- 29 Sep 2015 16:22
#14604934
The co-existence of Rights and Strength is not in question. The validity of the concept that rights do not exist without strength is.
A child has Rights, but very little strength. Yet you will find few (Much Stronger) adults willing to impinge on the child's rights. Natural instincts forbid it, humans instinctively defend and provide for children. Their rights are respected without question. Those who will abuse, endanger, and even destroy children are functioning abnormally and are abhorrent to other humans. The child does not organize politically and it's strength remains impotent for around a decade.
You can rationalize all day long about WHY this happens and try to change the context into something that justifies your agenda, but it remains a easily proven example. The test to prove it's truth is: we strip away all extraneous details and recheck the validity of the thesis "a child has intrinsic rights." Remove the Armies, Governments, Police, etc ... Does the child still have rights ? - Yes ... Remove the Churches, Laws, and the Popular Morality of the moment, and Yes, the child still has rights, remove the Parents and Family, Yes, the rights remain and are consistently recognized ... As long as the child remains alive it retains it's rights and ALL normal humans will instinctively respond to them.
Yes, Strength is acquired to protect rights, but the rights come first. In our FREE society, strength is consensually limited and forbidden to interfere in the exercise of those rights ... When strength is misapplied to impose limits on rights, human nature invariably responds in a variety of negative manifestations.
When America declared independence, the answer to this question was engraved in history. The Americans said :
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
>>>That to secure these rights,<<< Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
Rights come first, imbued at creation, Government is second, Strength is required when government fails.
No one (that I know of) disputes the fact that rights can be denied, and manipulated. But denial and manipulative repression alter only the expression of those rights, not their existence. Remove the impediments and the rights reassert themselves, unaltered. It may be a significant brain strain for some to comprehend the higher, civilized, values of the modern world. But I think even at the most barbaric levels the example of the child and natural respect for it's rights is apparent. Over time, strength dissipates and government degenerates, rights do not, they are a constant.
Zam
Stormvessel wrote:I challenge anyone to explain how rights can exist where strength does not. Just one example. Anyone!
The co-existence of Rights and Strength is not in question. The validity of the concept that rights do not exist without strength is.
A child has Rights, but very little strength. Yet you will find few (Much Stronger) adults willing to impinge on the child's rights. Natural instincts forbid it, humans instinctively defend and provide for children. Their rights are respected without question. Those who will abuse, endanger, and even destroy children are functioning abnormally and are abhorrent to other humans. The child does not organize politically and it's strength remains impotent for around a decade.
You can rationalize all day long about WHY this happens and try to change the context into something that justifies your agenda, but it remains a easily proven example. The test to prove it's truth is: we strip away all extraneous details and recheck the validity of the thesis "a child has intrinsic rights." Remove the Armies, Governments, Police, etc ... Does the child still have rights ? - Yes ... Remove the Churches, Laws, and the Popular Morality of the moment, and Yes, the child still has rights, remove the Parents and Family, Yes, the rights remain and are consistently recognized ... As long as the child remains alive it retains it's rights and ALL normal humans will instinctively respond to them.
Yes, Strength is acquired to protect rights, but the rights come first. In our FREE society, strength is consensually limited and forbidden to interfere in the exercise of those rights ... When strength is misapplied to impose limits on rights, human nature invariably responds in a variety of negative manifestations.
When America declared independence, the answer to this question was engraved in history. The Americans said :
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
>>>That to secure these rights,<<< Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
Rights come first, imbued at creation, Government is second, Strength is required when government fails.
No one (that I know of) disputes the fact that rights can be denied, and manipulated. But denial and manipulative repression alter only the expression of those rights, not their existence. Remove the impediments and the rights reassert themselves, unaltered. It may be a significant brain strain for some to comprehend the higher, civilized, values of the modern world. But I think even at the most barbaric levels the example of the child and natural respect for it's rights is apparent. Over time, strength dissipates and government degenerates, rights do not, they are a constant.
Potemkin wrote:An individual's 'rights' exist only in the context of a particular community - and such rights tend only to be recognized and respected by other members of that community.I think the example of the child establishes that rights are universal and extend beyond any and all community boundaries.
Zam
_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_! MAKE WAVES !_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_