The Wrongs Of The Rights Game…

Bill of RighsWords can be slippery things; as George Orwell’s “War is Peace” and “Freedom is Slavery” illustrated in his book “1984.” He was preceded of course, by an earlier political satire: “Through the Looking Glass: by Lewis Carroll, with this:

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

And does anyone want to bet against similar points made in still older writings everywhere from Europe to china? Polemic prostitution is a staple of human politics and when it can be managed, business as well.

Today’s politicians have built a temple to the misleading use of language using the subject of ‘rights’. They want us to believe that a ‘right’ is something that somebody owes us so that they can promise to guarantee that we get it. Nonsense, of course. They speak of gay rights these days, of women’s rights’ the U.N. blathers of the “Rights of the Child.” No such things exist.

The common rights of those listed, are each person’s shared human rights. Every human has such by virtue of his humanity and for no other reason. Being homosexual confers no rights not shared with everyone else; the same is true of the rest. And yes, “Affirmative Action” policies favoring minorities are a violation of the rights of all who are harmed by them, but we naturally hear little of that.

Another non-subject is the origin of our human rights. America’s Founders stated clearly in their Declaration of Independence that our “unalienable Rights” came from our Creator. That was their reason for asserting them against government, out own or that of Great Britain in their case. Our governors refuse to recognize that and dismiss the Declaration to accomplish it. And now attack the churches who are the agents of that Creator as well; they brook no competition. Government requires itself to be the source of rights, thus granting itself legitimacy in abrogating them at will. It remains always unhappy at the thought of rights over which it lacks control.

Human rights are not a free gift; they are doled out sparingly and only for a purpose. Each human right is ours only so that we may perform a related duty imposed upon us. We have a general duty to reproduce for instance, to perpetuate the race. That provides a general right to defend ourselves so that we can accomplish that. There are no gratuitous rights.

The Founders relied upon the Creator as their Source for our human rights; government today is removing Him so as to take our rights unto itself. But one need not be a believer to comprehend the universality and extra-governmental nature of those rights; an examination of our nature makes it clear as well.

Can you provide an example of government in the absence of people? No. But you can find examples of people with an absence of government. Thus, government is an outgrowth of human nature; it is found under no other conditions. That shows that its legitimacy is rooted in the people from which it proceeds; it has therefore, a duty toward those to use its power for their welfare. That in turn, provides those people a right to remove or replace their government when it fails its duty, thus the Declaration of Independence stands even in the absence of an acknowledged Creator.

Unfortunately, it has never been the nature of governments to acknowledge that truth as they are operated by human beings who inevitably defend what they have against any perceived threats. We can philosophize all we want but we still end up at who has the guns. It’s human nature, after all…

Advertisements

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much)
This entry was posted in Affirmative Action, Politics, Religion and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Wrongs Of The Rights Game…

  1. Allowing politicians to define reality puts us all on a very slippery slope. Perhaps politicans before receiving their positions should have their sanity scrutinised along with their policies?

    • Jack Curtis says:

      Hmnn … 🙂 Not sure there’d be much to work with …
      I have a theory: The more someone wants a political position, the less likely they are to perform in it for the benefit of their citizens.Or one could day that the probability for success is inversely proportional to the desire for the position …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s