UNALIENABLE RIGHTS - GREAT READSubmitted by troyusaguy on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 22:39
As I've explained before, a "right" is a negative concept. In
short, it is something that other people shouldn't forcibly prevent
you from doing. For example, the "right" to freedom of speech
merely means that no one else should force you to be silent. Having
laryngitis, for example, doesn't violate your rights, even though
you can't speak.
But what does it mean for a right to be unalienable? Obviously it
does not mean that it is impossible for others to prevent you from
doing something; it just means that they are always wrong to do so,
no matter what any "law," any "government, " or anything else says.
In other words, "I have the right to do X, and no one has the right
to stop me."
But now comes the part that most "civilized" people don't like to
talk about. If you have the right to do "X," and someone tries to
stop you by force, you are morally justified in using force to
preserve your rights (though it's often dangerous to do so). For
example, all those people down in Louisiana who had the "right to
keep and bear arms," but who were nonetheless disarmed by a bunch
of jackbooted fascists, would have been justified in preserving
their rights by killing those trying to deprive them of those
People who talk about preserving their rights by way of "the
system" don't understand what a right is. By definition, a "right"
is something that you don't NEED "legal" permission to do. You have
the right to do it no matter WHAT any "law" says. I know it's about
as politically incorrect as you can get to say this, but the proper
response to "gun control" is not lobbying and petitions--which
imply that its up to the damn politicians to decide whether we can
be armed or not. The proper response, if one actually believes in
unalienable rights, is to declare, "I have the right to be armed,
and trying to violate that right will be hazardous to your health."
Now it's time to get REALLY politically incorrect. Suppose Barrack
"I'm-For-Unspecifie d-Change" Obama becomes President, and
successfully introduces a bill to ban all private gun ownership,
thus attempting to violate the rights of around 100,000,000 gun-
owning Americans. If some thug then shows up at your door, and
declares that in the name of King Obama (or King Bush, or any other
tyrant) he's going to be swiping your firearms, you have the right
to use any amount of force necessary to stop the thug.
Of course, if you killed some cop who was trying to disarm you,
your life would get really complicated really quickly. But aside
from the danger involved, the concept of "rights" dictates that if
a dozen more fascists show up to capture you for having forcibly
defended your rights from the first fascist, you have the right to
use any amount of force to stop them, too. Trouble is,
authoritarians don't generally "let it slide" when you resist their
tyranny. They will keep escalating things. If they can find you,
they will keep sending more and more thugs after you, until you are
either dead or in prison.
However, if you believe in unalienable rights, you ALWAYS have the
right to resist tyranny, even if it's 100,000 federal agents, or an
army, trying to enforce it. In short (and here's something you
won't hear every day), it is, by definition, morally justified to
exterminate an entire "government" (the gang of thugs which
imagines itself to have the right to rule) if that's what it takes
to protect one "right."
Is that an "extreme" view? Yep. But that's only because, for all
their rhetoric to the contrary, hardly anyone in this country
actually believes in "unalienable rights" anymore. They believe
that it's always up to "government" to decide what we're allowed to
do, and that anyone who violates "the law" (the made-up statutory
kind) is a nasty, evil criminal. They don't believe in "rights";
they believe in begging: "Oh, kind master, will you please LET me
do X?" Those who actually believe in "rights" have a slightly
different message: "You're not my master, and if you try to stop me
from doing X, I'll blow your damn head off."
But what is perhaps the most depressing of all is that such
extremist rhetoric, such a (supposedly) nasty, uncivilized,
"terrorist" attitude, is treated with scorn and condemnation by the
very people who live in the country which was FOUNDED upon that
"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 whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter
or to abolish it." [Declaration of Independence]
I don't know about you, but I think Thomas Jefferson should be dug
up, revived, prosecuted as a terrorist under the Patriot Act, and
hung for treason.