An informed citizen should know their rights. But an informed human should burn the concept of rights all together.
We should NOT know our rights.
The concept of "Rights" is wrong.
We are by nature free to do what we want. By the laws of nature, we have the "right" to do anything that is physically possible, no matter the consequences. Some consequences are natural, of course. Punch a person, or a wild animal, and expect to get hurt.
But there are some people who track what legal rights a person has, and when a person does a thing that has no natural consequence, the tyrant will invent a consequence.
It is law and tyrannical governments that define a very small portion of possible things that are allowable, and that tiny list of possible actions are called "rights".
Those rights are not a complete list of what we ought to be able to do with our lives, however, and that is why the concept of "rights" is wrong. Of course we should have all the rights that they do allow, but we should also have more. Much more.
Still, I'm not exactly in complete agreement with this short essay. I guess I wrote it more to write it, than to actually agree with it. Let's just leave it here as an idea to ponder, rather than something to accept into your active philosophies, eh? Gimme your thoughts in the comments if you want. I'd love to hear other perspectives.
~Kitten
Government do not give people rights. We need to realize that we may not really deserve anything. When we get stuff, that is great. I like smaller government. I do not like welfare. I want to work hard for what I get. I do not want to beg too much and cry if somebody treats me bad. I want to treat people with the golden rule. I like what you are writing. Awesome. Love it. Interesting. Thanks for sharing. Upvoted. Resteemed.
I like welfare just fine, but in the form of basic income, supported by voluntary participation of funds. Taxes are theft, but there should be a way to ensure that people without the ability to work can still get food and shelter.
I think it's fine to cry/speak out when a person treats you badly. It seems fine to speak out against brutalistic behavior. If people are hurting you, you should either fight back, run away, or get a mediator to solve the issue between the bully and bullied.
I think the golden rule is not as good as this rule: Treat others how they want to be treated.
That is the golden rule. The golden rule and your rule are one and the same. The golden rule is to treat others the way you or they or both want to be treated which are or can be the same and are the same.
All rules can be broken, however.
Even rules set in stone can break.
Every human on earth has their right to freedom , nice post
Not the slave or the oppressed.
I fully agree. The concept of "extra/additional rights/privileges" is absurd on a fundamental level. The universe already comes fully equipped with complete and total justice in the mechanics of its unbreakable laws. For instance, if you run through a thorny field, your skin is going to be punctured and bleed. The more you search you will find that every human created concept is quite fallacious; they are all at variance with how reality actually operates, to whatever degree. If you mention this to humans they tend to get quite upset however.
Indeed.
The idea of objective morality seems really really flawed to me.
I can't imagine thinking about this concept for more than 5 minutes, and not noticing that nearly everyone disagrees with whatever moral opinion you have.
Say farming is wrong, and a farmer disagrees.
Say war is wrong, and the soldier disagrees.
Say abortion is wrong, and the feminist disagrees.
Say stealing is wrong, and the tax collector, and the starving vagrant will disagree.
Say rape is wrong, and I betcha some fucker is gonna tell me that they disagree.
And they'll all support their opinion with logic, emotion, and evidence that makes sense to them, while the other side will fight back just as valiantly, and I'll just stand here from the side, realizing with crystal clear clarity that the entire thing is made up.
The only way to be right is to acknowledge the concept of subjective objectives, rather than universal objectives. If the universe is nihilistic, then it's up to each individual human to make up a purpose, a meaning, or an objective, and to remember that they made it up, and that other people do too.
The only issue is when a person thinks that the universe itself agrees with them.
What if everything you can possibly do has a consequence? Things that you do not see or comprehend, DO actually exist.
Cause and effect cannot be negated, but I think you should read that line again, to understand the context of consequence here.
For example:
In many authoritarian countries, cannabis is considered illegal.
The natural consequence is this: You get high, and laugh at silly videos on the internet.
The artificial consequence is this: A man shows up to your door and forces you into his vehicle, and then debates among strangers, as to what degree they should steal from you, or otherwise ruin your life.
you are appointing yourself to be the one who chooses which category the varying consequences get slotted into. You are making moral value judgements on the consequences.
Why not just admit that all consequences are natural? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is unnatural.
Indeed I am.
I can do that, because it is my judgement, and I am judging what happens when a person is able to do a thing, and be left alone, between what happens when authoritarians attempt to force a person to do something for no reason other than they want to.
This concept is called "Rational Anarchy."
A man who decides to wear a certain type of clothing, and wield a gun, and get permission from other humans to be able to murder or subjugate people is making a personal choice.
A police officer is a human who has the belief that he has this power because other humans tell him he does.
That does not give him true authority. None of these humans has authority to me.
They just make up how they want to behave, and I most certainly disagree, and so here I am, disagreeing.
These people are strangers. I do not know them, or want to know them.
I want to be left alone. When a person goes into public, and does something foolish, that person will face natural consequences, be it driving too fast, assaulting someone, or just being rude.
People will naturally avoid these consequences.
But in the privacy of their own home, a person has the authority to do what they wish, for no one should spy upon people and judge what they do while alone in their house, or if they are in public, and doing a thing that does no harm.
Do not tell me smoke is harm. Do you really want cigarettes forcefully banned from every restaurant? Of course one restaurant could say "No smoking."
But to force law upon private dwelling is not the right thing to do.
From what I can see, rights come from a deep well of evolutionary thinking and actions. For instance, it was taboo to murder and rape, long before we created "civilised" societies, or religion came along.
Rights seem to come from a constantly changing moral landscape; one day, in one country, it's ok to marry a child, a few years later, it is the right of that child to expect adults to protect her.
Ultimately, we enjoy being nice to each other, otherwise we wouldn't live in such large communities. Rights come along, when the vocal minority try to subvert the general niceness we have built.
Cg
Yeah, the origin of the concept of rights is well established.
But the moment you take a big step outside that concept, the entire thing breaks down.
I'm still awake and it is 7 AM. I find something that resonates with me, of course.
● <- Note to read this when I wake up.