RE: There's no such thing as rights - only what you negotiate: Anam Paiseanta (video)
i agree substantially. there are differences in granted rights, such as, civil rights and human rights, which as you say, do not exist, and, natural rights, that exist by merit of the individual's existence in the natural world, and require that individual to defend them. these are the unalienable rights that we hear so much about, and never have defined to us. the unalienable are the rights that are non- surrenderable and non-transferrable these are the natural rights that are derived from our existence in the natural world and the understanding of it as reached from the evidence of our senses. natural rights come from natural philosophy, which is what physics used to be called. these rights are as real as a stone, as predictable as gravity. they are a part of our being, that can only be taken away by killing us. which is a potential outcome of the negotiation, of which you speak. we have been misled to believe that these civil and human granted privileges are rights. they are not. natural rights do not come from any authority. they come from our liberty. self-defense is force, it is not violence. the violence initiates the need for defense.
I'm not sure if I entirely agree with Anam's assertion that rights don't exist. I'm actually not entirely sure if he does either, considering he uses the term "rights" during this clip. I do think that it's an insightful way of looking at things though. I forget how the saying goes exactly, but it's something like: a right foregone is not a right at all. That is, if you don't defend your rights when they're threatened, then they won't be respected.
I'm curious about your assertion that these rights are as real as a stone. Which rights are you referring to in this case?
i am referring to our natural rights that derive from our very existence in the natural world. the "civil rights" and "human rights" are modes of control that have been sold to us in place of our birthright. these "rights" are privileges granted to us by an illegitimate authority. these are servants of the People, not authorities. being illegitimate, they have no power to confer or remove actual natural rights, only the natural world can do that without aggression, but they can only grant privileges, which can be taken away at their discretion. natural rights are unalienable rights, which, by definition, are non-surrenderable and non-transferrable. as a result of their being non-transferrable, they cannot be given, but simply exist as a result of our being. the only way to remove them is to make us not be. governments may assume this power but, they do not legitimately have it. the only reason they persist in the usurpation of our actual natural rights, is by convincing We the People that they are the masters and not the servants. they derive their power by consent of the governed, We the People do not derive our natural rights from the consent of the government, or the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These documents exist to tell the government what they may do by the consent of the governed. these documents do not exist to tell We the People what we may or may not do, except with respect to the use of government. the Constitution and Bill of Rights are chains constructed for the government to wear, not, for a government to place upon the people. the existence or nonexistence of rights in this case, seems to come down to a very small philosophical misunderstanding, entered into by conflating life in the natural world with a sport. we do not live in a game. some may see it as a game but it is not. if i have not elucidated this properly, please let me know. it is my goal to do so. if i am not making myself understood, i wish to understand why.
Hm... no, I'm still not with you 100%. Can you give me an example of what is a human right, and what is a natural right?
Thanks for the link to Spooner. I have skimmed this one before, but it's a good chance to read it more thoroughly.
Maybe this little video helps; The philosophy of freedom.
I also wrote something in my best English lol. I hope it makes some sense :)
*****Natural “law”
I don't like to be stolen from or like to be attacked, or murdered etc. Most other people don't like that either. Most humans would naturally agree that you may defend yourself (or someone else), its not even that they would agree on it, they would defend themselves as a natural reaction (or maybe run away).
You don't have to write down on a paper; if you someone is attacking you you have the right to defend yourself. It's nice to write it down on paper (maybe even as a right) but who writes it down for whom? You could also sign it, or let everybody sign it, but that does not say much either. Cause if somebody that signed it would attack you you can wave with the signed “document” with the “right” on it, but what does that bring you?
Documents or books written by mortals hold no authority over other mortals, this is true for the law book from the government and the other law books like the bible.
To say it differently; just because some paper written by mortals, say's that some mortals have the right to rule over other mortals doesn't make it so. If those mortals attack you you have the natural“right” to defend yourself or not to obey their orders.
*****Constitution or the law and other “holy” papers with ink...and human rights
A bunch of people that write down (or wrote down long ago)what you may and may not do. But the ones who give you “rights” , can also take them.
The question is who gave them the right to give you “rights” and commands on what to do or not do. God? Nature? Prove it.
And if they can give you rights to do things or commands not to do things and also can take your rights, Are they still rights or are they privileges?
And is it not that only owners can give you privileges to use what they own…in this case you, your time and energy
Well they own you at least as long as you obey them because you believe you have to obey them. And as long as you obey them, you say through your slave behavior, I believe that I'm a slave of you all.
Human rights (sounds nice doesn't it)
Lets say we are stranded on an island with a hundred people. What nonsense would it be to write down; everybody has a right to have 2 fishes a day 2 liters of water and a house.
The big question is. Who is gonna provide? And if they do not provide who's gonna force people to provide?
To give an example; Let's say you know how to build a house. Would it be o.k. to force you to out of the house you build to give it to someone else just because that person has the “right” or needs a house? Isn't that downright stealing your house?
If they traded it for something with you, for fishes or something else they made, that you wanted to trade the house for, would that not be much better? Much more natural human behavior?
A much better explanation in this video; The island analogy
check this out: https://archive.org/details/NoTreasonTheConstitutionOfNoAuthority