There's no such thing as rights - only what you negotiate: Anam Paiseanta (video)
Anam Paiseanta explains his ideas on why rights don't exist, and why keeping firearms can be so important - especially when negotiating with violent gangs.
Check out the full interview with Anam on Steemit here - or on our website with the full show notes and links.
Transcript
Anam Paiseanta: To have maybe an educated opinion about [gun control], we have to look at some of the other ideas we've inherited. It seems natural for anarchists to be pro-gun, because we understand that there are no such things as rights, right. There's only what you negotiate.
The idea of rights - who gave us this idea of rights? Like there's a package of benefits that you just 'get'. Who gave us that idea? There's not, that's an illusion. And if we just started to see the world as - there's just this playing field and then the results are whatever you negotiate.
Like a soccer team or a football team enters. There's a field, it's level, there's a goal on either end. There's lines that segment the field. There's a team that opposes you, this could be seen as the obstacles in life. Then there's the ball, there's your effort, and there's the network of people you can form who support you in your goals - literally in your goals - there's a metaphor for you.
Which team has the rights to a goal? The idea doesn't even make sense. There's no goal unless you negotiate one. As we're going through life, there are no rights, there's only what you negotiate. When you're negotiating with people in voluntary relationships, you have to come by adding value. And when you're negotiating with gangs, even really organized gangs, that all wear the same color clothing, and have insignias that they all belong to the same gang, and they all have guns, and they come to the negotiation not with words, not with pieces of paper that are promises - they come to the negotiation with guns. And a lot of times, they act to take away your right to your body, your right to your product, your right to your free movement. So these are the three aspects of the self - your present, your future and your past self, right. Your body, your movement, and your product - things you spent labor or time on yesterday in order to acquire.
So how do you negotiate with these people? Because there's no rights - there's only what you negotiate.
So although I am all for peace, and I seek to contribute to a society that generates peace because it's just, and it's just because it's voluntary - I recognize that, we don't yet live in that society. And just like every eagle has claws and every gazelle has horns, and the ability to run away from its predators, and every animal on Earth has some kind of mechanism or apparatus to defend itself, I think that humans should not be the only animal
Holds up rifle
that gives away its ability to defend itself to its only predators - which would be other humans.
About us
The Paradise Paradox is a podcast where we talk about crazy ideas for open-minded people. We cover topics such as crypto-currency, technology, politics, economics, freedom, free-thinking, and psychedelic experiences.
We're reposting our content from our website. To confirm that it's really us, or to read the full shownotes including related episodes and pertinent links, go to The Paradise Paradox
If you enjoyed the episode, please upvote, leave us a comment with your thoughts, and press follow. You can also follow Aaron on Steemit here: @battleayzee, and Kurt here @churdtzu for more fascinating stories and articles.
You can also subscribe on iTunes, subscribe on Pocket casts, and subscribe on Youtube.
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