I'm Sorry, But 'Rights' Don't Exist

Whether you call them “Natural Rights,” “Inherent Rights” or whatever, they don’t exist. A friend posted the following statement on social media: “The only rights you have are the ones you are willing to die for.” People immediately sought to contradict, and or, twist the meaning of those words. I thought those words were perfect. Why? Because “rights” don’t exist. People LITERALLY make them up and then seek to justify them in their own minds and the minds of others.

When my friend started to get push-back she sent me a screenshot of people’s comments and my response was, “Rights aren't even real. It's just something we demand. And if we demand them we have to fight for them. You can't prove rights exist. You declare them then defend them.” Again, I’m sorry if this is a foreign concept to you but it is the truth. “Fight” doesn’t have to mean taking up arms - as I assume most people would infer - although it often does. Sane, logical arguments usually win the day, but think about the first person who sought to make it their right not to be killed by another for any reason whatsoever. They probably sounded like a loon to those around them.

Taking into consideration “the people around you” (culture) when you declare your rights is important. When the Founders performed their coup to eliminate the Articles of Confederation and replace it with the illegal Constitution, one of the ways they made the Constitution more palatable to the culture was by adding a “Bill of Rights” which they knew would satisfy most anti-federalists. If they had added a “right” the culture found distasteful there would’ve been push-back. Just look at how many of the rights that exist in Saudi Arabia are looked upon by the West. Most would call those “rights” brutal and savage, yet they persist in that country with much of the population willing to “die for them.” Saudi “rights” could not exist in the West’s culture.

Mentioning the Constitution sets me up for where I wish to finish. The original statement that caused a fuss, “the only rights you have are the ones you are willing to die for,” points towards radical individualism. Many who would push back against this statement are big fans of the Constitution and the government itself. They believe that it is the government’s job to protect those rights they consider dear. As we have witnessed in the last 200+ years, governments grow and become more bureaucratic. People within the government start to look upon their positions as a way to increase personal wealth and power while the protection of your rights becomes an unimportant, often ignored, aspect of their job. They may even become hostile to the ideas of the past. Transferring that “fight to the death” for the “rights” you and the culture around you hold sacred to a Leviathan-like body has been proven to not work time and time again. Embracing the original “controversial” statement about “the only rights you have are the ones you are willing to die for,” is your only recourse. And if you consider sacrificing some of those rights to a corruptible entity in exchange for protection, you need to remember that numerous of the rights many claim threaten the goals and objectives of that entity. If “rights” are that important to you, maybe that fight should be in your own hands.