To this time in a
canonical year of the Western World is attributed the “designated time” to
recognize two days that serve us the foundational works of Fundamental Rights. The
very concept of social order requires a basis of activities and social
processes that must occur in order to distinguish in Humanity a sense of Self
that is affirming, renewing, and upending of every order that has ever
proceeded it. Fundamental Rights progress towards a world that actively ends
coercive collectivism and insufferable individualism, noisome nationalism and destructive
dogmatists. The system of existence then is, by the very demand of the guide to
Fundamental Rights, borne to be germinated into the system that fair in all it
dispenses, equal in all it disseminates, governed by an educated and dedicated
populace of the highest End, disciplined to justice through the demanded finale
of selfish, stupid, scrupulous fear, self-obsession and “reciprocation”.
I posit this thought
as my first and essential though in every comment made: that any formal process
of reciprocation and/or compensation is inherently flawed and failing, as the
very concept that creatures without good sense to judge the propriety of
decency towards one another is insulting to the notion that any effort we make
to ‘define’ the ‘quality work’ could ever be anything above a ludicrous
concept. I go so far as to assert that a universe as this is, lacking the power
to dole and detract annihilation and judgment, there is nothing fit to stand in
the place of judging anything else, and the slaughter system we have created is
formed of our sloth, sycophant nature to make certain that cortical brain
function is fifty-ninth on a list of ‘Important Things to do Today’. When one
chain link is forged to restrain any piece of creation into a system that it
will not receive its fair right to existence, then the very concept of ‘fair
system’ has itself ended. It starts with a mindset, with the assertion ‘Then we
must never do harm.’ and from the mindset breeds a sense of existence to
harness a sense of Self.1 This formation occurs in the main of
Humanity only in illusion.
What is this
concept of ours before us, of fair systems of existence? Do we have a proper
understanding of this place yet, or are we still very much lacking in good faith
toward the concept of ‘fair’? In a world that is focused upon the worth of a
being on its essential functions and compounding value, most of which is
delegated by ‘imaginary friends’ and some lucid concept of superiority I find
the very notion that we have ascended the original cave dwellers to have its
lacking attributes. Two days of exploding ‘boom-boom sticks’ does not make up
for a year of not caring for trampling of the Rights of Man, to the point where
the majority of the world lives well below poverty, rape victims are blamed for
the crime, money is the equivalent of power, figments of imagination stir our
action and justify our words, property is possessed only as a comparative scale
of ‘person’, and the very concept of education and universality are derided for
sport. How could such creatures ever coalesce into a society with True
Fundamental Rights? I argue that the only way is by understanding what these
things mean, that intelligence is equivalent to awareness, and that the very
awareness of these notions will spur the idea to make the Ideal. For if there
is one great Truth to reality, it is that whatever an idea ‘is’, ideas are
bulletproof.
So let’s attend
first to the definition of ‘right’, as ‘any legal, social, or ethical principle
of freedom by entitlement’, a descriptive set of normative rules about what is
allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social
convention, or ethical theory.2 The very use of the phrase
entitlement sets the train tracks for a monstrous machine of complaints from
many a conservative mouth as per some foolish definition that ‘entitlements’
are not ‘earned’.
I have already
stated the reality of how little the word ‘earned’ could ever truly mean, and a
further analysis is not for this essay. For those of weak minds who wish to
masturbate of this ‘horrifying’ concept that all your ‘worth’ is the mere
machination of a system that basically designated you as a winner from ‘day one’
I apologize to inform you I do not care for your opinion either way, and I am
not concerned with your contempt. I only wish to form the definition of
Fundamental Rights, so I continue.
The very notion of
an ‘entitlement’ is that without a system, the guarantee of the provision would
be notably lessened (continue to apologize for being correct and informing
those of lost concept of their fallacy). In this sense then, almost every
institution is an ‘entitlement’, for the fact that humans are a naturally social
creature in and of itself creates a system that provides for these very
concepts of property, culture and exchange to even be given credence, much less
formal effect. In this sense then, every right, economic, social, cultural, civil,
litigious, association, academic and thought, is by its nature entitled to us
only as a function of our more socially systematized preference for existence.
This assertion
brings a new focus to the concept of Fundamental Rights. If all rights are the
sprouts from seeds of social confluence, then Fundamental Rights, being
distinguished from all other rights, must have some distinction about either
their function or end as we have already shown that foundation of all rights is
the same.
I propose that the
very concept of an ‘end’ could only be assessed as the cessation of existence
functions for something, and so in this I fail to see how rights in the main
could ever be different. Perhaps a case could be made that ‘end’ should be a
qualifying measure as per how well the system of one people is kept viable (i.e.
‘Declaration of Independence and Declaration of the Rights of Man are
Fundamental in that they continue to be utilized and still have legalistic viability
with laconic yet luminous language’) and I do not assert it is indefensible,
but I hold a sincere scruple in two fashions. The first is that this would
assert, as we are not a group of beings very entitled to eternal recognition,
that the most important of things in the world require first language to be expressed.
Secondly, after having the language, we would require the mode for which the
concepts were to be contained, expressed and preserved. Our lacking capacity
cannot be a deciding factor in defining the essential piece of our social
order. I therefore propose that any argument as per stating that rights could
be ‘distinct’ in their end is a function only of their preservation or of the
Sentient Being’s demise, neither scenario one by which I seek to define
Fundamental Rights.
The function then
is where I seek to define a Fundamental Right. In this, we must include in the
notion of ‘function’ the effect caused by a structure in the system and how it
affects and is affected in every area of society. We cannot call the structure
whereby its proposed conditions may end for a time or even for one person
permanently, as that is not the purpose of structures. I would find it hard to
meet the engineer who would in theory state to me that a true structure is ever
designed to malfunction and be replaced. So it must be for our formation of
Fundamental Rights, and so the definition to be made of them in recognizing
Fundamental Rights shall exude a presence by their function that is enriching,
ennobling and essential to the Human Self.
This then will be
the working definition: a Fundamental Right is an entitlement of the social
system that is in and of itself derived from the most self evident assertions
of Truth, and by this has the capacity, in function, to create the Human Self
in a way that, by comparison, shows those to not have the ability to exercise
such rights to be deleteriously defrauded from proper self assessment to attain
Self, and essentially unable to achieve the full extent of that most True of
existences and find a sense of what is most Human.
To this I must
immediately state, this definition is founded only as per the actual needs of a
person in the social system, considering all that could be and all that is not.
Only in this regard then do I include social rights, cultural rights and
economic rights. I state this because the current systems that are made of
these systems are solely virulent and essential internecine to Humanity. There
has never existed any social, cultural or economic system that has existed
without violent, visceral and toxic discrimination of existence, dividing
everything it touches into segregated groups and forming unsustainable
classifications of difference. The only reason these systems have endured is
primarily a three-fold confluence of consequences, arising first and foremost from
a human need to explain and systematize the universe, followed by a general
fear of self-appraisal that was germinated from a desire to cast a unified
structure, politically. The fact that the departure for these creations usually
was ‘homocentric’ at no point meant that humanity would resist the worship of
them, ignore the enticing means by which our ‘essence’ could be extraordinary
to the human condition. We still do this today in our psychology; how could we
possibly expect that our predecessors would not do similar?
I cannot also
ignore that the utility with which these systems exist is extraordinary, as by
simply changing a name (i.e. ‘Agnus’ to ‘Imperator’; ‘Mercantilism’ to
‘Capitalism’ to ‘Consumerism’) you not only can adapt the words to a new system
of thought and human activity, but you then begin to change the very essence of
the system so it seems as though your way was always right and possesses some
portent of infinity. Granted this formlessness is enhanced by the most
ignominious and ignoble efforts of the rhetorical arts, but the systems require
the ability to do such as is, and with or without the rhetorician, the
alterations have and have had the capacity for alteration (note I said
alteration, not change).
In this and only
in this sense, I exclude every social, economic and cultural right as to be
considered for Fundamental consideration as they designed for one purpose only:
assert personal affection and considerations. A system that bends itself to the
whims of human comfort and sensibilities could not focus our efforts towards a
Primacy of social union that would ennoble a sense of Self to create the Human
experience and a Fundamental act. This does not discriminate that people have
no capacity to decide to possess a social, cultural and economic system, but
only from the Fundamental Right of Self determination which cannot be altered
or abolished. I continue to state that all of these structures are rights, and
of this classification I had no argument and made no argument in any sense. I
simply mean to distinguish what things are Fundamental Rights, and by this I
must state that some ‘rights’ cannot be similarly considered a Fundamental
Right, by the very definition and nature of the elevated and essential nature
of Fundamental Rights.
I also separated
civil and what I call ‘litigious’ rights due to a matter of linguistic
discomfort to which I may not be joined by some friends of greater legal
knowledge depth than I, and so I note a compelling interest for myself to extol
the logic of my distinction. Civil Rights, as they are, should describe the
relationship by which the guaranteed protections of a civil institution,
legislative and judicial, are given to all citizens equally. Now the ability to
litigate obviously comes from a legislative and judicial system, but since the
litigation process is a carrying on of a legal issue in the judicial process,
this system is thereby a system where the citizens affect the legislative and
judicial process, the materialist creation that is the opposing to Civil
Rights. I separate these two only as one is affected by Humanity, the other
affects.
These distinctions being made, I propose
the following as a list of Fundamental Rights, by no means exhaustive and
comprehensive merely enumerating what is to be recognized, additions to be made
as a right can be shown by exhaustive and comprehensive work to demonstrate the
distinguishing mark of Fundamental Right:
1)
Right to equal protection and
equal representation under the law
2)
Right to freedom of thought
3)
Right to freedom of information
4)
Right to freedom of expression
5)
Right to freedom of Association
6)
Right to undocumented
Association
7)
Right to freedom of movement
8)
Right to Self determination
9)
Right to privacy, therein
private activity and association
10)
Right of inheritance of
cultural heritage
11)
Right to Education
12)
Right to fitting provision
If the ending is where I make the
statement to be remembered of these thoughts then I wish to end on three
concluding notions.
The first is that
I am in the shadow of those who have inspired me, and I am not anyone who
claims to be their candle bearer, merely a student. I propose this attitude is
one that would be essentially cleansing for the entire world if we were to
adopt it. It is not to adopt a sense of propriety about the past as much as a
demanding of self to meet a standard that will push forth the source of our
desire to unite under a similar rebirth in existence and defining of Self. Truth
has no time; that is its very core. Socrates stating something of Truth is not
any different from me stating it, and this lack of distinction is what I am
most completely attempting to draw.
Secondly, I wish
only to say that for any exclusion to Fundamental Rights that some find to be
short sighted, I would never deem a social construct unfit to be permitted in
context, simply that I worry basing our broadening sense of community in a
structure that is inherently exclusionary is itself very short sighted.
Whatever people do of their own is their own, and may they attend and be attended
in that jurisdiction alone. However, those pieces are not essential to how we
as a people coalesce to advance a method of social union, rather to assert personal
affection and considerations. For whatever they mean, they are not essential to
the presence of the Sentient Being, and could not focus our efforts towards a
Primacy. My discomfort with their placing on the list is a linguistic issue,
both connotative and denotative, and possesses no personal direction in any
form.
To conclude, may I
reiterate this idea I have so long known to be True: If we are to be a great
people, we must rise up and fulfil that notion we set as our founding. Perhaps
others claim to possess the same birth, and indeed in the fullest sense they
do, but the very hypocrisy they bred from those assertions make their points
moot. Our birth comes from the Ideals, which we already hold to be True. Yes,
these concepts are self-evident, and yes they do note the ways to end the
servility and senility of the human sense to create the Human Self, and we have
known such for a time the fair equal to an eternity before me (as whether we
like it or not a time past what could be our life span might as well be an
eternity away). We in our time are lucky that we have fought through the
hypocrisy, but we must be ever more certain that ours will be a role of
sacrifice. However, in willingness, we affirm our lives can incorporate the Ideals.
We do not prove them, nor do we give these concepts meaning. Both existence and
the Essential Components have meaning in and of themselves that nothing in the
universe has power to add or detract. By incorporating the concepts into us, we
simply unite ourselves to the grandest available to us.
To us we must
exist within and about those most Absolute Truths: that all Men are created
Equal3; that ignorance, neglect, and contempt of the Rights of Man
are the sole cause of public calamities4; that to be a great people
we must meet the promise of our birth, and we must be united in one sense
together to let freedom ring as one5; that we are not going to let
others slip away because to do so is selfish, not natural6; that no
one has any place to tell us we are ‘unpretty’ or ‘unloved’ and we should never
believe we are ‘alone’; that whether ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ we were ourselves, and
so we are called7; that we are loved and we are not alone; that the
only call is to preserve charity towards all, malice towards none8; that
whatever this Era will be remembered as, it will be of our choosing.
I believe the time
has come to make the choice that what came before us is no longer acceptable.
It is a change that beings within each of us. It is a change of self
recognition, one without selfish notions and fearful meanderings. It is not
from fear we descend, not from condemnation, not from apology. To tough the
poison of hatred and weather the illusions is our creed; from it shall grow our
marvel at miracle grandest, Life. It is precious, this thing we call Life. Now
to us is left the decision of how to turn this theory into definition. No one
dared before – let us cease to repeat such a mistake.
You are existence;
demand the right act and dedication due to you by this. No force or creature,
natural or supernatural, provides your worth, and certainly could never lessen
it. Do nothing for proof, act only to consider. Perform for the reality that
without you the universe loses a spark it will never replace. You miss a violin
in a Chorus – do not let us miss you. We do not wish to.
And if there are
any who see this as nothing but a condemnation of who they are and what they
believe, I can assure you that it most likely is, and I leave this piece with
two promises. For you, oh weak and febrile mind, know that this Declaration is
the formation of an enemy you will not outlive; begin your nights of endless
anxiety, for even they are numbered.
For those who take
this message as the light in the void, who see it as the centrepiece of how
society can work, it is not. These are simply words, and while words offer the
means to meaning, the annunciation of Truth is an act. To you I promise only
this: there will never be one moment from this existence when I do not act, and
in even in that I will always provide you a friend to listen.
Act for Truth
for Humanity
for Existence.
References
1)
Plato.
Crito. Penguin Books: 49b.
2)
"Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Stanford University. July 9, 2007. Retrieved 2009-12-21. Viewed
2012-07-04.
3)
Declaration of Independence: Preamble.
4)
Declaration of the Rights of Man: Preamble.
5)
King, Jr., M.L. (1963, August).
I Have a Dream. Speech Presented at
the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C., United States of America.
6)
Romero, O. A. (1980, March). The Last Sermon of Óscar Arnulfo Romero.
Speech Presented at the Cathedral of San Salvador, San Salvador, El Salvador.
7)
Nietzsche, F. W. Beyond Good and Evil.
8)
Lincoln, A. (1865, March). Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.
Speech Presented at the White House of the President of the United States,
Washington, D.C., United States of
America.
