Human rights, what are they good for? Absolutely nothing! So says I. How dare one actually speak such blasphemy! Oh the inhumanity being expressed in
this text, how can it be so? I thought it had been universally agreed to that human rights is perhaps man’s greatest accomplishment to date, besides
perhaps contraception, but isn’t that a right too?
By this point the orthodox members of the Church of Human Rights have already excommunicated me from the human species. Or so they think! I have
always been on the outside; my path is forged by my hand alone. See how easy it is to be stripped of your humanity? Utter a few words and the apostles
run around like chickens without heads. A sight to be seen!
So, what am I rambling on about here? Well, the title says it all: ‘Say NO to Human Rights’. Try it; all the cool kids are. Basically the whole
religion of human rights, democracy, ‘freedom’, and so forth are just wildly disastrous experiments. But this is about human rights, so let me
just try and stay on topic. Read the following quote by
Alain de Benoist to get the show
One proof of this is its dogmatic character; it cannot be debated. That is why it seems today as unsuitable, as blasphemous, as scandalous to
criticize the ideology of human rights as it was earlier to doubt the existence of God. Like every religion, the discussion of human rights seeks to
pass off its dogmas as so absolute that one could not discuss them without being extremely, stupid, dishonest, or wicked…(O)ne implicitly places
their opponents beyond the pale of humanity, since one cannot fight someone who speaks in the name of humanity while remaining human oneself.
It seems today everyone is vying for the next acceptance of their right. Anything can be declared a right at this point. Perhaps I even have the right
to make you like my views? Oh wait, I do not believe in human rights. Lucky for you! Such as the woman who wants the right to have her baby’s legs
dragged out of her body with forceps then make an incision into the skull and
suck out its brains with a catheter.
People are demanding the right to health care, welfare, food, incomes, housing, transportation, accessibility in every private business, free
education, smoke marijuana, walk naked in public, sleep with a prostitute, gamble, own a gun, gay marriage, and so on. It would seem like people in
Western society are like an unreasonable child writing down a ten page wish list for Santa.
Yet people seem to conveniently forget that every time we hear of a new ‘right’ legislated by government that very few actually say, “yay more
freedom!” Instead they think, “now what new bureaucrat must I deal with?” All today’s demands for more rights mean is more employment for
lawyers. More employment for lawyers also means more intrusion by some bureaucrat. More intrusion by some bureaucrat means the more government is
involved in your life. The more government is involved in your life the more headache medication you need (do I smell a conspiracy?).
This whole human rights ideology or religion, however you want to think of it, stems from the natural rights teachings. So do not think you are off
the hook Mr. Libertarian. All demands for rights began as negative rights. We were forced to treat people as obligated to rights, divorced from any
particular relations. All that was necessary for you to be entitled to rights was to breathe. Because something was ‘natural law’ it was
interpreted to mean those rights were actually laws; universal and immutable.
Lockean rights were the first ones, right to ‘life, liberty, and property’. This was advocated by 18th and early 19th century Liberals, today it
is still espoused by Classical Liberals/Libertarians. Then along came the Progressive Liberals and Socialists who began demanding positive rights.
This meant a person had the right to health care, employment, income, food, and to not be discriminated against. That would have shocked Thomas
Jefferson who thought gays should be castrated.
Freedom and rights today basically mean that one demands, and may have it enforced by law; you respect his choice, regardless of the choice.
Ultimately what results is a nation of people clamoring to define everything they want or want done as a ‘right’. ‘I want health care to be
available for all citizens’ becomes ‘health care is a right for all citizens’. All rights today are about is maximizing of one’s interests
with disregard for how it may affect others. But if they object, then perhaps they are discriminating against you; quick, call the SPLC, ACLU, NAACP,
AJC, NOW, AUSCS, or PFAW!
The fact is as more rights are demanded and more legislation passed the more intrusive our modern state becomes. Of course it cannot violate someone
else’s rights, instead they tie you up in excessive amounts of red tape and declare what cannot be said or done unless a nice fine, maybe some jail
time, is what you desire. This way the state can grow infinitely and when you complain they will ask, “What rights of yours are we violating?”
Good luck formulating a strong response.
When one understands how the whole modern notion of human rights even came about they may begin to actually consider the worthiness of such pursuits.
At first the King had to balance power with nobles and aristocrats. Because nobles and aristocrats did not want to have their authority trampled upon
by the King they placed checks and balances on his reign. The King did not like this, he wanted more centralized authority. So the King began to rally
the peasants to his aid against the ‘corrupt’ aristocrats and nobles; he needed more power to ‘better protect the peasants’.
Upon doing this a new class arose; that of merchants, better known as the bourgeois. Still lower in class than nobles and aristocrats, yet quite
important to the King, they basically created and managed the realm’s money. As time went on the bourgeois gravitated away from the King and had
begun to demand representative bodies. Kings opposed this but the bourgeois owned most of the nation’s wealth and with the use of print were able to
begin a propaganda campaign against the monarchs, along with nobles and aristocrats.
In most instances parliamentary bodies were established either through concessions by the King or revolutions. The only way the bourgeois could
convince the masses to side with them was to begin using new philosophies which could be spread through Freemasonic clubs, newspapers, etc… To
legitimize their authority and bring rights under their command they had to individualize and secularize rights, freedom, and relations to each other.
‘Rights’ would now serve, not to protect the general populace, but to foster a better business atmosphere.
Slowly as the bourgeois became part of the establishment a new group of rebels arose demanding their rights. This became known as the proletariat.
Hungry for better working conditions, fairer wages, health services, affordable housing, and other ‘progressive’ reforms, a new set of rights were
introduced. These rights were be expounded through Socialism and Progressivism.
Finally the proletariat had squeezed out the nobles and aristocrats from authority. Some representatives of the proletariat joined in governance or
held revolutions (Russia). They were largely concerned with social conditions relating to wages, housing, poverty, etc… And by the 1950s their
demands were largely satisfied as millions crawled into the middle class. But then arose a new generation of social reformers, this time dedicated to
a new variant of rights; women, gay, minority, etc…
Just as the Socialists incorporated the Liberals assertions of certain necessary freedoms into their program, so did these new reformers known as the
‘New Left’. They fused in small amounts of Classical Liberal rights (equality before the law), Socialist rights (decent wage), and made up their
own (gay marriage). Some declare it progress; others find it nothing short of ridiculous. And, like the generations before, a new class has arisen to
power replacing the working class; this would be the intellectual class.
What do they all have in common? A new class allies itself with government and becomes the elite. This new elite has to centralize their authority.
They do such a thing by enacting new ‘rights’ which expand their size and scope. Such centralizing can only occur because of our distorted
understanding of ‘rights’.
Instead of having ‘human rights’ or ‘individual rights’ we must accept rights in relation to our obligations; from community to family. Your
‘rights’ must be tied into your duty or, understood as being only because of your existence within a particular society. All rights would then
become relative rather than abstract. One could not demand a right to something simply because they feel it violates their individual humanity to be
denied it. A right is yours because of a social identity.
Always remember: “Whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat.” – Pierre Joseph Proudhon
NOTE: This was not meant to be some sort of academic piece, more of construction of my thoughts at the time.
edit on 2/6/2012 by Misoir because: (no reason given)
I suppose a little more historical and philosophical background would have been beneficial. Most people are entirely unfamiliar with such modes of
thought. My fault I guess. Nevertheless, here are some links which may help you better grasp what I am talking about:
Please, read all of the links above to get a full understanding of where I am coming from. None of the authors of those blogs are dumb either; Bonald
is an astrophysicist, Bruce Charlton is a Professor of Theoretical Medicine, and I am not sure what Proph is, but he is still very bright.
edit on 2/6/2012 by Misoir because: (no reason given)
i agree, they were of good intention, but have back fired. We cannot operate on this scale anymore if we didnt hav HR, then wages would be cheaper, so
living accomidation would have to be cheaper, at least mid to lower range anyway.
We need to strip HR and instead have it place, on what we contribute to society, ie not if were a banker earn millions.
But how often we help out at local events, ie how invested in our own communites, also through lower wages we could compete with china and india.
TextIt seems today everyone is vying for the next acceptance of their right. Anything can be declared a right at this point. Perhaps I even have the
right to make you like my views? Oh wait, I do not believe in human rights. Lucky for you! Such as the woman who wants the right to have her baby’s
legs dragged out of her body with forceps then make an incision into the skull and suck out its brains with a catheter.
That may very well be the most awesome thing Ive ever read.
On first reading the title, I though it was time for some honesty about why we go to war. Libya is a mess and will be for a generation or two as the
war drums beat for Syria and Iran. Has anyone pushing these wars studied history or the consequences of invasion, maybe they just said 'NO to human
You do make a good case and copyright is a classic example as it has transcended a social need and become a commodity, a right that can be bought and
sold. The UN charter on Human Rights does come across more like an aim for government as many of these rights are a bit hit and miss all around the
world. I would be surprised if there is any country that does achieve all of these aims to a reasonable standard.
So lets say rights are not the answer to a comprehensible framework of social interaction, what is?
Rights itself is not the problem; our problem is the understanding of rights. At the present time rights are understood on an individual level, are
universal, and derive from natural law. Instead of declaring rights in relation to one’s duty, rights are declared as the justification for any
action, thought, or impulse. Put it another way. Your rights arise only from your duties. When a person lends you money it is your duty to pay him
back and it is his right to be paid back or it is a man’s duty to protect the weak (women/children) and their right to be protected.
Modern human rights are basically derived from an understanding of human beings as particular ‘particles’ moving swiftly around. Without rights we
would crash into each other but with rights it moves our trajectories, securing each ‘particle’ or individual. We must instead ask that each
particle, once again, recognize its interdependency on one or more other particle, and that one or more other particle(s) recognize its
interdependency on other particles. By doing this, instead of just protecting the particles from head-on collision they move harmoniously together.
This would reduce ‘rights’ to particular culture’s conceptions of obligations and responsibilities. What the English may consider a particular
responsibility or, their particular way in expressing this responsibility, will differ considerably from the consideration of a particular
responsibility by the Chinese.
edit on 2/6/2012 by Misoir because: (no reason given)
Say no to human rights? What about saying NO to false negative/positive liberty distinction, based on omission bias fallacy?
If someone is lacking basic necessities, is it important whether he lacks them because someone took it from him, or because someone could easily
provide them but refused? Is his need somehow different in the other case?
"Natural rights" ideology and negative/positive liberty distincion is a subjective abstract construct. Human needs are objective world realities.
The definition of a right, is an isolated exception to what is otherwise (implicitly) assumed to be a default state of complete tyranny. The United
Nations, and anything it says, is designed to appeal to people's emotions; not their reason. Nothing associated with the UN is capable of
withstanding logical, non-hysterical scrutiny.
You'd probably also like to read about the concept of varnashrama dharma. Google it.
edit on 9-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.