Lord of the flies is a book. A work of fiction.
Seriously though, you think that human rights are innate enough the they are intrinsically understood by all as a universal code that needs no definition? I think you would find a wide variance from country to country, state to state, city to city, household to household as to what is and is not a human right. It's an evolution of thought and different people are at different stages of this evolution.
Yes. For the subset of bipeds that are Human, they are understood intrinsically. Let me put it to you this way: Humans did and do not need God or a messenger to tell them that stealing is wrong, or killing is wrong, or sleeping with your neighbor's wife is wrong. And as to the subset of bipeds that are not Human, no piece of paper and no declaration is ever gonna knock sense into their base heads.
Instead of: Everyone has the right to a... it might read: The UN pledges to guarantee/defend/advance/uphold? everyone's right to a... That's government in service of rights, not doling them out.
> the writing of a declaration of human rights by a state authority isn't there so much as a method to convert the crazies but rather, keep them in line. May I suggest you review the Gospels and read all about the law and order crowd? Remember you said something about Sunday schooling for a while :) Agreed that for the time being, the Human is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this planet. But my vote is for the nation state and not the fully unaccountable UN.
I agree that nation states ought to have their own autonomy.