Why do Individual Rights stand in complete contrast to human rights? My last (two-part) post explained that ‘unalienable right’ is our right to act in support of our life, and ‘inalienable right’ is to the product of those actions.
What are the implications of these individual rights having respect for natural law, and today’s man-made laws, particularly Admiralty Law exercised by government authority?
- Unalienable rights uphold the right to act in support of our life.
- Inalienable rights uphold the right to the product of life sustaining actions.
- Individual rights (both of the above) deny authoritarian rule over life.
- Human rights, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) are nothing but legal permissions.
From the meanings that I’ve offered for individual rights, all aggression, trespass, and violation our right to life, become forbidden. It follows that actions which preserve others right to life guarantee our own, whereby the converse is also true. Actions that violate others rights forfeit our own. Inalienable rights forbid confiscation of our property. While our property may be subject to a lien, our (labour of love) right to it cannot be removed, which outlaws theft, confiscation, and eminent domain.
Legal ownership is void
Title to a property is today split into ‘legal title’ and ‘equitable title’. Legal title means ownership of property that is cognizable or enforceable in a court of law, but that, unlike equitable title, carries no beneficial interest in the property. Thus legal title represents (legal) ownership, while the equitable title holder only has permission to the use, enjoyment, and benefit of the real estate, all maintenance costs inclusive.
From the definitions I’ve offered, inalienable rights can only apply to ownership, i.e., to legal title today. It is not possible for men and women to have an inalienable right to property under the rule of ‘legal ownership.’ Denial of property rights effectively turns men and women into property owned by the state.
Applicability of individual rights
Once people are misled to believe that inalienable rights and unalienable rights are the same; it is so they’ll understand or think our rights are protected while completely ignorant of fraudulent misappropriation that utterly denies rights.
Unalienable and inalienable rights, altogether our individual rights, pertain only to living beings, yet admiralty law does not recognise living men and women. Only legal entities exist, also known as artificial persons or citizens. Because artificial persons cannot walk, work, ride a bike, dance, or do anything at all, they’ve no life hence no unalienable right to it. With no ability to labour and create property, inalienable rights are not possible to artificial entities.
Accordingly, governments must issue ‘permissions,’ under the false title of (human) ‘rights.’ For evidence see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR 1948)
Article 29.(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Permission is unchangeable.
Article 30.Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Remove those permissions, substitute individual rights, and then no living human being has intrinsic right to violate another’s rights. Whosever violates another’s life or freedom forfeits their personal right to freedom voluntarily. Immoral and unjust action(s), once proven, not only confess forfeiture but also that they will bear restorative justice in the measure of their chosen transgression.
In other words, actions that preserve others rights and freedoms guarantee our own. Conversely, actions that violate others rights and freedoms forfeit our own, which necessarily invokes natural justice in like measure. Without natural justice of this order, no rights and no freedoms are possible.
Natural law and individual rights
From the descriptions I’ve offered, unalienable and inalienable rights are retrieved from authoritarian legal clutches. Both now fall under the jurisdiction of natural law, to the exclusion of all others. Individual rights deny all political license for some men and women to rule others, confiscate or thieve their property—read taxation.
Our right to life and our freedom is guaranteed only while every other individual’s right to their life is preserved. An express need exists to instigate our ‘individual rights’ to protect our individual rights and freedom.
Countless authors who plead government should restore our natural rights should awaken to the fact that our right to life is ’unalienable,’ impossible to be undone! Then, unalienable and inalienable rights are the means to correct government, not vice versa.
If ever America’s revered ‘Declaration of Independence’ is to be to revived, an additional clause is needed, not only to protect our unalienable right to life but also to protect its unalienability. E.g.—
‘To secure certain unalienable right to life, unless all men created equal unequivocally protect their right to life and their unalienable right so to do against all cancellation, violation, or usurpation, they will have neither.’
Confusion or Clarity?
With fasterthanmachinegun delivery, this 11-minute video strives to explain human rights. Instead, it most aptly illustrates today’s gross misunderstandings, and rampant ignorance surrounding the whole subject. For this knowledge, we should be grateful. Absent all definitions; explanations spill forth to leave open-ended missives and circular arguments dancing in disarray. It’s not just a ‘millennial’ problem. It’s widespread and has been for years. With today’s unwillingness to definitively confront the subject of rights and morality head-on, widespread ignorance, legal obfuscation and gross ambiguity continue to build government advantage at our expense.
In vivid contrast, descriptions of unalienable and inalienable rights here offered, deny authoritative misappropriation by anyone, any government or party. But as history and the above-mentioned video amply testify, those facts won’t stop anyone from trying.
PS: Want to see how individual rights might work? Here’s just a hint of what happens when government gets out of the way— even just a little bit.
Back to Blog Index