For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
in nature, behavior that comes naturally to people.
It's natural for men to have sexual escapades but if a man claims a natural
right to have an affair with the luscious babe over at the gym, then his
wife will probably profess a different view of natural rights. Thus
does the lack of a good definition cause confusion.
If natural behavior is going to be regarded as a source of rights then, among other things, it's important that we don't confuse natural behavior with normal behavior. Normal behavior is whatever is expected of a person within any particular society. That varies a lot from one society to the next. On the other hand, natural behavior is what somebody will do when he's left to his own devices. That tends to be more nearly universal among humans, regardless of social mores. It's natural, but not necessarily normal, for people to take things that aren't theirs, for men to be womanizers, and for women to be pregnant by the time they're 14 years old. Some people might want to claim some such natural behavior as rights. Others might want to eliminate such natural behavior from the genome. Whatever the case, just because a thing is natural behavior, that doesn't necessarily mean that the thing is also a right. In general, natural rights is a silly idea. God Given Rights — Religious people in every different group claim to possess the only true knowledge. Each group of people will declare a different set of God given rights. Worse yet, the belief that the God given rights came from God creates within each group the feeling of infallibility. Since the people in each group perceive their own ideas as being God given, and all other ideas as being false, they all feel justified in imposing their ideas on everyone else. The idea of God given rights promotes the idea of God given behavior which becomes God given commandments for everyone else. As with the idea of human rights, that creates a mandate for interference in the affairs of other people. The result isn't rights. The result is conflict, arrogance, hypocrisy, intolerance, jihads, holy wars, inquisitions, persecutions, pogroms, crusades, repression, and theocracies. By pure coincidence, a few so-called God given rights might actually be rights. In most cases, God given rights only promote a perception of infallibility, and evangelism. Before you know it, they're trying to put up the Ten Commandments in all of the court houses. Civil Rights — Civil rights are not rights. They're privileges. They're created, granted, regulated, and removed by governments. They exist under the jurisdictions of legislatures and courts. Actual rights and civil rights are mutually exclusive. Civil rights is a silly notion. Specialized Rights — There's a long and ever-growing list of specialized rights. Among them are such notions as women's rights, children's rights, homosexual's rights, minority's rights, handicapped people's rights, commuter lane user's rights, old people's rights, fat people's rights, prisoner's rights, patient's rights, shopper's rights, consumer's rights, victim's rights, snowmobiler's rights, hunter's rights, etc., ad nauseam. Such ideas are specific examples of the general idea of civil rights. They're not rights. They're privileges. They're created, granted, regulated, and removed by governments. They're all silly ideas. Equal Rights — Equal rights isn't a category of so-called rights but I can't resist mentioning the idea because of the amusing impact on it of the various specialized rights. Under the idea of specialized rights, a man can have certain specialized rights if he's fat. A different man can have different specialized rights if he's driving in a commuter lane. A fat man who's also driving in a commuter lane can have both sets of specialized rights. Make your own examples. Whatever the case, a man doesn't have prisoner's rights unless he's a prisoner. He doesn't have shopper's rights unless he's shopping. Whatever example you use, people don't have the specialized rights unless they're in the proper category. That pretty much puts the big kibosh on the whole idea of equal rights. I get a big chuckle out of the way that the activists defeat each other. Equal rights is a silly notion anyway. Any form of equality is an unnatural condition. If it exists at all, then it exists only through rigid and ruthless enforcement. In that case, the so-called equal rights become equal privileges. The enforcer becomes the master. The people who claimed the equal rights become controlled. Go figure. Right and Proper — People need to understand the distinction between rights and those things that are right and proper. There are many things that we hope will be true, that we hope will happen, that we believe to be right and proper. However, what is right and proper hasn't been well defined. It's a matter of For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
opinion. We can hope that rights will promote
our favorite notions of what's right and proper, at least some of the time,
but that isn't a requirement for a thing to be a right. People cannot
declare rights merely according to their opinions of what's right and proper
and rights are not defined by consequences.
Rights — I've observed that, when I ask people for a definition of rights, they give me a list of the things, or of the kinds of things, that they believe to be rights. A list isn't a definition. It's a list. It's a sad commentary on the mentalities of people that they can't even tell the difference between a definition and a list. Worse yet, each individual has a different list. With almost seven billion people on the planet, we can't have rights that are dictated by seven billion different lists. We need a definition of rights that is concise, general, and unambiguous. For more than 20 years, I've been proposing just such a definition.
The definition is concise, general, and unambiguous. It provides three distinct requirements that a thing must satisfy if the thing is to be regarded as a right. The three requirements are necessary and sufficient. If a thing satisfies each of the three requirements, then the thing is a right. If a thing fails to satisfy even one of the requirements, then the thing isn't a right. Requirement One: Ability — If something isn't within a man's ability, whether he needs the thing or not, then the thing isn't a right. That's a tough position to take but the alternative is worse. Just because a man needs medical treatment, for example, doesn't mean that he has a right to have it. He has a right to seek it but that isn't the same thing as having a right to have it. If need alone can define a right then anybody can declare a right simply by professing a need. Then, the person who professed the need unilaterally creates an obligation for somebody else to satisfy it for him. Otherwise, his self-declared rights are being violated. If that's the case, then I have a right to a limousine and a chauffeur and I expect everybody who's reading this to get busy and provide it for me. Silly, isn't it? Needing something isn't the same thing as having a right to it. If a thing isn't within a man's ability then the thing isn't among his rights. Requirement 2: Permission — A thing can be either a right or a privilege, but not both. If a man must obtain permission before he can do something, then the thing isn't a right. It's a privilege. If a thing is a privilege then a man can exercise it only with the consent of, and under the supervision of, whatever party has jurisdiction over that privilege. He can be punished for any violation of any requirement associated with the privilege. If a thing is a right, then a man can do it or not, without asking. Most of the things that people call rights today are actually privileges. It appears that people are too stupid to tell the difference. Requirement 3: Consensus — Consider murder. It's within a man's ability and he can do it without first getting permission. That satisfies the first two requirements. The third requirement is what keeps murder, and any other such behavior, from being a right. That is, just because a man has the ability to do something, and can do it without getting permission, doesn't necessarily make the thing a right. In order to be a right the thing must also be generally or customarily approved or at least tolerated. Definition — Unlike the dictionary definitions, my definition of rights doesn't do stupid things like defining rights in terms of privileges or in terms of all of those other poorly defined things. It isn't devious, circuitous, deceptive, or confusing. Read the definition in a dictionary and you'll see what I mean. My definition of rights provides an objective test, independent of anybody's preconceived notions of what's right and proper. It isn't dictated by some special interest agenda. It doesn't follow from some string of false assumptions. Test something against my definition. If the thing satisfies the definition, then the thing is a right. If it doesn't satisfy the definition, then it isn't a right. Many people might not like the results because my definition will exclude their favorite silly notions from the category of rights. However, the definition is concise, general, and unambiguous. It's the only such definition that's presently available. It can be used to test any behavior. Until something better comes along, it's the best and only definition that we have. For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
Acknowledgments My thanks to the following: SantaClara Bob; Lady Jan the Voluptuous; my mother; Dewey and Betty; Eric, of Ione, California; and Lady Nancy the Enchanting. — editor
Court Quotes From Humor in the Court and More Humor in the Court, by Mary Louise Gilman, editor of the National Shorthand Reporter. Forwarded by Don G.
Tough Language Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Don G. Since there's no time like the present, he thought that it was time to present the present. I didn't object to the object being moved. Funny Signs
Kids Are Quick Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Sir Donald the Elusive.
Frontiersman Subscriptions and Back Issues — Printed copies of this newsletter, either subscriptions or back issues, are available by application only. Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, then return it unopened. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material. Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you want to make a voluntary contribution, then I prefer cash, prepaid telephone cards, or U.S. postage stamps. For checks or money orders, please inquire. For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I don't accept anything that requires me to provide ID to receive it. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. — Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|