I suppose most would agree with the right to life or right against slavery but are all the rights listed in the Universal Declaration worthy of being considered human rights?

My answer to your question is a resounding, "NO!" There are many, many "rights" codified in the UN Declaration of Human Rights that, simply put, are not rights. They simply aren't important enough. For example:

1. The right to rest and leisure. This is a privilege, not a right.

2. The right to paid vacations. It is questionable whether employers should be bound legally to grant this, let alone bound morally.

3. The right to social security. Of course, the Declaration was written by Eleanor Roosevelt...

4. The right to enjoy the arts. I am a huge proponent of music education and the fine arts in general, but this is most assuredly NOT a right.

Those are just a few examples of the kind of inanity and politically-minded subterfuge that pervade the Declaration. Of course, this argument is completely academic, because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is completely invalidated by its own subclause. Check the document; it's near the end, Article 29, Paragraph 3. According to the Declaration itself, "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

So, in other words, this famous document isn't worth the paper it was printed on. According to the Declaration, you only the rights in i unti lthe UN says you no longer have those rights. You have a right to property, unless some UN purpose or program--such as seizing your property and enslaving you and your family--gets in the way. From its very beginnings, the UN has worked against the cause of freedom, and it has now ecome an overrated, corrupt, inefficient train wreck of an organization that only impedes progress and points fingers at people who are actually trying to do some good.

__________________
Men of England, heirs of Glory,
Heroes of unwritten story,
Nurslings of one mighty Mother,
Hopes of her, and one another;

Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few.

- Percy Shelley, "The Masque of Anarchy"

shameful that the US hasnt caught onto this...proof its not working, the majority of fortune 500 firms are european.

Your paraphrasing of the document is somewhat lacking:

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(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.

(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

Article 27.
(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.

That all seems reasonable to me

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

This is the worst one. If food, clothing, housing etc magically appeared out in the desert, it could reasonably be asserted that everyone has a right to their share. But that's not what happens - all these things are the result of the productive efforts of people. Saying you have a >>right<< to the fruits of other people's labor is socialist slavery. Our society, imbued with judaeo-christian ethics, has frequently decided to help the poor with private and government charity, but the notion that anyone has a claim on the work of others by right is manifestly false.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Blade really hit the nail on the head. The "rights" codified in the Universal Declaration include many things that are received through one's own labor, not by birthright. I would perhaps agree more readily with the Declaration if it stated that everyone had the "right to work toward" goals such as an "adequate standard of living," "rest and leisure," and even "holidays with pay." In its current form, the document degrades the natural rights of all men and women by lumping in with them all manner of fripperies and trivialities.

Also, I repeat my point that the whole thing is useless anyway. Article 29, Paragraph 3.

__________________
Men of England, heirs of Glory,
Heroes of unwritten story,
Nurslings of one mighty Mother,
Hopes of her, and one another;

Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few.

- Percy Shelley, "The Masque of Anarchy"

It also gives the right for all to have a nationality. How could this be avoided? unless you were born on Gilliagan's Island, what land doesn't belong to a country

Have you never heard of Palestinians?

Once again, the level of ignorance on these boards is nothing short of astounding. Why don't you try - just for once - pulling your head out of your own petty little world for a moment and actually try to understand what this declaration actually means.

For the most part throughout history, most people around the world have existed with some sort of "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.". That is how human society actually developed - by developing a social grouping where these "rights" became inherent.

What this declaration is saying is, not that people have a right to have these things "given" to them, as you seem to think. But that people have a "right" to not have these things taken from them. For example, subsistence farming communities in Africa or South America have a "right" to be able to maintain their standard of living without having Western agribusiness companies taking their land which they use to provide their own food - to grow stock-feed so that Westerners can enjoy cheap takeaway hamburgers. Or Pacific Islanders who live on subsistence tuna farming have a "right" to maintain that way of life without US fishing trawlers fishing illegally in their waters.

To hear people like you, who have obviously had the great fortune of having been born into affluence pontificate about "socialist slavery" is truly pathetic. This petty nonsense you carry on with is ridiculous. Why don't you try to actually learn a little bit about things before you go spouting this rubbish?

I have heard of the Palestinians. They are a state-less nation. They are however a nation, thus they have a nationality