Re: rights

["michael helsem" <graywyvern@hotmail.com>]

i don't think it's a very good idea to try to calque the UN statement 
w/out unpacking some of the hidden ideological baggage (or what use is 
lojban?)... it seems to be that the first portion is really about the x3 
of BILGA, & the rest of it x2; thusly, 'All of us are in the 
frame-of-reference whereby we are obligated to allow every human to 
do/be the following...' --alot of these words are connotational & 
designed to evoke the atmosphere of the Enlightenment-- add such 
attitudinals as designate the feeling itself, rather than treat 
"inalienable", "family", "freedom" et al as derivable from gismu, for 
they are not used in natural language in the same way as "part (of a 
mechanism)", "genetic-sibling", "absence-of-specific-constraint..."

having turned this into good lojban, one is "free" to declare it false, 
or to question the parameters of the frame-of-reference itself, or to 
argue (ugh!) that various humans differ in the amount that they are 
subject to this obligation. (otherwise, to mess with the feelings alone, 
clepes you a veritable nazi.) 

(i owe this thought to Simone Weil)

co'o mi'e maiky'elsym.