The idea of ‘Natural Rights’ is enslaving you

The idea that you have a set of Natural Rights (to Life, Liberty, Property etc) is an immensely destructive belief that is naive and wrong.  In case you do not know what this refers to, our entire culture, and especially Libertarianism has seized upon this idea that humans are somehow endowed with these ‘rights’ of which it is wrong to deny/take etc.

Nature – aka reality – owes you NOTHING.  This is a key point to understand as we progress.  Is there a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ when one animal kills or steals from another?  It is wrong when an animal takes what was someone elses?  Does it care if the animal lived or died because of starvation, murder etc?  No.

Likewise we are not separate from nature.  Nature does not care if you live or die.  It does not care you got smashed by a rock, or died from starvation.  Nature is AMORAL.  Once we get past out human bias this become clear, just like there is no inherrent wrong in one animal taking another, there is nothing moral about someone taking from someone else in the wild if it means survival.  Now…I am not saying I support this, and this is a very key thing to understand, morality ONLY comes from what we collectively agree upon to bind ourselves to.

In the wild you do not ‘have a right’ to life, anyone can come kill you, and you are going to defend yourself regardless. You do not have a ‘right to property’ as you dont own the Earth first of all, and someone can come steal it.  Period.  Nothing is stopping that person, and there is no morality with it.

The only time it becomes ‘wrong’ or you have a ‘right’ to something is when you are part of a group that collectively decides if you follow these rules you gain these benefits.  This is where we get such things as ‘if you dont steal from me, I wont steal from you’.  You have a ‘right’ to not be stolen from when you agree to the other rules and methods of enforcement of these rules.  There is nothing in nature that promised us these things.

I find libertarianism an intellectually offensive political doctrine that is essentially rooted in a hipster/bourgeois rationalization for relativism and modified anarchy.  The idea that you are allowed to do what you want (typically chase some vague notion of profits, all with the fantasy of no central government for currency to facilitate such profit) because its right and natural and that someone stealing from you is suddenly committing some universal wrong, whereas you taking advantage of others is simply manipulating the market.  Ideas like you ‘own’ your production yet the exploitation of others for your profit is somehow okay, because even if you are paying them a barely subsistence wage and they had no alternatives to the exploitation its okay since it was supposedly ‘voluntary’.  It is this ultimate deceptive ideology the presupposes we have these ‘rights’ and that they are some sort of universal truth .  Which of course it is not, there is no ‘nature enforcer’ that punishes those that stole, or those that killed, or those that exploit.

Understand that when you realize your ‘rights’ only come from a mutual agreement that this makes it a protagonist relationship, ‘I am buying into this group, and submit to the rules to gain the benefits’ and if you dont like the benefits or the price is too high, you leave, or you re-work the commitment.  (A very MGTOW mentality actually, that the dating scene has long become this untenable reality, and simply not playing to the ‘agreements’.)

Compare to how it is now, where we think we ‘deserve’ rights (which actually comes off as a very spoiled world view) that the ‘evil government’ is what is oppressing us of our rights.  Now I am not going to defend the government, that is not the point here, the point is that this becomes an antagonistic relationship.  Where I ‘deserve’ something, and you are taking it away from me.  Consider that recent rancher case where he assumed he had a ‘right’ to that land and the government is taking his right away.

It is a form of self-enslavement and a way the government justifies its existence.  If it convinces you that have possess rights you dont have, you suddenly rely on them FOR those ‘rights’ and are upset when they fail to give those rights you supposedly have.  It justifies both the oppressiveness of the government, and your own bowing to them, because if you realize you have NO RIGHTS then what the fuck do you need to government for?  Why the fuck would I listen to these rules when they are doing nothing for me?  This was supposed to be a mutual thing where by buying into society I got things like protection from murder by promising I wouldn’t murder others, but when the agreement is no longer favorable it’s not like you are bound to that, you started with nothing anyway, you can just as easily leave.

Ideally, when people realize your ‘rights’ only come from agreements to others, this is when things will be improved, because the society we buy into is one of our own creation.  I don’t have a ‘right’ to life, because I am going to fight for it regardless of the possession of a ‘right’ or not, and when I see a group or society that says ‘we will protect your life if in turn you serve one night a week as the guard’ etc then I can look at that and conclude it is something I will agree to.

Consider essentially how simple, but how profound the change in the dialogue would become by realizing this.  You do not have a ‘right to healthcare’ at all!  Nothing can be further from the truth.  Yet, if society simple was framed as ‘by buying into this society and giving us a percent of your labor and by following established rules you will be given healthcare, protection, access to infrastructure etc’ suddenly it is a good deal to buy into!  It is a mutual agreement that you find reason to be a part of.

Contrast it to the typical enslaving belief that you have a ‘right’ to life/property, when that supposed inalienable right it alienated you are confused instead of realizing that nature is amoral and only we give morality to it – for all its penalties and benefits.

10 thoughts on “The idea of ‘Natural Rights’ is enslaving you

  1. Pingback: Nature owes you nothing, and you are a part of Nature, therefore you owe yourself … what? | gaikokumaniakku

  2. i absoulutely agree! very good points! civilisation is a kind of social aquarium created by the elites where tamed domesticated neotenous humans are being lied to that they have some natural rights… every adult man who ever took a backpack and live a month in wilderness in a tent knows nature does not owe you nothing and society is a artificial circus..

    keep up the good work mate!

  3. Humans came from nature right? If this is true than nature wouldn’t be amoral, because us = nature. It suggests there would have to be some natural morality at play with a human, and thus natural morality in nature.

      • Your equaiting styrafoam as a byproduct of humans and morals as byproducts of humans. I’m saying since we know we came from nature and the natural inclination of humans is to create morals than morals are natural and not designs like styrafoam.

        No one can point to the starting point of morality just like no one can point to the origin of human species. We can point to the origin of styrafoam though because its a manmade conception. Making styrafoam isnt a natural inclination for a human. A natural inclination for a human would be things like eatting and mating as well as morality.

        Animals have there own set of instincts as do humans. It doesn’t appear like a fallacy at all to say morals are instinctive urges in humans and come from nature.

        By natural I was suggesting that humans didn’t tamper with it. Humans can tamper with morals just like humans can tamper with food. But you wouldn’t say food is unnatural and manmade would you? And I’m not referring to gmo’s, just your standard earth food. People weren’t the first people to make food, just like we weren’t the inventors of morality.

        Don’t you think since that life allows human reason and humans to create morals that earth and life is fine with morals in general?

        Where did morals come from if not from humans? Just a byproduct of human reasoning like styrafoam? How quaint.

        • Aren’t we naturally ‘makers’? Is it natural a beaver makes a dam? How is it different when WE make a dam? Only its millions of tons of concrete. Is that still natural? After all, we are only acting out our inclinations. (This is why I don’t buy the argument)

          To answer your question, no I dont think nature cares at all about morals.

      • You say, “In the wild you do not ‘have a right’ to life”

        I would agree to an extent. Although our human mind allows us to conquer nature does it not? Clearly it does. So nature messed up by letting us conquer it is what your saying?

        I dont understand why you would hate libertarianism, seeing as they dont want any morals just like you.

        Your theory is basically like a spider weaving its own web, catching itself in its web, and then eatting itself alive.

      • You are referring to two different things. When humans make things from nature is not the same discussion as if morals are naturally from nature and from humans.

        When a human makes something from nature they’ve discovered how to use nature just like the beaver discovered how to use nature.

        Humans did not ‘discover’ morality, morality is not simply an idea which a group of people decide on. Where did these morals come from? Simply groups as you say and people benefiting off of others? And so you believe there are no morals when there is no group then? If I’m alone in the wilderness I may still feel moral obligations and or moral duties that I didn’t feel in society, maybe even more so.

        Even animals know of morality. Do not alpha males battle for a mate, or cubs submit to their mothers. Bees have their own obligations and duties to the hive queen. The animal kingdom has natural laws as well. These natural laws are clearly moral laws.

        As you can see, nature displays a wide range of morality over everything, to think otherwise is to not even notice the simplest movements of life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s