Prove to me objective "rights" exist. - page 9.

People say a man is entitled to free speech when he does not have such. He is shunned and imprisoned when he pushes his so-called "right" to ends not preferred by his government and the powers that be.

People say a man is entitled to food when he refuses to collect it himself and the system and people that provide it can fail at anytime.

Isn't the only thing that defines a "right" is the strength and power of oneself to obtain said entitlement? Isn't a "right" void once the means to enforce it are gone?

What good is a list of human rights when the power to enforce them is easily corrupted and dissolved?

Can one only truly guarantee himself his "rights" by his own self-liberation, strength and ensured means?

To me the concept of "rights" is a spook. If one has the strength to obtain something, they are entitled to it. If they are too weak to obtain an end, then it is not their right. To claim otherwise, is only a plea of faith: pure religion and dogma.

The reality seems to be that men will have power of varying capacities and that no moral dogma can make it otherwise: One can only continue to be vigilant. There are no guarantees or inherent entitlements besides the basic organic powers we are born with.

Topic: Prove to me objective "rights" exist. - page 9. (Read 9591 times)