The failure of democratic rights: how universalisation muddles the inalienable.
For all the religious dismay in its institutional danger and Nietzschean slave morality its ethic is stellar. Despite aspects of its archaic dogmatism, its core is beautifully annotated. Narrational exposition embeds a terrific layer of spiritual identity. Liberalism has lost its edge. It may promise inalienable rights but those are shedding before our very eyes. It is the religious ethic that can salvage the disappointing liberal model.
Inalienable rights was an incredible innovation in the history of the world. Embedded ontological aspects that couldn’t be erased. Man was endowed with these from brith. There was no way that these could be overturned. This codified precepts cannot be overturned legally. They are the heart of human appreciation. An overall cemented category for the entitlement of humanity. Aspects that cannot be stolen. A person is endowed with these conditions from birth till death. An equality clause that transcends the normative function. It is the mere existence that encapsulates these conditions into place. They bind every living being into equal relation.
Government is the protector of these rights. The rights are embedded in the constitutional order. They were encoded by the founding fathers to ensure reciprocity. Fearing the tyrannical mania traumatising them, they placed alienable elements to ensure an a priori status. Hierarchies though relevant and inevitable would be unable to restrict these aspects. They cannot be erased enclosed and encased in blood. These words are documentary evidence to national value. No matter which part of life one comes from, there is no escaping these rights. They are axiomatic personas relayed by the literate. The laws are unconditionally tolerant of the other. The government ensures these values are in place.
Yet in discussing the constitutional rights there is universal jargon for human rights. There are apparent blatantly obvious ways to interact with others. There is an expectation in the modern day to relate to others in nothing short of posh dignity. Living beings are designated a measure of respect for being alive. Their human status entitles them a degree of importance. No need to prove anything. Existence is sufficient to award dignity. An automatic endowment for humans, creation itself binds these norms on the heart. The model of a good man is treating others with respect. They deserve this respect for breathing. It does not take nor need much. Humans are gifted this prestige with no strings attached.
A social contract is accepted by the masses. Everyone enjoys these rights but this is the problem. With encoded rights welcomes the decay of time. Over time these rights, while recognised cease to hold the same power they once achieved. Rights are not laws they are beyond them but because of this they can be unfortunately dismissed. It is an incredible indebted privilege. Its apparent caliber is easily marred by time, eroded with novelties. Taking advantage of these inherent norms to straggle others. Self interpreting to fit an agenda and hurting others. It has little power if it is disrespected. While the origin document may uphold its prestige, its constituents may not. The trans-generational gap influences new thinking as well as selective subjectivity.
It is the government’s responsibility to ensure these rights are covered. While a police officer is required to recite the Miranda rights this is state offence. In public forums or private areas does the government intervene to help? While the government punishes media censorship, will it punish student unrest? Will the government bend the knee to anti-gun activists. The government has tremendous power. It is can intervene or ignore. In its subjective approach, it can consider what is worthy of disciplinary action. A political unit unable and unwilling to do its job is malevolent. These rights are to be protected by the enforcers of the law. Cops do not only enforce law but also rights. No matter what, people cannot be stripped of the inalienable rights and yet this happens for “emergency reasons” and other dubious reasons. The suspension clause gives leeway to dangerous precedent.
Hate speech and the anti-AR debacle are two example of eroding human rights. By redefining what the right means, it deceases it importance. Legalists and activists attempt to marginalise these rights. While they cannot be erased they can be reduced heavily. To regulate until it is no longer relevant. The rationale is ultimately unnecessary. Authorial intent is archaic to the reformers. Restrictions need to be placed. Rights are rights as long as they remain to an extent. Limiting their range by incorporating speech as violence and no AR rifles is a first stage in ridiculing human capability. The original liberties become prisons. The absolute is taken to the extreme voiding much of the defenders. Gun rights are a tenuous discussion given the mass shootings occurring but the answer is not no guns but gun education. “Erasing” the right to bare arms is an attack on liberties. If they cannot be salvaged than no one is safe. Is it upon the Supreme Court to ensure these rights are upheld but ideological motivations may yield little result.
Rights run into a problem of being ignored and pressured into oblivion. The capability of a government or group to disregard rights for their own agenda butchers the social contract. There is an ethical issue. Human rights is a hellenistic ideal but for religion it is duties. While both have had their share of issues, the fact that human rights only applied to certain sectors gradually increasing with time is dangerous. A right is a disingenuous acceptance. It forces people to accept something they otherwise wouldn’t. To ensure the safety of everyone these rules are in place. The government will prosecute those who fail to live by these policies. It is a bedrock foundation but not one necessarily accepted in good faith nor happily. Only by the law do people uphold for the moment. With enough pushback the right may be selectively crafted or restricted or will not be applied respectfully.
Only a lucky few were endowed with rights at the onset of the great nation. Successful land owning men received this liberties. Others were placed below the rung. The founders may have been playing the long game and the long game it was. Years upon years passed before marginalised groups received their share in the land of the free. Today all are protected under these lines, finally reaching that peak of freedom. For a long time it was the land of the free...for a few. Rights are possessed by all but since it is canonised in a legal doctrine, it can be reinterpreted. The entire corpus dignity hinges on legislative and judicial decision-making. The government decided to provide itself with sovereign immunity and introduce prohibition. Finding ways to undermine rights is not necessary ill intentioned but reducing the founder's foundation unearths sacred inalienable facts. There is a certain level of inescapable bedrock. It cannot be erased but the legal fountain that produced limited freedom is faltering in the opposite direction.
Religion perceives society in duties instead of rights. There are clear drawbacks. Duties does not promise any governmental aid nor salvation. It also tends to be selective to one’s family. It is better to have an eternal foundation than a periodic biased model. Yet the pros inspire an ethical mantra in the soul of man. He is reminded to look out for others constantly. His duty is eternal. Responsible for others is an active policy not a passive intervention. It shifts the burden from archaic textuality to eternal orality. An eternal flame to care for others. A rejuvenating access to others and persistent dignity. The downside is scary for if ignore the duty there is zero obligation to save. People are left to suffer. For millennia Jews suffered due to the lack of rights. There was no encoded law or conscious right to not hurt them. Yet in liberalism’s triumph of rights we have lost responsibility. Little loyalty and fidelity remain. The ethic has been trashed in the void of despair.
Placing duties foremost attempts to inspire a sense of principle in the individual. To be kind to others has nothing to do with external gifts but internal recognition. A stoic mentality that perceives others as necessary for one's development. Being is linked to belonging. A duty to care for parents in their old age for providing in youth. A duty to a friend in a reciprocal alliance. A co-worker assists in some extra paperwork, buy him out for a drink. A relational link encircles the individual with others. Responsibility is an honest connection with others. It does not rest on a command but on an understanding. A jolted feeling of integrity. Duty allows emboldened connection to others. It does not peer to others in haste. Kindling conscious manifests in acknowledging the debt to others. Duty is active while rights are passive. Passivity leads to accept at arms length. Yet duty premises an active entanglement with others to a point of respect. It is the encounter of immersive emotional appeal. Others deserve it.
Duties further cohesive collectivism. The goal is for group growth instead of an individual passively going about his life. There is little incentive to aid others unless an ulterior motive is present. There is an individualism that cares for others as pawns. Dignity is an accepted norm but it does not lend itself for the next level. It does not shoot to proactively care for others. Dignity will be ensured due to the proactivity. The recognition of proper behaviour is passed from person to person. There is no single blueprint but an evolving order holding true to these doctrinal markings. Its oral network while vulnerable to drastic change and disregard is a lifestyle more than doing a nice thing for someone. The ethical life is a fated fortune. The goal is for education to remind people of their purpose to one another and groups’ vision. Rights need to be combined with active duty.
No comments:
Post a Comment