Knowing the difference between; Rights, Necessities, Privileges, and Desires, and from whence they come is to know liberation from manipulation.
"Really??? What does that mean?"
It means if we understand what moves us to action, what supports productive actions, and how we can be undermined, we will dispatch those seeking our spiritual death.
"What does that mean???"
It means there are people who will lie to you to get you to support them both by giving them help and by doing what they want you to do. This is the lesson in, "Thinkers and Sinkers." The people who will lie to you are those influenced by the Sinkers mentality. Their goal is to limit your ability to be happy. They will do this by getting you to believe you deserve more than you do, that there are others who want to take from you (most often productive and happy people), and you've been wronged and are actually morally pure and unquestionably perfect (largely because you support them).
The Total Sinker does not want you to know the difference between Rights, Priviledges, Necessities, and Desires. Critical attention is needed to see the Sinker when they respond to these definitions:
This concept is what sets the USA apart from other countries in its founding. Because humans have the ability to reason we can understand the concept of "something greater than the self." This leads to understanding Divinity and Natural Law. If these two concepts are discarded it becomes impossible for life to have meaning. Those who discard these ideals do so to deny reality and to shirk responsibilities. Getting others to do the same is a way to undermine a person's sense of fulfillment. This lead to spiritual death.
Rights are accorded humans because of our ability to comprehend greater things. And because we have this capability, generally speaking, there is no authority on earth than can tell a person they must not speak, or peacefully gather, or worship something greater than the self as they please. There are other rights that are obvious to thoughtful people. Among these is the right to property. No one has the authority to take a peaceable person's possessions away from them. The silly will chide that a person should then have the right to an atomic bomb. A reasonable person recognizes that as the silliness which it is. There are borderline items that deserve more serious debate such as assault weapons. We will leave that for another time. But the right to, "bear arms," is recognized as essential not only to protect property but also to keep a potential threat in line. That threat is government.
People do not need government to form a civil society. People can do that on their own. It is because some people do not comport themselves in a civil manner that government becomes useful. But since government does not create rights they do not have the authority to remove them.
Rights are those things that naturally accrue to people simply because they are people and ostensibly capable of higher thought.
Here is a rule of thumb so you can recognize what is a right. Rights do not cost money or effort to have or to recognize. It may cost money and/or effort to participate in activities that are protected as rights but not to have the right to participate. In this these things are different from Necessities.
These "things" are what is needed to remain alive in a reasonable and natural way. Because we have physical form most of us feel the need to nourish our bodies. Food, for all intents and purposes is a necessity. We necessarily have to eat to remain alive. Air, not speaking to any particular quality of air, but air is also a necessity to life. Not clothing, per say, but in many climes shelter of some sort is a necessity. Clothing is useful for protection from the elements, including fretful neighbors, but there are places on the planet where being naked, and without external shelter, would not cause a person to loose their life. To many companionship is felt to be a necessity. That is an individual circumstance.
All of these necessities require money and/or effort to acquire and to maintain. But speaking to the quality of food, air, shelter, and companionship none of these things are bestowed upon humankind as a right. We may need these things to survive though we may be able to do so within a wide range of quality pertaining to these items. Having access to the higher quality of these items is not a right. Clean air is a subjective determination. Acceptable shelter is a subjective determination. And so it is with food and companionship.
These are things we need to survive but not something someone is required to provide for us. We do not have a right to these things but in a free society we have the privilege of pursuing to the level of our subjective determination.
Here we find those things that we have access to as an offshoot of the society we live in. As a society develops so too do the privileges that become available. Access to these privileges can also be curtailed or enlarged due to one's behavior and abilities. By definition a privilege is given to an identifiable group. Everyone loves this one; driving a motor vehicle is not a Right, it is a Privilege. With the proper behavior one will retain their driving privilege. Due to improper behavior, or a lose of ability, people can lose their driving privileges. Not being allowed to operate a motor vehicle will not cause someone to lose their life.
Other Privileges persist, formally and informally. Having the trust of another person is not a Right regardless of one's trustworthiness. Being Honored is a Privilege bestowed upon another for countless reasons. Given any allowance by another person or entity when Natural Law does not indicate such allowance reveals a Privilege.
Here we find all those things people "want." What drives a person to want something is mostly unimportant. The greatest exception to this is when someone wants something with little or no true contemplation as to why they have the want. As long as a person's want does not impinge on the Rights, Necessities, and Privileges of another - a person's wants are for them to have and for them to fulfill. Here again I feel it is important to reassert, without understand of why one wants the possibility of unproductive and even injurious behavior is possible. (Please excuse this digression.)
How a person can ascribe the fulfillment of their Desire as a responsibility of another is unquestionably silly. No one has the Right, Necessity, or Privilege to determine for another person what they must Desire. How and what a person desires is a representation of their heart and mind. What a person desires is personal and without doubt subject to no laws. Having a Desire is a Right, thought that does not make the Desire a Right. More often than not fulfilling a Desire is accomplished through the expending of money and effort. Other than the act of obtaining a goal a Desire may or may not be a Necessity. Depending upon the society a person lives in their Desire may not be attainable and indeed my not be a Privilege available to the person. And again, what a person desires may not be uplifting and productive in the greater scheme of life.
Here is an application of this argument on a currently contentious public matter.
With the challenges of emotional pitfalls we can now apply the above information to the subject of health care. How can health care possibly be a Right if it cost money to receive health care? How can health care be a Necessity to life when so many live without it? Could it be that health care is more likely a Privilege found in a developed society? Who could possibly not understand the Desire to have good health care? In a free society, how can health care be the responsibility of someone other than the person receiving the care? Why forced health care?
Some may ask, "Why am I being forced to pay for health care?" This is a good, albeit, a double-edged question. Who has the Right to impose a Desire upon another? (A: No one.) Since health care is a Desire there is no authority, in a free society, that can dictate a person pay, or in other words buy, health care. And why should a person accept being forced into paying for health care when a coercive structure is being put in place that is forcing others to buy the health care for them?
In essence, a mindset has been fostered to accept the idea that personal responsibility is unimportant. This mindset had been promulgated on a variety of subjects, all leading to a goal of solidifying a social structure inline with the mindset. Other than forcing health choices this mindset also advocates euthanasia and suicide. Only a person thinking from within a herd mentality would accept these premises. To learn more about this structure and how to displace this corruptive influence you have to study, "Thinkers and Sinkers."
Good luck with your decision.
comments powered by Disqus|