|
 |
\/
|
A right to live?
|
|
I
should not stop reproducing just because some crazy and power-hungry
world leader has this on his or her agenda. Reproduction is my basic
biological function, and if all of us live correctly instead of
politically-correctly, there will be space for us all. |
|
But
what happens if I assert this right to reproduce and invite a baby into
my life. What have I to offer an embryo or a baby? A poisoned food- and
water-supply, mandatory immunizations, a corrupt system of
non-education, and the promise of poverty. What right have I to force
another soul onto this planet, only to trap it in a body that can by no
means transcend these destructive forces? |
|
If
we have a revolution, where do we want it to end? Will we have rights?
Will there be a government? So far, every form of government that I
have read about or imagined, has failed or is doomed to fail. |
|
Take, for example, a society that bestows on its members the right to live. That in itself is problematic: |
|
My
right to live will necessarily come in conflict with the right of some
animals and plants and possibly even other humans to live. Who gets to
decide who or what gets to live and who or what dies? |
|
If
it is my right to live, it is my right to eat nutritious and to be warm
at night, to the extent that these amenities are equally available to
all members of my society, and without having any monetary system in
place. |
|
When
does the right to live begin to be a duty to live? Why are dead people
kept indefinitely alive with machines, while their relatives are
threatened with legal measures if they make a request to turn the
machines off? |
|
What
means do I have to protect my right to live, other than through the use
of force? Who is allowed to use this force? Does this someone need to
have a right that I do not have, in order to protect my basic right to
live, for example, the use of physical force against me and my fellow
denizens? |
|
Who
gets to be a member of my society? A human of the similar genetic
makeup? A wandering human with no other home? A sick individual who
cannot contribute in all the ways that I can? That person's wife and
dog and child? A stray dog? A tree? Who decides, who or what can be a
member of my society and who may not? |
|
And
once the society reaches the kind of proportions where, of necessity,
my protector, ruler, governor, does not know me from Eve, how can he or
she decide who trumps in case my right to live conflicts with
another's, or whether I am unfit to be kept in the society? |
|
Just for fun, let me consider the right to property: Can
I own a tree? If I plant it and water it and put a fence around it and
prevent birds and other animals from enjoying its fruits, is it mine?
No -- physical substrate (earth, minerals, water) and the biological
processes (photosynthesis) that come together in the tree to produce
fruit are neither my creations nor can they be considered mine. If I
decided it is mine anyhow, the only way I can protect my property is
through the use of force. Now, if we are only talking about trees
and apples, the impracticality of my decision soon becomes obvious: The
tree is only "mine" so long as other animals and people feel physically
threatened upon approaching it. |
|
If
I put a government in place, whose duty it is to protect my right to
property, and wish this government to produce adequate threat upon my
fellow citizens that they will not touch "my" tree, I must allow it to
threaten me to the point that I will not want to touch other people's
trees. And what happens when, in order to maintain my right to life, I
can prove I need to have another tree? To whose tree do I then have a
right? Does the government get to maintain a certain number of trees as
its own property, in order to care for me when I absolutely need an
additional tree or when my existing tree dies? Is the right to property
essential to the right to life? Whose job is it to guarantee me the
availability of food to sustain my life? Is the right to having my own
tree sufficient to guarantee my right to life? |
|
The
right to property is quite a bit more complicated than the right to
life. The less directly essential to life my right is, the more
complications it brings with it. All societies that I know of have
solved this problem through the establishment of rules and laws and
religions to regulate and restrict the behavior of their citizens. When
we throw off the oppressive governments that rule and enslave us now,
what do we want to put in its place? |
/\
|
H (7/08) |