A Quote by Rene Cassin

Similarly, the problem of the rights of the state in the disposition of inheritances left by individuals presents social aspects of the first importance. — © Rene Cassin
Similarly, the problem of the rights of the state in the disposition of inheritances left by individuals presents social aspects of the first importance.
Individuals have rights and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do. How much room do individual rights leave for the state?
[T]he mass-man sees in the State an anonymous power, and feeling himself, like it, anonymous, he believes that the State is something of his own. Suppose that in the public life of a country some difficulty, conflict, or problem presents itself, the mass-man will tend to demand that the State intervene immediately and undertake a solution directly with its immense and unassailable resources. This is the gravest danger that to-day threatens civilisation: State intervention; the absorption of all spontaneous social effort by the State.
Both free speech rights and property rights belong legally to individuals, but their real function is social, to benefit vast numbers of people who do not themselves exercise these rights.
Diverse groups of problem solvers outperformed the groups of the best individuals at solving complex problems. The reason: the diverse groups got stuck less often than the smart individuals, who tended to think similarly.
There is a vast difference - a constitutional difference-between restrictions imposed by the state which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students, and the refusal of individuals to commingle where the state presents no such bar.
Sexual and reproductive health and rights are universal human rights!They are an indivisible part of the broader human rights and development equation. Their particular power resides in the fact that they deal with the most intimate aspects of our identities as individuals and enable human dignity, which is dependent on control of our bodies, desires and aspirations.
I don't see a direct conflict between the rights of individuals and the rights of communities, because I don't perceive of communities as having rights in a way that individuals do. Communities certainly have interests, but they don't exactly have rights.
The social issues outside of football are not as defined as they were earlier, when integration took place and certain rights were legislated. The Civil Rights movement is over. Individuals can buy homes wherever they want, travel first class wherever they want, eat wherever they want.
Prostitution presents a moral, economic and social problem that cannot be resolved juridically.
The state has no wealth it hasn't stolen, and the state has no assets whatsoever, except those which individuals have created in the first place and the state has taken.
The problem that we have is some of the more vocal countries, which parade themselves as Islamic countries, are, in fact, brutal dictatorial regimes. We don't accept them as being Sharia at all, because, what they tend to do, is they tend to just implement several aspects of the penal code and one or two morsels of the social system, but the rest of the system, like providing the basic needs and the social aspects of society and an education system, is completely ousted.
We needed someone to recognize the importance of check and balances, accountability, transparency. There was a real systemic problem at South Carolina State, a problem that has gone on for 25 or 30 years
Success in war and preservation of a country's social framework as a purpose at least equal in importance to welfare of individuals.
The greatest advantage of being First Lady is the opportunity it presents to truly make a difference on issues of great importance.
The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that.
The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!