more willing to live together in peace and prosperity within an international community than their governments.  Just 1% of philanthropy can provide the leadership to revive the most comprehensive international social movement of all time, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

We can build this together.

The construction of this fence has been underway for 75 years! Let’s celebrate, and continue to build it with the support of 1% of philanthropic funding internationally. Cheers to those who began, including philanthropies, in 1948, who later proceeded through the interim years, and continue now. Thanks to you, the future does belong to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.

The first nine blog posts provide the mission, plan, perspective, participation and funding for Unite for Rights. What is left for the 10th blog (the first 10 blogs comprise the essence of Unite for Rights) is the source of power to accomplish all of these things. It is love.

Each of us desires a sense of purpose and well-being in our lives, and, generally, we wish this for those we love. The question, then, is who do we love? Each other. This is why a core principle for Unite is that when a child is born anywhere on Earth, the rest of us clap. Why, because a fellow human is born and we love that baby. The stories that child is told creates the life that they lead.

Their nationality, language, religion, freedom, values, turn on what they are taught. It may be that these may change, nationality for example, but this too depends on what they are taught, what they are allowed to change – what rights they have. An International Bill of Rights is a core story that all humans tell each other. As the author Malcolm Gladwell would describe it- Unite for Rights, and the International Bill of Rights it is drafting, is an “overstory” – it applies to all of us, wherever on Earth we may be.

Unite for Rights leads to a different ending than the stories we are presently telling across Earth. The stories on the path we are currently traveling lead to the ruin of our biosphere, the thin blue line of life encircling Earth, of which humans are a part; the expansion of the police state that infiltrates all aspects of our lives, monitoring what we do, and punishing us for daring to question authority, when we, the common people, are the authority for those who govern; the militarization of space, whereby we take our failed social order on Earth in which we spend over 2 trillion dollars a year preparing to kill and control each other, and move it out into interstellar spheres; the disparity of wealth to the point where 2% of the population own 80% of the entire planet; all of which lead to a genuine possibility of WWIII and the lack of well-being for the majority of people on the planet. This is not a loving way to leave our planet for future generations.

As Malcolm Gladwell has written: “The world we could have is so much richer than the one that we have settled for.”

We can do better. Our ability to read and write gives us the means to change; it’s love that gives us the power. Great leaders love others as they love themselves. Eleanor Roosevelt loved people – all of them. Same with Gandhi, King, Mandela, and this is true throughout the arts, as Lenny Kravitz sings, we are “Here to Love.”

It may seem trite, but love, like character and compassion, needs to be cultivated, watered, nurtured, grown. Unite for Rights offers us the opportunity to focus and act together out of love. In under one minute you can demonstrate your love for yourself, your children, for others and and for life on the planet we share by becoming a “Uniter” and joining others on the globe.

And when we get on the same globe as “lights for rights” we travel from self-centered to what David Brooks has called “other centered.” In so doing, we accomplish what is best for ourselves, as well as those with whom we share Earth. When we love each other, we all prosper. The love you give to others they give back to you. To paraphrase Paul Coelho in the The Alchemist,   “When you conspire on behalf of the world, the world conspires on behalf of you.” So it is with Unite for Rights and an International Bill of Rights.

One of the most profound thoughts I’ve come across in life was shared with me by a close friend of mine, an emergency room doctor, he got it from a fortune cookie – here’s the fortune: “The tightest chains that bind us are those that we place upon ourselves.”

Over the years, I’ve wrestled with the insight offered in this fortune. How is it that we place chains upon ourselves? The answer, often, is that we don’t think about what is optimum. Due to social pressures such as “real politic” we dampen our thinking about what might be, and allow an inordinate acceptence of things as they presently are. These are the chains we place on ourselves, the limited view of others.

More often than not, the most frequent response I have in an intial discussion about an International Bill of Rights is “Will the Russians, or the North Koreans agree to that.” The question misses the mark. The question is not what will be accepted now, or by that small part of humanity, but rather, what would be optimum? What is the story of rights for all to be taught to children, and adults, in Mexico, Russia, Kenya, or any other country?

If your chains are such that you are wed to a nation-state perspective, then this may be difficult, but what is optimum for humanity is not defined by any particular nationality. These nation-state lines are fabrications, as astronauts continue to tell us who have experienced the “Overview Effect”: the lines of countries do not exist from space – we’ve created them. For the purposes of evolving as a species and into a international community, while keeping the cultural and historic traditions of nation-states is important, even as we associate ourselves with particular nations, we need to think about what is optimum for all of humanity. 

Unite for Rights asks a simple question: What would be an optimum International Bill of Rights, enforceable in the courts of all countries?

Admittedly, it is an inquisitive question. Unite does not claim to have an answer to this question, but it does have a starting point, and it is facilitating a dialogue. There is a draft of an International Bill of Rights on the homepage of the Unite website. Please check it out, loosen your chains, and contribute your thoughts. The tightest chains, the ones that hurt the most, are when you don’t even have the daring to contribute your thoughts, critical or supportive, about rights for all people. You are shackled if you just timidly let things go as they are.

If you do have the strength to share thoughts, whatever you say, whoever you are, it is given equal consideration whether you are a human rights professor, or a restaurant worker. Recent discussions about a Bill of Rights as part of new draft Constitution for Chile show that what is most important is participation, not position, and a broad portion of society wants to particpate in drafting the rules for those who govern.

Observing people reviewing a list of rights for 15 years, it’s clear that many people think more about what others think than ponder what they really think. This is a good opportunity to think for yourself.  Take it.

This process has been ongoing for 14 years (a new Version of the International Bill of Rights is published as a booklet and digitally each year). Unite is now working on Version 15. Suggestions for changes of wording, or a criticism about the idea an International Bill of Rights, can easily be made on the Unite home page. Just don’t sit silently as war expands and threats are made that satellites now are “war targets.” We’re taking our shortsighted vision into the expanse of space.

Einstein is right, it’s “the good people”, not the evil ones, who have gotten us in this predicament by failing to act together. Recycling in the kitchen is simply not enough. Be part of an international movement for enforceable rights; be a Uniter; be a light for an International Bill of Rights.

Unite seeks wide participation from all people, nonprofits, businesses and governments. ALL PEOPLE, NONPROFITS, BUSINESSES AND GOVERNMENTS ARE WELCOME ON THE UNITE FOR RIGHTS GLOBE: UNITE NEVER BANS ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SIGN AND BE A LIGHT FOR AN INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS. The draft International Bill of Rights document on the website is a starting point, not a finished document. Every comment, from any person, nonprofit, business or government is considered and responded to in a transparent manner.

And when you make your suggestion, please remember that we are drafting the most beautiful document possible: We are not concerned about whether one ruler or country will accept the document. The standard for all comments is what is best for humanity.  As you make your comment, break your chains. Imagine that the rights you pick would apply in all countries and discard your nationality. Consider that you could emerge in any country – what rights would you expect?

You are correct to have this expectation as all power for those who govern emanantes from you. When you brake your chains you can engage in one of the most powerful acts of your life – to join with others to accomplish with others that which you could never accomplish by yourself, to write the rules for those who govern as part of your agreement that they can govern.

Pardon if this seems brash. Today, many people recoil when asked to think for themselves about the world and life they want. Out of fear, or laziness, they let others decide for them. Socrates did not have this problem; nor did Rene Cassin (French), John Humphrey (Canadian), Eleanor Roosevelt (American), P.C. Chang (Chinese) or Charles Malik (Lebanese), some of the framers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Somehow, the inquisitive question of what is optimum has become a challenge rather than an inquiry. Even human rights organizations and philanthropic organizations rarely dare to think about what is optimum: what is the best humanity can do? Even worse, too often, if a question triggers serious reflection regarding issues we hold dear, we take the easy path – we stereotype it, discard it, label it as “conservative” or “liberal” — “blue” or “red”, in America.

The human palate of thought has many more hues. When I hear someone self identify almost immediately as “Republican” or “Democrat”, “Conservative” or “Liberal”, my first thought is “okay, I have a labeler – the chains they have applied to themselves are strong.” It’s actually a weak way to look at the world because it relies on stereotype rather than reflection. These people typically care more about expressing what they already think than learning something new, or engaging in a discussion so that they, along with the person with whom they are speaking, might both reach a higher level of understanding – as Socrates did. Those who self label hamper their own growth, along with the growth of the society of which they are part.

 Dialogue is a process that leads to growth. That’s why the core process of Unite’s drafting an International Bill of Rights is “drafting through dialogue.” 

Unite asks you to engage in dialogue without labels and think about what is optimum. Share it, and listen to others as they comment on your thoughts. THE WEIGHT OF THE IDEA, NOT ITS SOURCE, IS MOST VALUABLE. This is a defining feature of Unite and a reason it is worth funding.

As we check our labels at the at the door, or at this website, let’s dispense with stereotypes. Let’s challenge each other with ideas, and listen, rather than depend on the caricatures of the nightly news.

With this approach, we see our similarities along with our differences, not because it is “politically correct”,  but because searching for what is optimum is the only way we will achieve it – through writing, and listening, we can measure an idea, not based on stereotype, but on its weight.

On we go, with broken chains, to what is optimum.