Rights Are Curtailed for Terror Suspects


Paul's picture

The concept of "rights" is just another tool that enslaves us. This article just shows how ephemeral they are, able to be ignored at the least provocation. Rights do not protect us; they protect the ruling class by keeping us submissive.

Suverans2's picture

"That men should take up arms and spend their lives and fortunes, not to maintain their rights, but to maintain they have not rights, is an entirely new species of discovery..." ~ Thomas Paine

Bad news, Thomas, we still have them around in our day and age. :(

Suverans2's picture

G'day Paul,

Let me give this one more shot, since I feel that you were baiting me with that post.

Mark Davis wrote, “This seems like a long, repetitive strawman argument to me because I don't know anybody that considers the concept of rights to be equivalent to some kind of force-field.”

Seems Mark Davis may have been wrong about that, because you wrote, “Rights do not protect us; they protect the ruling class by keeping us submissive.” [Emphasis added]

That says, not only that rights exist, but that they are “equivalent to some kind of force-field” protecting the ruling class. Well they aren't, Paul, in fact, they are quite the opposite. The masses having knowledge and understanding of man's Natural Rights[1] is the ruling class' nightmare.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

That is because, why would anyone fight to be free if they believed they already were free; similarly, why would anyone defend their natural rights if they didn't know they owned any?

And, for some unknown reason you appear to believe that rights keep us [sic] “submissive”. [I now understand why you believe this. See my next post for the explanation.]

Frédéric Bastiat wrote, “Each of us has a natural right [a “just claim”] — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.” [Emphasis and bracketed information added]

Maybe if you had a “just claim” to something it would keep you submissive, Paul, but it sure as hell doesn't keep me submissive. It is the knowledge and understanding of my natural rights, my “just claim” to my life, liberty and justly acquired property that adds to my resolve to defend them. Allow me to explain that last statement with an analogy.

Ever had an aquarium, Paul? Well, if you had, and you were attentive, you might have seen that a smaller fish, who had “staked his claim” first, could, many times, defend that territory even against a larger, more aggressive fish, which was added later. But, whether he could or not, even this stupid fish instinctively knew that he had a “right” to that property, because he was the first to claim it, and his instinctive knowledge of that “right”, I believe, made him stronger, and his foe weaker, than otherwise would have been the case. This is because one will naturally defend, far more aggressively, that which he has a “just claim” to, than that which he does not have a “right” to.

If one does not have a “right” to a thing, that is to say, a “just claim” to a thing, it is not his, Paul, it belongs to someone else, to whoever does have a "just claim", i.e. a "right", to it, and I think, way down deep inside, most of us instinctively knows we should give it back.

[1] Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights or political rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.
In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

Suverans2's picture

Hey Paul,

It just dawned on me where we might part ways. You write about "rights" as though there are only one kind, and therein may lie virtually all our differences.

I realized, after reading my own reply to you, that I would have agreed with you, had you said, legal rights, civil rights, statutory rights, or political rights[1] keep members of the political corporation submissive, because, in my opinion, they do. A good example is the political right to vote; it fools the weakest members of the corporation into believing that they have complete "control" over what their government does, which of course they do not.

The key to understanding rights is understanding that all rights are "entitlements". The primary thing that determines whether one is "entitled" to a particular set of rights is "membership". For example, one is not entitled to "political rights" unless he is a member of the political corporation. Another is "civil rights"; Noah Webster (c.1825), said it well, "civil rights, the power or rights which a man enjoys as a citizen." [Emphasis added] And, a "citizen" is what?

citizen, n. ...2. A member of a state; a person, native or naturalized who owes allegiance to a government, and is entitled to protection from it... ~ Webster's 1960 New Collegiate Dictionary, page 151 [Emphasis added]

Do you think this might bring us closer together?

[1] I failed to consider these other "rights", because I am a free man, and as a free man I am only concerned with my "natural rights". All men are equal in the eyes of the law, the natural law that is. Under man-made law this is not true, it is the law of "status", the "the legal character or condition of a person or thing". (Source: The 2010 American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition)

Suverans2's picture

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is a "Landmark ruling, citing the Fifth Amendment, says suspects must be reminded of their right to avoid self incrimination".

Non-U.S. citizens, i.e. non-members, do not have the "civil rights", which are endowed to members of the STATE by the U.S. Constitution. Since seceding I have not once been read any so-called "Miranda rights" before, during, or after being arrested. Fortunately, as a free man, I have the "natural right" to speak, or not speak, to whomever I wish. I temper that "natural right" with, "all things lawful[1] are mine, but all things are not expedient", when making my decision to speak, or not.

[1] Lawful. ...the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter [legal] goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former [lawful] usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 885