There is a common sentiment among us that human rights are something we ought to fight for. Many brave men and women have done just that, often sacrificing their lives in the process. Now I could never suggest that they died for nothing, because it is their willingness to fight for what they believed to be in the best interest of the people that provides so many of us with a source of inspiration. However, I cannot help but wonder if we have been fighting for the wrong cause.
I also wonder if the very concept of human rights was invented by those who seek to restrict our liberty. The reason I am beginning to think this is because the idea of having a right resigns oneself to the belief that there is some entity out there there that has given them this right. How then can one complain when it is amended or even retracted?
Some might say these rights are given to us by God, but with Atheism and Scientism slowly conquering the world, many of those who embrace the ideology of human rights cannot attribute these rights to a divine power.
For as long as we continue to fight for our rights, we must realise that we are doing so from our knees. We can beg for them not to take the things they permitted us to do away from us, or we can come to the very simple realisation that we don't need anyone's permission.
We don't need a modern Bible's representation of the 10 commandments for us to know how to treat another human being, or how we should allow ourselves to be treated. We need to get the fuck off of our knees and realise that the only rights we need are the ones we give ourselves.
Let them take all of our human rights away, because all they are when it comes down to it, are words. Let's stop begging for permission, take a unified stand and decide to permit ourselves the right not to need to be given the right to do what we can and cannot do by anyone else.
Rights make you a prisoner, for the ones you have will be infinitely outweighed by the ones that you should have but do not. Waging war for the right to not have your kids brainwashed, your water contaminated, your food stripped of its nutrients, your wages stolen to fund causes you want no part of, or the right to do or not have to do anything you don't want to, is going to be an endless up-hill battle.
Without rights, there is no implied acceptance that our governments can do everything they want to us, unless we have a right that protects us from it.
This is why I believe we need to stop fighting for human rights and accept that they are simply another tool of enslavement. What do you think?
I sort of look at it in the sense of:
Everything that is a right exists whether anyone, everyone, or no one acknowledges it.
Such as gravity exists whether one believes in God or not, it exists whether the state says it does, or not.
The concept of one person affirming anothers rights, especially the demigod politcial clowns should certainly go.
That's a good way to put it. We have the right to do anything. Simple as that.
I'd add, the right to do anything that doesn't cause damage to one's person or property.
I'd say the rights we have could most likely be summed up in half a dozen items or less.
I never understood laws like speed limits. Simply driving fast doesn't cause damage. Drug laws: simply possessing a leaf or, powder or pill causes no damage in and of itself.
A crime that doesnt have a victim isn't a crime at all.
Most, if not all of them are control mechanisms, and revenue generators for the sociopathic ruler's benefit.
Nah I'd disagree on that. The right to do anything, no exceptions. It should just be a choice not to be a cunt, but one that is encouraged and taught. That's my opinion anyway. Nothing else can really be interpreted as liberty to me.
The freedom to do whatever one pleases certainly exists. The ability to negate the consequences of any such action does not exist.
I'm free to take a swan dive off of a tall building. I'm not free from the consequences of sudden impact and the immutable law of gravity.
And now we are suffering the consequences of allowing others to determine what we should think is right, all because we're afraid of the consequences of not allowing them to. Which is worse though?
Depnds on the scenario. If somebody wanted to dive off a building I wouldn't equate that with their "right" to open up somebody else's neck with a kitchen knife. Even though in both cases somebody gets badly injured or killled.
If I want to hit myself in the head with a claw hammer until I'm knocked unconscious, fine. If I try it on somebody else, not fine.
All rights come down to property rights. I own my self, the product of that which I produce, and the moral agency of my actions.
I can produce as many molotov cocktails as I wish, I can set them off on my own property or whatever. If I start launching them at cars and my neighbors houses this is not a right. It is in fact a wrong.
I suppose it depends on how you define a right.
I'd say a right is anythjng that is not a wrong.
If anyone who has difficulty discerning what that might be.
The golden rule and/or Non Agression Principle cover a vast majority of scenarios.
You do have an excellent point, but I'm afraid society is going in the opposite direction...apart from the very vocal liberals, the masses are actually giving up their rights - black demand segregation, people relinquish privacy for the sake of perceived security, freedom of speech has been abolished because 'microaggression' and 'snowflakes', Christians give up religion so as not to offend Islam... for the rest of us, it is indeed an endless battle
They are also a distraction and a way to divide people even further. Honestly the word human bothers me, since I'm constantly breaking words down. Hu man, which phoenetically would be hue man, makes me think we're talking about the hue of man, or a shade of man and not man itself. The word man has been distorted. In a not so distant past the plural for man was man and it defined all of us, male and female alike, and not because of some chauvenistic ideal which is what they would have...man.. believe, but in fact the opposite was true, it put all of us, no matter gender or race in one category, without separation.
Yeah that's a great point on the word man. I hadn't considered that before, in spite of using the word as a plural myself many times. Just realised that man is in many, which speaks to there being multiple as well. Coincidence?
Ohhh, nice one, I hadn't thought of that. Doubtful it's a coincidence, I am very skeptical of coincidence in language.
Yes, there are far too many of them. Far too many to be accidental for sure.
Framing is everything, I haven't thought about this consciously but it seems my subconscious is already in agreement here
meep
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we as individuals SHOULD NOT need a specific code to live by (your example of the 10 commandments) to be a decent human being. I think that The Golden Rule, though it is a rule, is a pretty simple notion that everyone could grasp, admire and try to follow to the betterment of mankind. And I do agree that we shouldn't have to beg for rights from our masters....we should intrinsically have them and expect them in our lives but that is not currently the case and there are many simple minds and/or selfish minds in positions of power throughout the world. Such is life. The people being brainwashed and poisoned by their masters seem to accept their lot in life rather than think rationally, like you are doing. I don't have the solution...just pointing out what everyone is up against.
I don't know if I said that no one should have a code, if I did, I apologise for the lack of clarity, because I am not against that. Take for instance the Samurai code of Bushido. There is some really great lessons contained within there.
However, if one wants to live by a code, it should be one of their own making, or one that they have chosen willingly to adhere to. The law is a completely different thing. It's pages and pages of rules that no one can keep up with, yet have to follow because.. Why? Because if you don't you will be put in jail.
That's not a moral code, that's just slavery. But yes, I agree with everything else you say, and unfortunately, I don't have a feasible solution either. It seems we have allowed ourselves to be tricked into digging a hole that we now don't have the resources of the level communication necessary to climb our way out of it together.
Agreed. Yeah....the Bushido code is remarkable. I've got a book on that. It should be a code of their own making...but most people can't even cook their own food...so it's gonna take a lot of change for that to happen, imo.
It is nearly always implied at least, that our rights are granted by some external authority. The mind-control device used here where I live is the US Constitution, and many Americans actually believe in the perplexing notion that their rights come from that document, trying to give it a sacred quality I suppose, so that reason and logic can be bypassed with greater ease.
I think it's simpler still: the word 'right' has a distinct meaning on it's own, being the opposite of 'wrong' it covers the basic morality that makes a civilization civil: knowing the difference between right and wrong, and then determining what we have the ''right' to do. Now if a society has become confused about what morals are, through a lifetime of conditioning, then that society could easily come to depend on an outside, or official source to tell them what is right or wrong. A right, though, is the moral ability to do what is right, and to know the difference, in the simplest sense.
Another great article, keep it up please!
Yes I find that too. Not even exclusively in governmental fields either. There's some interesting theories out there on the purpose of modern art and why it got such heavy funding from the CIA. It is thought that by having the people look at modern art, which no one can ever really understanding the meaning of, makes people subconsciously believe that they are not smart enough to come to their own decisions and need a higher authority to explain things to them. Thus, subliminally reinforcing one's belief in the necessity of a state.
I haven't explained that too well, but I hope you know what I'm getting at. I wonder if there is anything to that.
And I'm glad you're liking the recent posts. Took a break for some time but I want to get back to sharing my thoughts a lot more often if I can.
Cool I'd heard about the CIA/modern art connection, but it never really made sense until now, you explained it easily. Makes sense too, in a dark sense, so that people would demand authority's approval even in the arts.
Give me liberty or give me death
If you engineer the society with values and behaviour are revolving around the betterment of humanity and natural environment, then you don't need pointless proclamations about what human rights are. Human right is something obvious, automatic and intrinsic to such system that no one thinks about anymore. You only need to create rights in the system which is inhumane (faulty) by design.
For example, if you engineered society where all genders are recognised as equal and natural expression of psychology - in which every person since birth is being brought up with such understanding, then the need to create rights for different genders (emale, male, transgender or gender fluid) would cease to exist. The gender equality would be obvious and intrinsic to such society.
This right here is exactly my point. Thank you for wording far better than I did.
You only need rights within an immoral system. But within the right kind, there's no need. But, we will not be able to find our way out of this system until we start realising this shit, and stop allowing others to make our choices for us.
"It's a rare of enough thing, a man who lives up to his name."
You certainly do it would seem.
You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole.... For I have no bunghole....
Isn't liberty a human right to begin with?
I think without liberty there is no real human right.
You are right tough.
Its very sad something as human rights are used
as a tool for enslavement. Wich is kinda Ironic since in my
defenition enslaving someone is the same thing as taking someones right. Maybe the concept of what human rights are or how they are implemented must be re-considered. This is just my biased opinion.
thanks for sharing this with us.
I'll upvote.
I think that liberty should be the only human right. The right to do whatever the fuck you want, whenever the fuck you want to do it. As soon as you add any other right, liberty is gone. Because you don't have the freedom to do whatever you want to do when you have a list, of whatever length, that tell you there is only specific things you can or cannot do. That is the death of freedom, for now you don't get to decide what you think should be right, someone else does. And now, you have to wonder why what you thought was right isn't the same as what these powerful fuckers do. Perhaps you are too dumb to understand morality, and should let TV teach you about it instead. Lol.
Did that make any sense? Sort of made a connection there that I wasn't anticipating. But to me it shows how all these corrupting systems work in unison to skew and subdue the people's sense of morality.
All people are different. Everyone has their own notion of what he can do when he's free. The state intended to regulate these freedoms. The only problem is that the Government is controlled by people - and they have their attitude to freedom. And people are all different. = VICIOUS CIRCLE....
Some rights were not given by man.
BORK!
Hmmm........ interesting - the right to do whatever we want....
but that already exists. you DO have the right to do whatever you want - as long as you are super-rich. Laws don't apply to them. whatever they want, they take, with impunity.
9 times out of 10 to get super rich you have to be an arsehole, or be the child / grandchild of an arsehole. Nice guys don't get rich in business.
Your rights or lack of, matter not one whit t them. YOU don't matter to them. The ideal of being free to do whatever you want sounds nice when you are strong willed and powerful enough to stand up for yourself.
But what about the rest?
What about the weak?
What about the disabled?
What about the minorities?
Without human rights, without some sort of rule of law that prohibits their exploitation, they are simply slaves and fodder for those who are stronger.
The rules were not made up (in most cases) to infringe on YOU liberties. they exist to give others the liberties you already have.
[no bots were used in the making of this comment]
Well it's unsurprising they would get away with it. The whole of society is set up like a corporation. You have your police force, who enforce policy, for the CEO's who make the policy. No need for them to enforce it on themselves of course.
My point though, is that with human rights, there is always going to be a ton of rights that one doesn't have by omission. Because you can't write down every single thing that ought to be a human right.
With none at all, we would do the right thing because it's the right thing. And not because someone has told us what they think should and should not be the right thing.
You would do the right thing. I would do the right thing. We are nice people. But a lot of people are not nice. Without the rules they would prey upon us relentlessly. And then we would have to be not nice in order to survive.
I think it is the legal interpretation of human rights that is the problem.
As you say, the notion that this is the list of rights and that's all you get, is not helpful. but it does keep the lawyers in work.
The better vie is that those writes encoded into law are you basic human rights. These are the obvious rights, the ones that we thought of, the one that were relevant on the day they were encoded into law.
But they are not your only rights.
Your rights are also not given to you by the government, they exits because you exist. the government's job is to protect your rights, because the government's job is to care for its citizens.
I think most governments have forgotten that.
Oh actions do speak so much louder than words... plus lynching is frowned upon.
Hey, could you please add me to the massdebater chat on discord?
Of course. Dreemit said you would be joining, but I didn't realise you were waiting. I said she could just invite in you. It is by no means an exclusive club.
https://discord.gg/DAD8Tca
AAAAW... So I am not special??
I don't know you well enough to make such an assertion. But in this regard, fuck no. Lol. I encourage you to share the link with anyone that is likely to be interested.
Bwahaha... AWESOME!
Will do