I have read some other freedom-lovers' opinions that "rights" don't really exist other than as a notion that has been indoctrinated into the minds of people. I considered that and eventually came to the conclusion that I disagree. It has taken me a bit of thinking to decide why, exactly, I disagree.
The reality of rights doesn't just take away the state's authority, although it definitely does. There is more.
"Rights" are those things which you can do without harming any innocent person, and that no reasonable, peaceful person would ever try to prevent you from doing, although you can be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. Some rights are more important to liberty than others.
"Rights" are also the thing that frightens the state and its supporters so much that they will constantly try to convince you that: "RIGHTS: Liberties granted and regulated by the Governing body." I actually copied that quote directly from a discussion I was having with a person who kept trying to bait-and-switch. That is either an utterance of total ignorance or an absolute blatant lie. Statists are so frightened because rights trump any authority the state can claim. Their lies, ignorance, and fear don't change anything, though.
...............................................
That is one of the most reasonable description of rights I've read.
ReplyDeleteReasonable - because it embodies the essence.
Sure, someone can pin-prick the strict meaning of the words - but the essence, the conveyance of the meaning is sound and reasonable.
I find it amusing that Statist will probably attack the strictest meaning of the words, ignore the essence of the meaning of those words - and absolutely ignore the meaning and essence of slave-hood within their own dogma.
Oops, sorry, Kent - Black Flag rant #313....
As one of the individuals nodded to in your set-up, I too have been thinking over what I wrote. Your post has also been very helpful in consolidating my current view; thanks.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me your points are hitting somewhere near the middle of a continuum between coercive, total slavery and complete liberty. I suggest that it is not the concept of rights per se that frighten the state so much, but rather what their assertion means—which is that the individual knows that at least some aspects of his freedom are not dependent upon any political body recognizing it or granting him anything.
Nearer the "complete liberty" end of the spectrum is the concept of "individual sovereignty", which is simply the understanding that the above applies across all areas of one's life, not just speech, religion, or firearms. Thus, sovereignty is what nullifies any claim a state has to authority over an individual ... or so it seems to me.
I hope this makes sense to someone besides me.
Yes, Sunni, you make sense to me. I agree that a person can say they have rights all day, but until they start asserting their rights, LIVING them, they mean nothing.
ReplyDelete