I would prefer that there be no more talk of "rights," at all, frankly.
For whenever there is talk of rights, it is only in terms of them being
recognised or granted by a particular institution, with the inevitable
implication that said institution also has the ability to take them away.
"Rights," are generally a minimal list of things which we have decided that
the state, in its' supposedly limitless benevolence, should grant us.
Despite the supposed counter to this at the conclusion of the American
Constitution, the right as a concept, really presupposes the idea that the
state's power is limitless and absolute, and that said rights exist as the
sole exception to that rule, in order to provide human beings with some
minimal possibility of basic survival.
Witness, as probably the ultimate example of this travesty, the United
Nations' "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
The United Nations evidently does not intend, that individuals reading that
document, engage in critical thinking, or experience anything other than a
tearful and entirely non-discriminatory fog of endorphins in response to it.
Any individual who did exercise critical thinking, might realise that in
producing a "universal," declaration of such rights, the UN was also
declaring itself to be the equally "universal," sole arbiter of them. As a
result, the document can be seen as a trap, and an invitation to universal
slavery; for if, as is the UN's wish, it became the sole arbiter of rights,
and the sole possessor of any kind of military force on the planet, and it
also became corrupt, and decided that some of the "rights," which are
necessary for the optimal continuance of human life, should be rescinded, to whom would common humanity appeal?
I do not, and never have, seen the United Nations as truly being an
instrument of either genuine virtue, justice, or global peace, as it
apparently loves to claim; but rather quite the opposite, and as a result,
my position is instead that those three goals would be far better served, by the organisation being summarily and ingloriously disposed of.
The concept of "rights," has, in truth, become greatly abused. It has been
said that the American President has been granted the "right," to arbitrary
declare another human being an enemy combatant, which then results in that individual's "right," to any form of due process, being summarily
I do not recognise that "right." I do not, likewise, recognise the "right," of American police to engage in the psychopathic acts of violence that
they are shown in, on virtually a daily basis now on the Internet. Said police have nothing other than the capacity to project superior force; as
does the Presidency in its' declared "right," to perform targetted assassinations. There should be no talk of morality in connection with these
I have seen video footage of Anonymous engaging in offline activism, where they were asked to removed their masks, with the implication made that the
person asking, had the "right," to request their removal. That person did not have that "right." All that person had in reality, was the potential
capacity for projecting superior force, or violence towards Anonymous' members, if they chose not to comply.
"Rights," in reality, do not exist, as any kind of corporeal object. A right, as already mentioned, can be defined as a description of something
which is deemed critical to human survival. No political institution, however, that is capable of projecting superior force to its' citizens, can in
any way be meaningfully compelled to guarantee the provision of said rights. All we really have, ultimately, is the ability to ask the state the
question of whether or not it is willing to murder us; since the capacity to murder us can fundamentally be viewed as the only true advantage that the
state has over us. If the state *is* willing to murder us, then in many cases there is practically very little that we are likely to be able to do
I have come to realise, then, in practical and logical terms, the legitimacy of the approach taken by the likes of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther
It must be said that I was in ideological opposition to their use of pacifism as an effective tactic, for many years. The American government in
particular however has, at this point, acquired sufficient force projection capacity, (as well as degeneracy, in political and moral terms) that
ultimately, the strategy of non-violently confronting its' psychopathy and inquiring as to its' preparedness to engage in the total slaughter of its'
citizens, is likely to be the only effective strategy available, in restoring it to some semblance of sanity.
If we must, let us list and acknowledge those things which are genuinely necessary for human survival, by all means. But let us never again bestow
another organisation or entity, outside of ourselves, with the sole responsibility to provide those things, because in so doing, we cannot help but
also grant that entity the ability to confiscate them. A Bill of Rights, if held by an organisation capable of superior violence, thus becomes a Bill
of Restrictions; a list of things that will *not* be granted, rather than a list of things which will.
I recognise a single law. That I must not deprive any other individual, of their ability to obtain those things which are necessary for my own, and
thus their and our, mutual survival; and that if I do not comply with such, physical law itself will bring about my own inevitable destruction, even
if it is not immediately apparent, as a consequence.
Beyond this, however, it is only a byproduct of tyranny that there exists any real law at all; and it logically follows that within such a scenario,
the entire concept of "rights," is completely spurious.
edit on 16-8-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)