We live in an era of disruption, and the disrupters are everywhere. At home, a progressive nihilist left insists America was founded in 1619 and the authors of that jeremiad won a Pulitzer Prize. We elected a Black man president and suddenly race relations are worse. Five years ago, cutting off minor boys’ genitals and female breasts was understood as criminal mutilation; today they call it health care. The same people tell us one is the sex they have decided will be assigned to newborn babies. Overseas, we abandoned billions of dollars of military equipment to the Taliban while maintaining forces in 800 bases worldwide so we can kill bad guys in Syria, Somalia and who knows where else. The rules based international order we designed is soon to become a thing of the past while US prestige declines every day.
Despite my admiration for Mike’s impressive research in compiling this excellent article as background for the origins of what we have been educated to believe are ‘human rights’, I remain unable to accept the premise that there has ever been such a concept as rights to which humanity is entitled.
Mike has expressed the view that the human desire not to be subjected to governance is one reason to conclude that humanity has ‘rights’, beginning with the ‘right’ to be left alone. He has expressed the opinion that what he views as ‘human rights’ describe the ways that humanity is, or should be, protected from government in all its manifestations.
Whilst I have complete sympathy with the view that governance, in all of its many manifestations, is an ever increasing problem, it is a problem caused entirely by ‘the governed’ having failed to understand that governance is a concept which only arises because of humanity’s acceptance of the undoubted benefits of living a societal existence. Having accepted that concept, it should have been incumbent on every form of society to realise that governance should take the form of the administration of only those jobs which cannot be undertaken by the individual members of the society in which they exist.
As such, it can be seen that governance has succeeded in taking every opportunity to take control of increasing numbers of the jobs which society could and should undertake itself. In doing so, governance gives the impression that it is indispensable and thus gives rise to the view that it has taken control of ‘rights’ which properly belong to individual members of society.
In actuality, none of what governance or, indeed, individual human beings have labelled as rights can be viewed as such.
What humanity in general has labelled as rights are merely the duties/responsibilities of living a societal existence. It is the recognition that humanity is not, and never has been, equal and that that recognition requires a need to assist those who are genuinely unable to do certain things for themselves.
Mike quite rightly defines the difference between positive and natural laws.
Positive laws merely represent attempts by governments to undertake the increasing levels of control over societal existence and are, most certainly, not rights. To the extent that they are accepted by society, it is apparent that positive laws are recognition of the duties/responsibilities of living a societal existence.
Natural laws are exactly that. They reflect a recognition of the duties/responsibilities of existence per se. A recognition that there is a power greater than ourselves ie the power of nature which will always remain in control, regardless of the hubris of humanity.
So, positive laws cannot be considered to be rights, whilst natural laws are a reflection that humanity must recognise the existence of something over which it cannot hold sway and, therefore, also not a right which can be granted to us.
Finally, I take issue with John Locke’s view that ‘before any form of government arose, all men were believed to be free and equal’.
Free…possibly - Equal….never ever.!!
Rights are granted. They reflect an entitlement to whatever is being granted. No-one/no-thing has ever granted anything to humanity. The concept we have labelled as ‘human rights’ are entitlements which we have granted to ourselves, partly as a means of accepting the benefits of a societal existence and partly by virtue of a lack of understanding of the resulting control which has been handed to those exercising governance on our behalf, resulting from an increasing laziness/desire for comfort and convenience.
Despite my admiration for Mike’s impressive research in compiling this excellent article as background for the origins of what we have been educated to believe are ‘human rights’, I remain unable to accept the premise that there has ever been such a concept as rights to which humanity is entitled.
Mike has expressed the view that the human desire not to be subjected to governance is one reason to conclude that humanity has ‘rights’, beginning with the ‘right’ to be left alone. He has expressed the opinion that what he views as ‘human rights’ describe the ways that humanity is, or should be, protected from government in all its manifestations.
Whilst I have complete sympathy with the view that governance, in all of its many manifestations, is an ever increasing problem, it is a problem caused entirely by ‘the governed’ having failed to understand that governance is a concept which only arises because of humanity’s acceptance of the undoubted benefits of living a societal existence. Having accepted that concept, it should have been incumbent on every form of society to realise that governance should take the form of the administration of only those jobs which cannot be undertaken by the individual members of the society in which they exist.
As such, it can be seen that governance has succeeded in taking every opportunity to take control of increasing numbers of the jobs which society could and should undertake itself. In doing so, governance gives the impression that it is indispensable and thus gives rise to the view that it has taken control of ‘rights’ which properly belong to individual members of society.
In actuality, none of what governance or, indeed, individual human beings have labelled as rights can be viewed as such.
What humanity in general has labelled as rights are merely the duties/responsibilities of living a societal existence. It is the recognition that humanity is not, and never has been, equal and that that recognition requires a need to assist those who are genuinely unable to do certain things for themselves.
Mike quite rightly defines the difference between positive and natural laws.
Positive laws merely represent attempts by governments to undertake the increasing levels of control over societal existence and are, most certainly, not rights. To the extent that they are accepted by society, it is apparent that positive laws are recognition of the duties/responsibilities of living a societal existence.
Natural laws are exactly that. They reflect a recognition of the duties/responsibilities of existence per se. A recognition that there is a power greater than ourselves ie the power of nature which will always remain in control, regardless of the hubris of humanity.
So, positive laws cannot be considered to be rights, whilst natural laws are a reflection that humanity must recognise the existence of something over which it cannot hold sway and, therefore, also not a right which can be granted to us.
Finally, I take issue with John Locke’s view that ‘before any form of government arose, all men were believed to be free and equal’.
Free…possibly - Equal….never ever.!!
Rights are granted. They reflect an entitlement to whatever is being granted. No-one/no-thing has ever granted anything to humanity. The concept we have labelled as ‘human rights’ are entitlements which we have granted to ourselves, partly as a means of accepting the benefits of a societal existence and partly by virtue of a lack of understanding of the resulting control which has been handed to those exercising governance on our behalf, resulting from an increasing laziness/desire for comfort and convenience.