This isn't hyperbole. Carbon credits. What corporations trade with one another for the "right" to produce carbon above a specified allotment. If some corporations produce more they must "offset" their carbon footprint by purchasing carbon credits from another corporation that doesn't use all of its allotment. Even large agriculture operations are subject to carbon credits. And methane has been identified as a greenhouse gas that should be regulated. Cow "farts." So this concept applies to living entities, not just machine carbon footprints. Europe is slaughtering herds and reducing food supplies because of the carbon footprint the operations produce. Even crops are being destroyed.
And some have proposed that large carbon producers, like those with multiple mansions, cars, jets, yachts, etc would have to purchase carbon credits to offset their production.
This sets the framework for regulating the production of carbon by humans. It's not a stretch to move to regulate the production of carbon on the individual level, not just for the wealthy with larger carbon footprints than average.
Of course the wealthy can afford to purchase, trade carbon credits. Those who make choices in life pursuits who aren't especially wealthy may become targets for "excessive carbon production." Either pay up or make different choices that diminish the quality of life and enjoyment of the individual.
Fifteen-minute cities are an attempt at this via other means. Sets the predicate to tax/fine carbon producers. And once a threshold is established and accepted it becomes easy to adjust that threshold down. The ratchet effect. Until the very act of breathing becomes subject to taxation, fines. Of course, the wealthy could pay that. The poor and middle classes become contained in a virtual prison. Breathing the very minimum to live. A privilege granted by the state, not a Natural right.
One day we could see this reduction in quality of life exploited by the transhuman/digital avatar version of "life" proponents. "You want to live large, all your dreams, eat steak, travel on a budget because you can't afford to pay for the carbon tax/fines that involves? Try downloading your consciousness into a digital avatar." Live as large a life as you wish via virtual existence. Matrix-like. And like the character Cypher, many will choose the easiest option of virtual life because their real lives are so miserable they can't bear it anymore.
Because the natural right to breathe becomes a regulated privilege, not a right. At least not above a bare minimum amount that allows for no enjoyment of life above government-approved privileges.
This is not hyperbole. This is the trajectory of technology and what the anti-human depopulation "elite" want for us. To save the planet, of course. A greater good than your Natural right to breathe.
Totalitarian governance does that. Totalitarians rely on "experts." Whose arrogance leads to massive famine, people killing people, being killed just trying to eat after the "expert's" solution to low crop yields made entire crops disappear. "Get rid of the sparrows eating the crops!" Totalitarianism kills like no other form of government.
Paved With Good Intentions: Mao Tse-Tung’s “Four Pests” Disaster
Government interventions to control the natural world can only end in disaster. Man is not God. Men who think themselves gods lack humility and lack respect for the natural world. And those type of men who populate the political class and academia will arrogantly believe their mass murders are "for the greater good" in their social engineering breaking of eggs to make omelets:
Speaking of omelets, an old butter substitute commercial comes to mind:
It's Not Nice to Fool With Mother Nature
(sadfunny ironic that the TV ad is for spread that's man-made buttery-flavored petrochemicals that fool with Mother Nature passing itself off as a more natural butter.)
All constructs of man's power over other men, including religious institutions - which mustn't be construed as an extension of God's power or God himself - follow the same pattern, impose the same systems of control, repackaged epistemology, back to pre-civilization, tribal origins. Everything that's new is ancient.
Don't worry...the deep state has the entire DC Swamp under its wheels as the depopulation agenda continues and that kinda means fewer breaths for billions.
I don't think legislatures can create valid laws out of thin air, either. There is no reason to have a legislature. There are laws, we can make a list, one time, if we need to do so. Making any new rule or regulation is where legislators get their grift and the reason they are considered worth corrupting. Legislatures are foolish.
If the law they create comports with natural law, then it is unnecessary. If the law they create does not comport with natural law, then it is unwanted.
And taxation, regulation, and inflation are theft. So there should be no “public monies” for the legislators to corruptly allocate. Buncha jerks.
It is, of course, not that they are required, but that they are available, that causes legislators to be corrupted. And so the Pelosi family is worth $400 million more today than when Nancy entered the congress some decades back. “We” pay them $174K a year or some such, and there are billionaires amongst them. Might be people could want to stop.
"Buncha jerks" LOL! I can even think of some more pungent descriptions but that works well for me. You have to be bereft of moral values like Ms. Pelosi to take a job like that.
I think what supports all the unEthical garbage in controlminds is money. (My definition of money: anything tangible We use to account for the energy We input into a system. This can be goods and services (trade/barter), work exchange, shells, beads, sticks notched and split, coins (metals), bills (paper), or electronic bits (or anything else used for that purpose).)
Without money, with all of Us living as richly as We choose (which is possible today), the only Laws We would need would be the only true Laws, the Laws of Ethics.
Right Jim, rules are real, the real ones are called "natural" and easily discovered for those honest of heart. It is the idea that some are born or chosen to rule and can make up "rules" to suit themselves and have the "authority" to enforce them on others that is the problem.
If your understanding of Natural Rights is broader than your governments view, you will have to fight your government, either figuratively or literally, to be able to exercise those rights. If you choose to fight, you may find yourself identified as a domestic terrorist. In Germany, even your ideas, although consistent with German law and post-WWII anti-Nazi sentiment, and aligned with existing law and common sense, can be twisted into a pretzel that the government can use to dispose of you for the greater good. Natural Law is only enforceable with sufficient power. With the fuzzy ethical standards and fuzzier logic of the 21st century idiocracy, application of Natural Law will likely be limited to the Final Judgement.
As grim as things can seem, we cannot give in to despair. We must plan, grow, build in the cracks. Keep getting stronger. Until one day, we cannot be pushed around anymore…
I wanted to add something regarding rights. I think it must be connected to the fact of the unseen connections between individuals. Not to detract from the importance of individuality and a sense of one's uniqueness, but individuals do not exist in a vacuum and there is an important consideration regarding rights that stems from this. If you have a right to defend your own right to life, freedom and property, this is somewhat meaningless and the argument is weakened if you don't also have a right to protect the same rights for another. If you are not willing to do this then why should others come to the defense of yours? I don't think this can be under emphasized. As one of the founders said, "If we don't hang together we shall surely be hung separately!" I think this ties into the reason the founders emphasized the militia and right to bear arms.
To me it seems pretty obvious. Real strength and power come from unity even though it is something you cannot demand. However unless you can understand that part of your strength is the shared understandings you share with the like minded. Until you do you will be isolated from your full strength. We all remember the story about "they came for the....." "and then finally they came for me and there was no one..." Because you sense what is right you will feel the need to support another with whom you have empathy is also right. It is the lack of that ability to empathize with another as yourself and see that because of defending another's right that is being threatened is the same as defending your own right, what you have in common with another is a part of "you," didn't the Voice of Wisdom say "Do unto others as you would have them do unto (or for) you?"
I wanted to add for clarity's sake that it is not right to force someone to defend your rights as with conscription. It is the fact that in a free voluntaryist society you are not coerced into it that makes us admire and value those who do voluntarily risk their well being and even lives at times for others. Obedient robots do not have deserve or receive such honors.
I "got" the meme but I also found its construction (for lack of a better word) a bit clumsy...
Your story about the shogun and the samurai got me thinking. Are rights just a western construct? From what little I know about traditional oriental cultures, they seem generally not to put value on the individual, or human life...
I have read a few books on the kamikazes and the willingness of these very young men to die for their emperor in what was, by that point, an obviously unwinnable war is difficult for many westerners to get their mind around. There were instances when a kamikaze group had fewer serviceable aircraft than available pilots and the pilots not assigned the next planned mission would go to their commander and attempt to convince him to substitute them for one of the chosen pilots...
It’s a good question. Here’s my hot take, first thing in the AM :-)
First, I think the principles and moral emanations of natural law hold true throughout the universe. If I go to Japan (even WWII Japan) and someone forces me to die as a kamikaze, they have violated my rights. But you are also right that it is in Western culture that the ideas of individual rights have been most thoroughly developed.
You are also right that Eastern cultures have been less individual-focused, but I think those distinctions are somewhat on the margins now. Let’s stick with Japan. They have laws forbidding violations of individual rights, people are punished for those violations as individuals, etc. They are more group-oriented, certainly, but much of that is choice, right?
As to their past, kamikazes and deferring to the shogun seem to be the result of a culture of statolatry. People can choose to be a part of that culture if they wish, they can even die for the emperor or the shogun if they wish. But if they refuse, and they are killed anyway, then their rights have been violated. Even if a culture says that it was their duty to die for the state, their rights have still be violated.
Alternate scenario: We do not give in to despair. We grow. We build in the cracks. We bide our time. We spread our ideas and grow some more. We plant seeds now so that our children can live in the shade of mighty trees.
Rights that are moral, and inherent, can only come from a Supreme Creator and Moral Govenor of the universe. If no God, then the statists with thier might makes right, prevails. To me, it can only be one or the other.
I believe it is possible to use induction and deduction from the facts of nature to derive the moral concept of rights. However, I personally believe that those facts of nature, and the moral principles that emanate therefrom, were created by a Creator.
I was glad to see you take aim at the “is/ought gap”. I get Hume’s point, but of course every single one of us who claims an “ought” bases it on what “is”. And it’s curious that usually the only people who bring the distinction up are those who want to oppress our natural rights.
‘of course every single one of us who claims an “ought” bases it on what “is”.’
—Exactly. Abso-freaking-lutely! It’s all IS, because all that there is is all that there is!
And if governments are creating laws designed to protect us from violation of our…(insert the r-word that shall not be named), then what are they basing those laws on? Funny how they mostly seem to follow the same pattern as the principles we identify as emanating from natural law.
So it’s logical when they derive them from…somewhere….but not when we derive them from careful observation of, and reasoning from, what IS? This makes no sense!
Actually, while you are correct about statists, collectivists, and relativists being the primary source of opposition to ethical naturalism, there are some people in the freedom movement who feel that way too. They’re just not convinced.
My argument to them is that they should lie to themselves and pretend that they are convinced. From a practical standpoint, we are better off insisting that are rights inhere to us naturally!
Yeah I've never understood why we all can't just get along.
Yesterday I came across some YouTube videos of wild grizzlies really going for each other (I both cases once a victor emerged both animals walked or hobbled away) and I realized (for the upteenth time in my life) that everyone yelling about how might is right and competition (and not cooperation) is the real way things are between humans haven't got a clue about how bad things could be if it weren't for civilization. Shared culture, values-ethics-morality, across most of the globe, is what permits us to thrive. Fortunately the state of nature dreamt up by Hobbes and Locke never existed except in their imagination, and what did exist, centuries ago, those grizzlies are a reminder of what lurks in the shadows.
You’re right, memes shouldn’t have to be explained, but some memes are esoteric and not intended for everyone. Sometimes I like memes that slap you in the face. Other times I like them a bit more subtle. So, your meme came through loud and clear.
The right to breathe(right to life) is to me the only natural right an individual has. Liberty(self ownership, property rights derive from that. The government by default has already taken the right to breathe away, because they have the authority to do so. That’s why I people(statists) think that rights come from government. If government can easily take them away, then government must have granted them. We just celebrated Independence Day accompanied with the belief that that’s the day we got our freedom. People were more free under British rule, than we are today. The Bill of Rights reads as a guarantee of rights, but does no such thing as government violates that guarantee. It’s sort of a moot point to argue whether government grants rights, and then takes them away, or just takes away rights you claim you have. And if the final arbiter of which is true is the same government, then you lose either way.
I am glad you made that point about the Bill of Rights. What it actually is is this:
Government:
“We are going to take away your rights completely. The default presumption is that that is just how things are. Governments are in charge completely, and you get what you get and you don’t throw a fit.
“But good news—this is a new kind of government. We are still in complete control, but we are going to dole back to you large quantities of specific rights. Your right to freedom of expression was at 100 percent; we took it to zero percent, and now we’re going to give most of it back to you—maybe 90 percent.
“Your right to defend yourself, your property, and your freedom was at 100 percent. We are going to take it down to zero percent, but then we will dole 70 percent of that right back to you. NB: We reserve the right to make that 50 or 40 or 30 percent, depending on where you live or the mood were in at any one moment.”
And so on and so forth. When we look at its true implications, the Bill of Rights is actually quite a menacing document.
That said, it was an improvement on what had come before, just as Magna Carta was in its time. I guess baby steps is all we’ve been able to hope for thus far.
Thank you, Christopher, for continuing to share these thoughts and observations, and for have free content on this blog. You continually arm us (those who care enough to find and read content like yours) to live counter to the philosophies of oppression that have chained civilization(s) for too long. This moment of gratitude brought to you by the right to breathe and me choosing to carve out a little time for reflection and response. Not because every other post you make isn't also significant. ;-)
This isn't hyperbole. Carbon credits. What corporations trade with one another for the "right" to produce carbon above a specified allotment. If some corporations produce more they must "offset" their carbon footprint by purchasing carbon credits from another corporation that doesn't use all of its allotment. Even large agriculture operations are subject to carbon credits. And methane has been identified as a greenhouse gas that should be regulated. Cow "farts." So this concept applies to living entities, not just machine carbon footprints. Europe is slaughtering herds and reducing food supplies because of the carbon footprint the operations produce. Even crops are being destroyed.
And some have proposed that large carbon producers, like those with multiple mansions, cars, jets, yachts, etc would have to purchase carbon credits to offset their production.
This sets the framework for regulating the production of carbon by humans. It's not a stretch to move to regulate the production of carbon on the individual level, not just for the wealthy with larger carbon footprints than average.
Of course the wealthy can afford to purchase, trade carbon credits. Those who make choices in life pursuits who aren't especially wealthy may become targets for "excessive carbon production." Either pay up or make different choices that diminish the quality of life and enjoyment of the individual.
Fifteen-minute cities are an attempt at this via other means. Sets the predicate to tax/fine carbon producers. And once a threshold is established and accepted it becomes easy to adjust that threshold down. The ratchet effect. Until the very act of breathing becomes subject to taxation, fines. Of course, the wealthy could pay that. The poor and middle classes become contained in a virtual prison. Breathing the very minimum to live. A privilege granted by the state, not a Natural right.
One day we could see this reduction in quality of life exploited by the transhuman/digital avatar version of "life" proponents. "You want to live large, all your dreams, eat steak, travel on a budget because you can't afford to pay for the carbon tax/fines that involves? Try downloading your consciousness into a digital avatar." Live as large a life as you wish via virtual existence. Matrix-like. And like the character Cypher, many will choose the easiest option of virtual life because their real lives are so miserable they can't bear it anymore.
Because the natural right to breathe becomes a regulated privilege, not a right. At least not above a bare minimum amount that allows for no enjoyment of life above government-approved privileges.
This is not hyperbole. This is the trajectory of technology and what the anti-human depopulation "elite" want for us. To save the planet, of course. A greater good than your Natural right to breathe.
The killing of the herds and crops reminds me of Russia, China, and all other Communist nations. It kills all the time.
Totalitarian governance does that. Totalitarians rely on "experts." Whose arrogance leads to massive famine, people killing people, being killed just trying to eat after the "expert's" solution to low crop yields made entire crops disappear. "Get rid of the sparrows eating the crops!" Totalitarianism kills like no other form of government.
Paved With Good Intentions: Mao Tse-Tung’s “Four Pests” Disaster
Discover Magazine, February 26, 2014
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/paved-with-good-intentions-mao-tse-tungs-four-pests-disaster
China’s deadly science lesson: How an ill-conceived campaign against sparrows contributed to one of the worst famines in history
SAGE Journals, September 10, 2018
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306422018800259
The Four Pests Campaign: How Killing Sparrows Led to Famine in China
A-Z Animals, March 14, 2024
https://a-z-animals.com/articles/the-four-pests-campaign-how-killing-sparrows-led-to-famine-in-china/
China’s Worst Self-Inflicted Environmental Disaster: The Campaign to Wipe Out the Common Sparrow
Gizmodo, July 18, 2012
https://gizmodo.com/china-s-worst-self-inflicted-environmental-disaster-th-5927112
It's not a coincidence that Totalitarian forms of government have the highest Democide (Death by Government) body counts of all. It's not even close:
Chart:
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.6.GIF
Death by Government RJ Rummel, 1994
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Government interventions to control the natural world can only end in disaster. Man is not God. Men who think themselves gods lack humility and lack respect for the natural world. And those type of men who populate the political class and academia will arrogantly believe their mass murders are "for the greater good" in their social engineering breaking of eggs to make omelets:
https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-awards/new-york-times-statement-about-1932-pulitzer-prize-awarded-to-walter-duranty/
Speaking of omelets, an old butter substitute commercial comes to mind:
It's Not Nice to Fool With Mother Nature
(sadfunny ironic that the TV ad is for spread that's man-made buttery-flavored petrochemicals that fool with Mother Nature passing itself off as a more natural butter.)
https://archive.org/details/youtube-ijVijP-CDVI
It’s the modern version of a papal indulgence
All constructs of man's power over other men, including religious institutions - which mustn't be construed as an extension of God's power or God himself - follow the same pattern, impose the same systems of control, repackaged epistemology, back to pre-civilization, tribal origins. Everything that's new is ancient.
Breathers: You aren't a government, you don't derive your powers from the consent of the governed.
Tyrants: Stop breathing!
Me: Make me!
Don't worry...the deep state has the entire DC Swamp under its wheels as the depopulation agenda continues and that kinda means fewer breaths for billions.
They're gonna get theirs someday, one way or another.
I don't think legislatures can create valid laws out of thin air, either. There is no reason to have a legislature. There are laws, we can make a list, one time, if we need to do so. Making any new rule or regulation is where legislators get their grift and the reason they are considered worth corrupting. Legislatures are foolish.
If the law they create comports with natural law, then it is unnecessary. If the law they create does not comport with natural law, then it is unwanted.
Legislators, your services are not required.
Exactly!
And taxation, regulation, and inflation are theft. So there should be no “public monies” for the legislators to corruptly allocate. Buncha jerks.
It is, of course, not that they are required, but that they are available, that causes legislators to be corrupted. And so the Pelosi family is worth $400 million more today than when Nancy entered the congress some decades back. “We” pay them $174K a year or some such, and there are billionaires amongst them. Might be people could want to stop.
"Buncha jerks" LOL! I can even think of some more pungent descriptions but that works well for me. You have to be bereft of moral values like Ms. Pelosi to take a job like that.
I think what supports all the unEthical garbage in controlminds is money. (My definition of money: anything tangible We use to account for the energy We input into a system. This can be goods and services (trade/barter), work exchange, shells, beads, sticks notched and split, coins (metals), bills (paper), or electronic bits (or anything else used for that purpose).)
Without money, with all of Us living as richly as We choose (which is possible today), the only Laws We would need would be the only true Laws, the Laws of Ethics.
Ethical Anarchy (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/ethical-anarchy
Stigmergic Emergence of Civilization (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/stigmergic-emergence-of-civilization
Money is the bane of Humanity.
Right Jim, rules are real, the real ones are called "natural" and easily discovered for those honest of heart. It is the idea that some are born or chosen to rule and can make up "rules" to suit themselves and have the "authority" to enforce them on others that is the problem.
If your understanding of Natural Rights is broader than your governments view, you will have to fight your government, either figuratively or literally, to be able to exercise those rights. If you choose to fight, you may find yourself identified as a domestic terrorist. In Germany, even your ideas, although consistent with German law and post-WWII anti-Nazi sentiment, and aligned with existing law and common sense, can be twisted into a pretzel that the government can use to dispose of you for the greater good. Natural Law is only enforceable with sufficient power. With the fuzzy ethical standards and fuzzier logic of the 21st century idiocracy, application of Natural Law will likely be limited to the Final Judgement.
As grim as things can seem, we cannot give in to despair. We must plan, grow, build in the cracks. Keep getting stronger. Until one day, we cannot be pushed around anymore…
I wanted to add something regarding rights. I think it must be connected to the fact of the unseen connections between individuals. Not to detract from the importance of individuality and a sense of one's uniqueness, but individuals do not exist in a vacuum and there is an important consideration regarding rights that stems from this. If you have a right to defend your own right to life, freedom and property, this is somewhat meaningless and the argument is weakened if you don't also have a right to protect the same rights for another. If you are not willing to do this then why should others come to the defense of yours? I don't think this can be under emphasized. As one of the founders said, "If we don't hang together we shall surely be hung separately!" I think this ties into the reason the founders emphasized the militia and right to bear arms.
Certainly this is so. Though now my mind is grinding in the question of how we can develop a syllogism to prove/justify one’s right to defend others…
To me it seems pretty obvious. Real strength and power come from unity even though it is something you cannot demand. However unless you can understand that part of your strength is the shared understandings you share with the like minded. Until you do you will be isolated from your full strength. We all remember the story about "they came for the....." "and then finally they came for me and there was no one..." Because you sense what is right you will feel the need to support another with whom you have empathy is also right. It is the lack of that ability to empathize with another as yourself and see that because of defending another's right that is being threatened is the same as defending your own right, what you have in common with another is a part of "you," didn't the Voice of Wisdom say "Do unto others as you would have them do unto (or for) you?"
Agreed with all those aspirational values.
I wanted to add for clarity's sake that it is not right to force someone to defend your rights as with conscription. It is the fact that in a free voluntaryist society you are not coerced into it that makes us admire and value those who do voluntarily risk their well being and even lives at times for others. Obedient robots do not have deserve or receive such honors.
Well said.
I would love to find a way to justify all this in an absolute sense, but I will have to think about it more…
If anyone can it will be you Christopher.
Beautiful Christopher! The perfect is the enemy of true progress.
I "got" the meme but I also found its construction (for lack of a better word) a bit clumsy...
Your story about the shogun and the samurai got me thinking. Are rights just a western construct? From what little I know about traditional oriental cultures, they seem generally not to put value on the individual, or human life...
I have read a few books on the kamikazes and the willingness of these very young men to die for their emperor in what was, by that point, an obviously unwinnable war is difficult for many westerners to get their mind around. There were instances when a kamikaze group had fewer serviceable aircraft than available pilots and the pilots not assigned the next planned mission would go to their commander and attempt to convince him to substitute them for one of the chosen pilots...
It’s a good question. Here’s my hot take, first thing in the AM :-)
First, I think the principles and moral emanations of natural law hold true throughout the universe. If I go to Japan (even WWII Japan) and someone forces me to die as a kamikaze, they have violated my rights. But you are also right that it is in Western culture that the ideas of individual rights have been most thoroughly developed.
You are also right that Eastern cultures have been less individual-focused, but I think those distinctions are somewhat on the margins now. Let’s stick with Japan. They have laws forbidding violations of individual rights, people are punished for those violations as individuals, etc. They are more group-oriented, certainly, but much of that is choice, right?
As to their past, kamikazes and deferring to the shogun seem to be the result of a culture of statolatry. People can choose to be a part of that culture if they wish, they can even die for the emperor or the shogun if they wish. But if they refuse, and they are killed anyway, then their rights have been violated. Even if a culture says that it was their duty to die for the state, their rights have still be violated.
Article shared on SafeChat.
I don't know what that is, but thanks!
https://safechat.com/post/3382797269084570512
Cool; thank you.
Not only do I have the right to breath, I also have the right to ignore taxation on air.
Eventually, perhaps our numbers will be large enough, and our power sufficient, that we can ignore taxation on everything.
Until we either die on our own or by the hands of the local Executioner...
Alternate scenario: We do not give in to despair. We grow. We build in the cracks. We bide our time. We spread our ideas and grow some more. We plant seeds now so that our children can live in the shade of mighty trees.
We never ever ever give in.
Rights that are moral, and inherent, can only come from a Supreme Creator and Moral Govenor of the universe. If no God, then the statists with thier might makes right, prevails. To me, it can only be one or the other.
I believe it is possible to use induction and deduction from the facts of nature to derive the moral concept of rights. However, I personally believe that those facts of nature, and the moral principles that emanate therefrom, were created by a Creator.
I was glad to see you take aim at the “is/ought gap”. I get Hume’s point, but of course every single one of us who claims an “ought” bases it on what “is”. And it’s curious that usually the only people who bring the distinction up are those who want to oppress our natural rights.
‘of course every single one of us who claims an “ought” bases it on what “is”.’
—Exactly. Abso-freaking-lutely! It’s all IS, because all that there is is all that there is!
And if governments are creating laws designed to protect us from violation of our…(insert the r-word that shall not be named), then what are they basing those laws on? Funny how they mostly seem to follow the same pattern as the principles we identify as emanating from natural law.
So it’s logical when they derive them from…somewhere….but not when we derive them from careful observation of, and reasoning from, what IS? This makes no sense!
Actually, while you are correct about statists, collectivists, and relativists being the primary source of opposition to ethical naturalism, there are some people in the freedom movement who feel that way too. They’re just not convinced.
My argument to them is that they should lie to themselves and pretend that they are convinced. From a practical standpoint, we are better off insisting that are rights inhere to us naturally!
Totally agree.
Great blurb! :)
Yeah I've never understood why we all can't just get along.
Yesterday I came across some YouTube videos of wild grizzlies really going for each other (I both cases once a victor emerged both animals walked or hobbled away) and I realized (for the upteenth time in my life) that everyone yelling about how might is right and competition (and not cooperation) is the real way things are between humans haven't got a clue about how bad things could be if it weren't for civilization. Shared culture, values-ethics-morality, across most of the globe, is what permits us to thrive. Fortunately the state of nature dreamt up by Hobbes and Locke never existed except in their imagination, and what did exist, centuries ago, those grizzlies are a reminder of what lurks in the shadows.
If we weren’t a naturally cooperative species, we would never have made it out of the trees.
You’re right, memes shouldn’t have to be explained, but some memes are esoteric and not intended for everyone. Sometimes I like memes that slap you in the face. Other times I like them a bit more subtle. So, your meme came through loud and clear.
The right to breathe(right to life) is to me the only natural right an individual has. Liberty(self ownership, property rights derive from that. The government by default has already taken the right to breathe away, because they have the authority to do so. That’s why I people(statists) think that rights come from government. If government can easily take them away, then government must have granted them. We just celebrated Independence Day accompanied with the belief that that’s the day we got our freedom. People were more free under British rule, than we are today. The Bill of Rights reads as a guarantee of rights, but does no such thing as government violates that guarantee. It’s sort of a moot point to argue whether government grants rights, and then takes them away, or just takes away rights you claim you have. And if the final arbiter of which is true is the same government, then you lose either way.
I am glad you made that point about the Bill of Rights. What it actually is is this:
Government:
“We are going to take away your rights completely. The default presumption is that that is just how things are. Governments are in charge completely, and you get what you get and you don’t throw a fit.
“But good news—this is a new kind of government. We are still in complete control, but we are going to dole back to you large quantities of specific rights. Your right to freedom of expression was at 100 percent; we took it to zero percent, and now we’re going to give most of it back to you—maybe 90 percent.
“Your right to defend yourself, your property, and your freedom was at 100 percent. We are going to take it down to zero percent, but then we will dole 70 percent of that right back to you. NB: We reserve the right to make that 50 or 40 or 30 percent, depending on where you live or the mood were in at any one moment.”
And so on and so forth. When we look at its true implications, the Bill of Rights is actually quite a menacing document.
That said, it was an improvement on what had come before, just as Magna Carta was in its time. I guess baby steps is all we’ve been able to hope for thus far.
Thank you, Christopher, for continuing to share these thoughts and observations, and for have free content on this blog. You continually arm us (those who care enough to find and read content like yours) to live counter to the philosophies of oppression that have chained civilization(s) for too long. This moment of gratitude brought to you by the right to breathe and me choosing to carve out a little time for reflection and response. Not because every other post you make isn't also significant. ;-)
Thank you, Teddi; that means a lot to me!