It is said:  "As long as you base your arguments on the actions of government or men,
you will never understand the inherent nature of rights, or inherent entitlements. To
understand the inherent nature of rights, or inherent entitlements, you must understand
the inherent nature of sentient beings that was endowed to them by nature itself."

But, what does "inherent" mean? Does "inherent" mean "natural"? Does it mean
"instinctual"?

If the actions of human beings have nothing to do with human rights, then where
were the rights that we now enjoy today before these rights were ever even conceived,
imagined, declared, envisioned, and/or constituted by the historical, factual, chronicled,
and celebrated actions of venerated human beings? Where are the rights that human
beings will possess and enjoy in the future, but that we do not yet possess and enjoy
today?

Human beings have always possessed sentience, or consciousness. But, can it be
said that human beings have always possessed rights?

Human beings have a natural awareness. But, do human beings have natural rights?

Are rights a natural product, or a human creation?




It is said: "Sentient beings are endowed by nature, by their creation, with the power
of consent. It is a natural law that sentient beings have the power of consent. Consent
is the inherent power of a sentient being to voluntarily give assent or approval to
something done or proposed".

But, is there involuntary assent, or involuntary approval? Is dissent an inherent power
of sentient beings?

It is said: "The giving of consent to something is to claim that with such consent that
thing is rightful, and that without such consent that thing would be wrongful. It is a
natural law that the giving of consent witnesses to the existence of right and wrong".

But, can consent be coerced? If the slave acquiesces and accepts his or her slavery,
obeys his or her master, then is this capitulation to slavery also consent? When it is
said that a government is legitimate if the people consent to be governed, then does
this mean that a government is always legitimate for as long as the people do not
openly resist or actively revolt? If a government is legitimate if the people give their
consent to the government, then what form of government is it that would be instituted
by, and established upon, the consent of the people?

If the people consent to be governed by a tyrant, then is a tyrannical government
legitimate?

If the people do not protest, rebel, or revolt against the government, then is that
government truly legitimate? If the people do not have the time to defy government,
because they are just too preoccupied in making a living, too engaged in personal
concerns, and too absorbed in caring for their families, then is the government
legitimate?  If the people are just too busy to take the time to publicly and overtly
organize resistance to the government, then is this resigned passivity, this dormant
apathy, this non-commitment, this quiet detachment, this silent disengagement, to
be regarded as the people giving their consent to the status quo?

If the people are never given a formal, official, and ceremonial choice between one
political form of government and another, then is the absence of a defined and clarified
choice to be reckoned as the consent of the people to whatever happens to be the
existing system, structure, and style of government?

It is said: "All sentient behavior inherent originates from consent given to one's self.
It then is a natural law that all sentient behavior is either rightful or wrongful".

But, if one consents to do wrong, then does the consent convert what is wrong into
what is right?

It is said: "Rightful consent is consent given for that to which one is rightfully entitled,
and results in rightful sentient behavior. Wrongful consent is consent given for that to
which one is not rightfully entitled.

But, how is rightful consent, or rightful entitlement, to be determined?

For example, if there is a right to property, then how is this right determined? How
does the person qualify? How do others come to permit the right?  Is the right to own
property based on consensus?

It is said: "It is a natural law that rightful consent may only be derived from rightful
entitlement.

But, how is rightful entitlement decided? Who decides?

It is said:  "It is a natural law that one is rightfully entitled only to that which they are
inherently entitled by creation, or to that which they have acquired rightful consent to
entitlement".

But, if laws are as natural as rights, then how are natural rights firmly established by
natural laws? How does one natural factor prove or decree some other natural factor?
How does one natural contingency, condition, occurrence, process, etc. justify another
natural phenomenon?

It is said: "One's inherent entitlements may only obligate others to not obstruct or
interfere with the one's exercise of their inherent entitlements. It is a natural law that
if there are no others, there are no others to obstruct or interfere with their exercise of
one's inherent entitlements. It is also a natural law that if no others exist, one is
inherently entitled to everything.

But, how are entitlements, or rights -- whether they be inherent, or created -- recognized
and determined?

It is said: "It is a natural law that innocence is inherent  to one's creation, and therefore
innocence is an inherent entitlement. One's inherent entitlement to innocence only
obligates others to not obstruct or interfere with their exercise of their inherent entitlement
to innocence without the one's consent, or until the one is found guilty. To accuse
innocence of guilt is false witness, and is to obstruct or interfere with one's inherent
entitlement to innocence.

But, it is one thing to be innocent de facto, and innocent de jure. Innocence is a de jure
entitlement, an entitlement by right and by law; but, innocence is not a de facto attribute
of human beings.

It is said: "It is a natural law that life is inherent to one's creation, and therefore life is
an inherent entitlement. One's inherent entitlement to life only obligates others to not
obstruct or interfere with their exercise of their inherent entitlement to life without the
one's consent, or until the one is found guilty".

But, is this entire argument based upon creationism?

If life is an inherent entitlement, then what about the material necessities of life?

It is said:  "To cause the death of one without their consent is to murder, and is to
obstruct or interfere with the one's inherent entitlement to life".

But, given the existence of so much wealth, so many goods, so much wholesome
food and healing medicine, then who or what causes the death of people who are
just too poor to get medical care, or who are just too poor to afford a nutritional
diet?

It is said:  "It is a natural law that liberty is inherent to one's creation, and therefore
liberty is an inherent entitlement. One's inherent entitlement to liberty only obligates
others to not obstruct or interfere with the one's exercise of their inherent entitlement
to liberty without the one's consent, or until the one is found guilty. To detain or confine
one without their consent is to obstruct or interfere with the one's inherent entitlement
to liberty".

But, does this statement say that the rights an individual owns are founded upon
popular consent, upon democratic consensus?

It is said: "It is a natural law that pursuit of happiness is inherent to one's creation, and
therefore pursuit of happiness is an inherent entitlement. One's inherent entitlement to
their pursuit of happiness only obligates others to not obstruct or interfere with the one's
exercise of their inherent entitlement to their pursuit of happiness without the one's
consent, or until the one is found guilty. To obstruct or interfere with the one's rightful
consent is to obstruct or interfere with the one's inherent entitlement to their pursuit of
happiness".

But, does this say that my own pursuit of happiness in some way creates an obligation
in others not to interfere with my pursuit of happiness? What about laws that handicap,
restrain, frustrate, obstruct, or impede my pursuit of happiness? What if property laws
frustrate or prevent my own pursuit of happiness -- frustrate or prevent my personal
pursuit of a productive and purposive livelihood, frustrate or prevent my intention to
earn the goods and services I need for life, liberty, and happiness?

It is said: "It is a natural law that childhood is inherent to one's creation, and therefore
childhood is an inherently consensual entitlement by one's parents, and obligates the
parents to provide the child with security in exchange for the child's inherent entitlement
to liberty, and obligates the parents to provide the child with nurturing in exchange for
the child's inherent entitlement to their pursuit of happiness. One's inherently consensual
entitlement to childhood by the one's parents only obligates others to not obstruct or
interfere with the parent's inherently consensual obligation to provide security and
nurturing to the child without the parent's consent, until the parents are found guilty".

But, what happens to the child's rights, if and when the parents can't, or can no longer,
afford to give their mutual consent to care for the child?

It is said: "All these things, and more, are NATURAL LAWS which exist in REALITY".

But, do laws that are created by human beings also exist in reality? If some law exists
is reality, then does the mere fact of existence make the law natural, rightful and legitimate?

There are those who will say: "Whatever is, is right." Is it true to say that whatever is real
is natural, or that whatever is real is necessarily what is right?





"We are all but Fellow-Travelers,
 Along Life's weary way;
 If any man can play the pipes,
 In god's name, let him play."
-- John Bennett