It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Concerning Rights

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:15 AM
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necessary for the optimal continuance of human life, should be rescinded, to whom would common humanity appeal?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 forfeit.

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 things, whatsoever.

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 about it.

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 King.
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)

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:57 AM
I agree with the general concept of you argument, however there in lies the confusion as well.

As our forefather’s in the United States understood and wrote so well that the “Rights” of citizens DO NOT ORGININTE WITH THE GOVERNMENT, BUT WITH THE CREATOR. The job of Government is to secure these rights for all and it is the Government that has been given its “rights” by the citizens and in doing so these “rights” can be removed by the citizens.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

You are quite correct in saying that this concept has been lost in modern society and actually has been turned upside down. Governments have placed themselves in the role of the creator by the “Dumbing Down” of the citizen.

Hitler would have never come to power and been able to create such havoc in this world had it not been for the Clerks who did his bidding because “It was my job”.

Same can be said for our own governmental employees today.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:49 AM
This is a very interesting and important thread and I can fully appreciate being fed up with rights with so much diversity, complexity, conflicts and misuse of the term going on. Your single law to contain the issues of morality is a very good start. The one I use is "If you cannot be honest about it you should not do it". There maybe times I have to kill, steal, cheat and lie just to survive or achieve a greater good, but if at the end of the day I cannot stand up in front of my community to explain my actions then I was clearly acting without common sense.

As for views on the UN, I do acknowledge a lot of the problems you identified exist. It has had to overcome many complex cultural issues and challenges to get to the stage it has. Basically it has a libertarian style of governance with a couple hundred countries thrown in a room to sort it out. There is no formal funding framework and is reliant on donations from member nations and industry. The advantage of using power over reason in the decision making process is that decisions can be made quickly, they may not be right and needs more work but progress is started.

I have not given up on the UN just yet, when I think of what the world would be like without then full scale conflict comes to mind. With most of the worlds main military forces uniting under the START treaty in defence of the UN it is an important step to ending war on this Planet. When the general assembly does get together to make a decision it does send a very powerful message across the world. It is not easy to find many issues where there is widespread global agreement. There are still many complex problems but only by uniting the resources of the world do I see a good chance in overcoming them.

As for your comments on the UN universal declaration of human right, was there any articles in particular you had a problem with or was it just the concept in general? I know the implementation of this document is a bit hit and miss around the world on various issues, but I do see it as realistic and responsible in its aims. Where I see it fitting is in providing direction to governments around the world in the laws they implement and resources they direct.

If the nations are to clean up their legal codes and introduce more reasoned consistency into the law then I see this document as being a key component to work out which laws stay, go or get changed. If the world is to play together in a good game then it needs a common rulebook to set the stage. You cannot have one team playing basketball and the other football and not expect the match to descend into a complete mess.

As for your other comments on rights to torture and assault

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:40 AM
I do not have rights. I have needs.

As stated before, I have realised that the meme and the
concept of "rights," has failed, and thus needs to be rejected.

It has failed for the very simple reason that if I say that I have rights,
it means that I am relying on an external guarantor of said rights (a third
party, usually a government) to provide them for me. Whereas, if I say that I have *needs*, this means that the responsibility for their fulfillment lies with me myself.

People will say that we need to refer to needs as rights, because that is the only way that we can guarantee their fulfillment. However, all I need to say in response to that, is look around.

Political freedom is currently at close to its' lowest ebb in human history, in many respects. In America, in practice the Constitution has been thrown completely out the window; and a good number of Americans will even tell you that they do not want some of the specific rights which it aims to provide.

As an example of this, the American police force clearly desires, currently, a scenario in which the American people do not have the right to record video footage of them with digital recording devices, even in a public place.

We do not have the right to record the police. We do, however, have a *need* to record the police, and make them accountable; and such need does not change, irrespective of whether or not the farce that is currently referred to as American law, is willing to protect the fulfillment of said need.

I no longer care what any government or other political organisation which considers itself sovereign, considers to be or not be my rights. There is no political organisation currently existing on this planet, of which I recognise the moral legitimacy or authority. Their only source of authority is force.

We currently have in the world, a radical tyranny; and I say that in response to it, we need an equally radical concept of freedom. We need a concept of freedom that recognises as self-evident, the fact that government, by definition, wherever it occurs, is an inherently criminal entity.

Government does not operate on the basis of any legitimacy whatsoever, than a regional monopoly of violence. Al Capone once said that the only difference between the American government and his organisation, was that the government had more money, more guns, and more men; and he was speaking the truth. I also reject the spurious social contract of John Locke, and consider it null and void; not that said consideration was ever really even necessary in the first place.

There are certain things and sets of conditions, which I require to biologically survive. If it is within my physical capacity to take those things, I will do so. I have a moral responsibility to do that in such a way that it does not infringe upon, or otherwise limit, the ability of anyone else to do likewise; since, to limit or infringe upon the ability of anyone else to meet their needs for survival, is to create the beginnings of a scenario where I will no longer be able to do so for myself. I acknowledge the mutual interdependence which exists among all forms of life.

The state is inherently psychopathic. It does not matter what ideological or conceptual means we attempt to devise for the securing of our freedoms; the psychopathic state will inevitably find a way to twist language to such a degree, as to rationalise our freedoms as being invalid. Therefore, the only way that said freedoms can be secured, is by a simple decision to take them, via whatever means that present themselves which do not involve the commission of force or fraud toward other life forms.
edit on 4-9-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

top topics

log in