https://hesedyahu.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/human-rights-unalienable/The Prime Minister sat in his chair in some office, facing the camera, and told the viewers, as plain as day, that he had restricted their freedoms, and that those restrictions were enforced by his minions. Going forward, infractions to the decrees of his band, those of his ilk, would be met with higher fines, meaning that those who the uneducated army/police would capture, using those decrees, would be forced to surrender their identity and papers in order to face legal persecution/prosecution.
So he said that he and his gang had restricted our freedoms. I pondered on that statement in two ways. Who did he say those freedoms belonged to? The viewers, the inhabitants of that state-run farm called “the country.” So the freedoms were ours; they were mine, right? But then if those freedoms were mine, then how could he restrict them? If I own something, it’s mine to control, to restrict and to flex as I will. If the freedoms were truly mine, any attempt to use them without my consent, especially using force or enforcement, would be unjust, like theft. But he and his gang restricted them. He dictated my freedoms and the extent I could use them as if they were his.
So either an injustice was done and there was no significant and meaningfully impactful response was given, or those freedoms, those so-called “rights,” were not mine and can be manipulated at the will of the controlling state-gang.
To me, the term “human rights” implies that certain “rights” are innate to the human, to simply being human. That makes these concepts, these “rights,” an intrinsic part of a human. To me, the word “unalienable” means “can’t be transferred, separated or withdrawn.” It means that something can’t be taken away.
The claim by too many is that we have “rights,” conceptual entities, that cannot be taken away and are intrinsic to our humanity and thus cannot be removed from a human.
I sound sceptical, cynical, don’t I? I think I have just cause to be highly sceptical after what the state-gangs … oh wait, just in case this is the first of my articles that you’re reading, when I speak of “state-gangs,” I mean a group of humans who are called “government” and the thugs that enforce their edicts, be that army or police, “the filth” if you will.
The state-gangs of many lands have been honest, even if using obfuscation. The freedom of people was restricted. And a restricted “freedom” is not freedom. And a freedom restricted is a freedom, a “right,” taken away.
Examples of “rights” taken away include the right to travel freely, the right to assemble (peacefully), the right to freedom to practice one’s religion if it includes congregating or gathering or evangelism. Even the right of freedom of speech was restricted for those who spoke out against the current fear epidemic, opposing the mainstream and government narrative about some aspect of the current outbreak, whether it be the source of the “virus,” questioning its impact, it’s very existence or germ theory on a whole as it relates to the presumed disease. Thinking about it, maybe even due process could have been restricted since people only have to be suspected of having the “virus” to be at risk of being captured for quarantine by the state. Hell, for all intents and purposes, whole nations and states have been put under house arrest due to fear of the invisible and people were forced to close their businesses.
Again, if these rights are truly unalienable, truly human, could they have been taken away? Could government have taken them away? No. And yet they were taken away, are being taken. People were arrested or fined for congregating for religious services, for being too close to another person, for not wearing a mask, for being outside of the home for reasons not laid out by the state-bullies, for opening their business. Parents were warned by the pigs (poLICE) for letting their own children visit the children next door. “Freedoms” were taken. Human rights, unalienable rights, were taken.
Of course, that’s a contradiction, isn’t it? It violates the principle of non-contradiction and thus is irrational. To say that the thing that cannot be taken away was taken away is nonsensical. Even if it is said that people gave to their “rights,” it still makes no sense if those rights are intrinsic.
This whole foolish human experience, or experience of (further) human foolishness, highlights the inane and futile nature of the legal systems of many nations, and the fact that delusion is implicit in those systems. And when people embrace such systems to be called patriots, nationalists and faithful subjects, they plant, nurture and cultivate that delusion into their very souls. And “rights” are the means that dictators, tyrants, bullies and despots dupe the masses.
An argument can be made that human rights, that unalienable rights, don’t exist at all. I can’t think of a decent counter.
God and his law are the things I can rely on. The human attempts at laws are literally nothing in comparison.
Topic: Human rights? Unalienable? (Read 1820 times)