Individual rights are the rights of human beings chosen by what is considered just, and/or virtuous.
Our individual rights include our conscious perception of what we can or can not do, religions input on what we are and are not allowed to do, and the rights giving to us by the constitution. A combination of all three justifications compiles the best definition for our individual rights. When one acts against or outside of his individual rights, he is traveling out of bounds and is punished in different ways. If one defies his personal perception of what he considers individual rights, he feels remorse; if one defies religions explanation of our individual rights, the offender is put in jeopardy of judgment; and lastly if ones attack one's constitution rights, he may be trialed by an arbitrary court. Constitutional rights protect our individual rights. Constitutional rights protect our individual rights by allowing those involved to recall a precedented right in defense or by allowing the prosecuted to declare the prosecution unconstitutional. The Bible also protects our individual rights. By stating that, "God doesn't command us not to do the crime" one defends his individual rights. In particular, this could be used in defense of minor crimes like possession, speeding, or even drinking underage. .
Currently, our individual rights are being attacked, as a result of the façade of the New World Order, which emphasizes imperialism or police states. This is a big problem in today's world, for the watcher is not aware of the sociological effects that surveying society may have on the victims. One of them being the deterioration of human value, for under the Truman Doctrine, one lives under constant surveillance, and as a result, people live in fear, which causes them to stray from value. As part of the facade for the New World Order, we gave the government the right to deprive us of the right to do whatever we want. Nevertheless, if our rights coincide with virtue, our rights are left untouched, with the exception of our right to privacy. Knowing imperialism continually seeks to deprive us of our rights, we must rise above this by conceding to what is being asked. In doing this we become more virtuous then he who seeks to deprive us of our rights, and they become inferior, leaving us as superior to our superiors (the oppressing force). With that being said, it is not the governed who are enslaved, but it is those who govern, as it has been said once before by Thomas Jefferson, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." On the other hand, if we act in violence, then we will be forced to comply, thus losing our rights and becoming subjects or statistics who are inferior to our superiors (authority).
Both our right to do anything and the government's right to deprive us of our rights exist because, in our right to do anything we want, we, at times unknowingly, give the government the right to deprive us of our rights, despite the government in actuality not having the right to do so. In other words, we empower the government and in the process we abdicate ourselves. Personally I don't, but "we" is applied to the majority (or the polarized minority), who agree tyranny as the best decision in times of war.
Realistically, risking judgment, people have the right to murder if they have just reason to, however, people also have the right to imprison or kill those who murder, in retaliation. It is not right to murder or steal, but murderers and thieves, in a sense of free will, have the right to do so. The government also has the right to act against these people, penalizing them for doing so. We gave them that right, as we are not grown enough, mentally, to take responsibility into our own hands. It should be noted, that each depraved criminal usually gets what he/she puts out, as a result of karma, without mixing karma and retaliation. I for one know this, for everything I stole in the past, has been stolen back. Government did not intervene, and I still learned my lesson. If government would have intervened, I would not have learned my lesson. No man has the moral right to conflict with affairs foreign to him, or conflicts in which he does not understand all sides to the story. I believe the less governing that man does, the more responsibility that the masses feel the need to uphold. Justice can be completed in different ways. Morally, one does not have the right to take retaliation into his own hands, especially if this person is not tied into to the conflict. Retaliation is not justice, it is revenge. We have the moral right to commit justice, but not revenge. Justice is allowing the way of the world to enfold upon the sinners or speaking righteously against or for something. Someone who killed may be killed, but government does not need to do the killing. Government only has the right to act entirely benevolent. They only have the right to intervene when people fail, in every sense of the word, to take car of problems on their own, even then, proceeding with caution. The government only has the moral right to protect people and to lead, exercising the three aspects of leadership, lead by example, positive reinforcement, and mutual understanding. People, on the other hand, have the individual right to do anything that does not harm others.
When looking at the "big picture," I come to realize that we have the right to do anything on earth, but in doing so, God, and only God has the right to judge us, unless of course one gives another the right to judge himself or if God gives one the right to judge another. For example, when one writes an essay and posts it on a forum, he knows he may be judged. Therefore, in posting the essay, he is giving others the right to judge him, for it is expected, and in posting ideas he is seeking a reaction, whether it is judgment, compliment, or just a comment in general. However, resulting in a backwards affect, government is judging people, as fascism plays a large role in the governing of domestic and foreign affairs. Summarily, those who are immortal have limited yet extended rights, and those who have a time limit have unlimited, but temporary rights. On earth one can be dead at one point, and alive at another. However, at both times, one is not completely dead, nor completely alive, as life on earth is the middle ground from being alive and dead. On earth, one is constantly fighting for his right to be alive.
A last though, rights driving by reason and rights driving by faith are two different things. Rights driving by faith are the rights that make us equals, therefore, they are the ones that should we should all abide by.
www.myspace.com/zmcbride
Linear Mode
