The four basic inalienable human rights, such as the right to freedom, happiness, etc., which were first written in history in the American constitution, but why are these more important than rights such as the right to oxygen or gravity, which are the only rights in the world are they not included in the constitution?
Is it because they are so self-evident that there is no need to write them down? If, on the other hand, they have to be written down, it means that they are not self-evident. Or they are self-evidently granted, but no one has enough power to grant them, that’s why they aren’t written in any constitution. And this is the key issue to understand, why rights do not exist, and cannot exist by any means.
Because there are no rights without the giver or protector of rights, which are the same. But who could be the giver or protector of rights? Maybe the God. Why shouldn’t we assume that God is the ultimate giver of rights? Well, for a couple of reasons.
If we insist for instance, that we have a right to breathe oxygen, and we have a right to have gravitation beneath our feet, how can the astronaut clame these rights in the space? And from whom? There is no giver of these rights, neither in the space nor elsewhere.
I can claim a rights to have shelter, food, water, healthcare, education and so on at the same way, but these rights won’t be granted if I cannot find anyone with sufficient power to grant me. And if I cannot, my rights are not worth anything, they are just words, empty slogans.
But once upon a time some gangs with weapons founded a state to grant rights to its own citizens to solve this problem. From that time the giver and protector of rights is the state monopoly, this is why rights mean slightly different in every country all over the planet. They mean different in Switzerland than in North Korea.
Problems solved, once and all. Sounds great, yeah? Well not so fast. The problem at the first place, that the state is unable to grant these rights without violating them, and this is very easy to prove. Let me explain this.
Let’s assume that I have a right to my property and belongings, and as well to the full protection of them. The state provides police to ensure these rights. Super! But at the same time the state impose tax on me to maintain the police, and if I’m unable to pay, the government uses the same police to deprive me of my property that theoretically I have a right to.
In other words, I am protected from everything, except from the protector, who will never hesitate to kick me out of my property. And then where are my rights? Whom I should claim them from?
The rights were invented for us by the state, which can be changed, overruled or withdrawn at any time, thus they are arbitrary in every country. No wonder the rights mean different in every country. In some country the right to abortion is granted, in some others it isn’t, which is up to the whim of rulers.
Even the American Constitution, which only provides negative rights, which are negative because we cannot force anyone to finance them, nor can they be provided without a protector. And the protector is the giver of rights, thus we still end up to be forced to finance it. And the result is the same.
From here, it is only a step away to have positive rights in the constitution, which are positive because they are not fundamental, as a right to education, healthcare, road network ect. But in order to finance these rights the four fundamental rights will be harmed, but no one cares anymore. Who would vote against the free beer? So the government gives some rights while taking away others, depending on the current zeitgeist.
In conclusion, rights do not exist as I clearly proved, but only ethics, and our moral capacity and judgement to follow our conscience. Rights are different in every country but etics and our capacity are the same. Unlike the rights they are fundamental, universal, and crosscultural.
Rights are a pure and naked moral relativism. Believing in rights is statism. In other words, if rights exist, or rather we want them to exist, the morality will be the luxury we can never afford. Otherwise these rights won’t be maintained.
If only one right exists, the right to make a moral judgement and follow your conscience that would make every other rights pointless and unsustainable. But every other rights abolish this essential one. So the whole makes no sense. Either way never trust anyone who has power over you, because one who has power to give you rights, that one takes them.
Thanks for reading!