What are "Rights"?

          

It seems very few people truly understand what a “Right” is. They know the word of course and therefore assume they know, but usually it’s only from some vague concept they were given as a youth,  lacking any real understanding of the true “essence” of the “principle” it was created to symbolize. This is a result of the degradation of language and the individual’s lack of appreciation for its true purpose, as well as the lack of awareness in the magnitude of its influence on reality.

A “Right” is not just the list of 10 in the “Bill of Rights” of the Constitution. Actually many rights were not defined in the Constitution, nor should they have without first proclaiming the individuals one true Right, which is the only legitimate bases for any attempt to define any situational claims of Rightfulness. One example of “how” and “why” this was not done in such a way is that most of the individuals creating this illegitimate “claim” of government were powerful individuals, some of these were part of organized societies of individuals who wanted slavery and subjugation do to their vested interests in the open acceptance of such acts. These individuals possessed sophisticated rhetorical skills and used that to influence the creation of a new system of control, this was not something many wanted, but do to the powerful influence and necessity for support from other nations, to help defend their Rightful claim of independence, there was too much these skilled individuals had to influence the compromise that was made to contradict the “Declaration of Independence”, by creating the “Constitution”.

Do to the understanding of the nature of individuals that have positions of  “authority” to abuse their power and use it to oppress and better their own interests, the individuals against this contradiction demanded that the individual’s Right to freedom, to be the master of their own destiny, needed to be preserved above all else. Though they were able to achieve this declaration in part,  they had to compromise with powerful individuals who were fighting for their own interests and position, as well as agents of the king and others who desired control, over things such as equality of freedom or individual Rights, who influenced how this claim was made through the arbitrary “definitions” of certain “rights” in the Constitution (this process tends to limit and restrain the understanding of true “Rights”). One example of how they influenced this can be shown with the phrase “You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” which was originally “You have the right to life, liberty, and property” ( property meaning every individual owns their own body and everything they create “the fruits of their labor”). It’s important to realize the fact that during this time people still owned chattel slaves. That’s why certain ruling individuals would not allow that wording into the Constitution and into the public historical memory, so the “creators” of the “U.S. Government” or RULERS made immoral compromises (hint: Hegelian dialectic) to the so-called “Bill of Rights” to better their own interests at the expense of countless individuals who would suffer from the belief in this illegitimate “contract” of “authority”.  A “Right” is a “Principle” it is a fundamental truth and CAN NOT change, the true nature of what Rights are CAN NOT be compromised on. Only when multiple rights conflict with one another does conflict resolution and a possible compromise come in, because your rights are absolute until it conflicts with another’s Rights, as I will explain further.

Through logical deduction you can easily find what is the “most right”. First it’s important to understand that Rights can only be rightfully determined through the individual points of view and the circumstances of the situation and NEVER through the point of view of a collective, since a collective is a CONTRADICTION, a LIE, all that exists are individuals. Everything can be weaponized such as collectivism, which is an abstract concept, it could be useful as an organizational tool, but is often used to convince individuals to give up their rights for the good of the collective, which is never necessary or in their interest, since you can enjoy the benefits of  a community and still retain your Rights, which should be the ideal situation that all strive for.

You can easily understand Rights for yourself and it has nothing to do with memorizing arbitrary law. First you must ask where do rights come from? Rights come from (god, existence, whatever you want to call it) think of it as if, there was no other person in the world, you as a human were given life, with that you possess the ability of speech, movement, as well as other abilities. That’s why you have the Right to use those abilities in any way in which you see fit, because you exist and own your life (why would you exist to have those abilities if you were not to use them?). Then when you add multiple individuals into existence, each individual still retain the Right to do whatever they choose, but now that others are in existence, that means they have the same rights as well, but only as long as it doesn’t infringe on another individual’s rights. Whereas the argument “if I have the Right to do whatever I want, why don’t I have the Right to kill anyone I want or stop them from speaking?” Well they have the right to speak, and live, so your right to do what you want in that situation is nullified, because it came in conflict with another’s rights. In that scenario it is up to the individuals to engage in conflict resolution. This could be as simple as going each other’s separate ways and avoiding conflict altogether or something more complex such as a “contract”, that could be communicated to other individuals to prove the legitimacy of your “claim of agreement” which is only legitimate if all parties have agreed. This can prove your Rightfulness to use what would otherwise be unjustified acts, giving you a legitimate claim on remedying the dispute in a scenario where one does not fulfill the agreed upon terms. If you decide to ignore this process or the terms of a contract and choose to infringe on their rights instead, that’s where they possess the right to self-defense. Individuals don’t have the right to initiate violence on another individual, but they do have the right to use violence to defend themselves, their property and their Rights, as well as that of others. A big misunderstanding that causes much conflict, resulting in the infringement on individual Rights is the incomprehension that, you do not have the Right to things such as safety, such as forcing others through legislation and hired thugs to do things to make you or themselves safer, you only have the right to make yourself more safe, since you have no say in the way other individuals choose to live their life!!!

Simply put you have the absolute Right to Freedom, which is never given, but instead always necessary for each individual to personally and vigilantly maintain. Freedom is your one true right and to put it any other way can do nothing but limit that right. It is something that can only truly be considered and defined on an individual basis between individuals whose Rights come in conflict. Of Course people are free to create guidelines based on experience, but It CAN NOT be absolute (the guideline or law; unless the individual knowingly agreed otherwise) since that in itself is limiting the absoluteness of the individual’s absolute right to freedom. Individual freedom can only rightfully be limited by theirself or another’s freedom/Right, not by something such as language, UNLESS you let it. That’s why it is important for others to respect and understand Man’s Right, so they can make good moral judgements, or at the very least truly understand right (freedom) from wrong (oppression) and not be easily suggestible like certain individuals would prefer. Rights are simple to understand and by understanding the fundamentals of what a Right is, any individual can understand right from wrong. That is how law should be, simple…

Law would be simple, if it was to truly give every individual an equal and fair shot and preserve individual rights, instead your freedom relies for the most part on your wealth and the influence you can afford to buy, or the power and “authority” you possess. For the most part laws have no regard for morals or rights, but instead they are created based on opinions of those with power or the scheme of the highest bidder, to help secure their position or agenda, by limiting the freedoms of others, instead of protecting the Rights of individuals.  That’s one reason why we don’t need “law”, because all we need is to properly understand Rights, which helps to logically determine morals. That’s why every individual should judge every conflict through that perspective. Too many people don’t understand what Rights are or where they came from, most assume the state gives you Rights or the Constitution gives you Rights. That thinking has allowed the individuals who control the state, to create all kinds of immoral laws to control society and secure their position, because the social engineers think they have the right to manage us and control us, making us and everything their property. That’s why they promote ignorance and self degradation or why they don’t teach true rights, so they can manipulate and deceive people into voluntarily and involuntarily giving away all their rights to the state.

You have been duped into slavery/subjugation by a system that takes you at a very young age and conditions ignorance in your mind. Since the beginning of time man has fought and died for their Rights. “Theft” is taking something that is the property of another individual without their consent. Since all the money you earn from working is the fruit of your labor, that is your property. How can you believe that it is morally acceptable for a group of people who call themselves government to threaten you with force, to demand you give them over half of your income, your property, to use in any way they see fit, even for things you don’t support? That is an infringement on the Rights of individuals and is slavery, so by supporting government you support slavery. If you disagree I challenge you to logically explain; at what percent of theft does it become slavery? I bet you would agree 100% is slavery, but what about 99%, 80%, most governments have over 50% “tax” (theft by another name) and many hidden taxes such as inflation. If your argument is “governments provides necessary utilities”, I’d counter with so do slave masters…

This is an  Article I wrote on my website called Innovatingfreedom.com, check it out for more.