Which is your most important human right? \ stacker news ~Politics_And

Which is your most important human right?

2305 sats \ 98 comments \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 31 Oct Politics_And_Law

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Free Speech43.3%

To petition for redress of grievances0.0%

Free press0.0%

Peaceable assembly10.0%

Keep and bear arms20.0%

No unreasonable searches and seizures6.7%

No self-incrimination3.3%

No excessive bail or fines0.0%

Speedy trial by jury0.0%

Other - explain in chat16.7%

30 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

117 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 Oct

Read Lux pill about "human right" #664257 and the one about "rights" #663351

all those you mention are just privileges, not rights.

120 sats \ 7 replies \ @IamSINGLE 1 Nov

In Indian constitution there are 6 human rights and I think they are the broadest and well defined and we all must have all of them.

There are called fundamental rights in India. They are Right to Equality, Right to Freedom, Right against Exploitation, Right to Freedom of Religion, Cultural and Educational Rights, and Right to Constitutional Remedies.

11 sats \ 6 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 1 Nov

These look Ike positive rights. Positive rights are granted by the state. They are privileges given to you. They are not natural rights which are negative rights. Do not murder. Do not steal.

20 sats \ 5 replies \ @IamSINGLE 1 Nov

I'm not into politics that much. I only understand that the constitution here has described these laws quite broadly. I've had a little study of other constructions but I didn't see such explanations in them.

11 sats \ 4 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 1 Nov

There are positive “rights” that require someone else to do something for you. There are negative rights that require you to refrain from doing something. One is apportioned by the state and the other is yours because you were born.

30 sats \ 3 replies \ @IamSINGLE 1 Nov

Thanks I get what you're saying. The right to freedom isn't also a natural right?

22 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 1 Nov

Yes, a natural right, if you claim it through your responsible actions.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @IamSINGLE 1 Nov

Thanks 🙏 I get it. I'll give this a revisit to have a better understanding.

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 1 Nov

Namaste!

reply on another page

111 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 Oct

You mention "the constitution"... Here is my constitution

101 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 31 Oct

The purpose of the US Con-stitution was to dupe the people into imagining legitimacy to a new ruling class. The con-stitution is not "ours". It never was. It was a lie from day one, designed to give the illusion of "representation" and "consent".

The lie worked so well that it was heavily copied in the contitutions of the worst tyrannies in history (china, USSR, N.Korea etc).

It took me also a long time to accept what it is that document: It is the arch enemy of freedom, not its protector.

Also read Lux pill about constitution: #650707

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

It was supposed to cure the defects in the Articles of Confederation. The ELites did their usual job on the people (individuals) and screwed us over. BTW, not all of them were in on it! They couldn’t get Samuel Adam’s and Patrick Henry to go along with it.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lux 31 Oct

you got me, i'll never financially recover from this

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

Great!!! Now get agreement and make it work!

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheMorningStar 1 Nov

Free speech excels all other rights. If you have that, you have every other.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 1 Nov

How do you defend yourself when the censor shoves a gun in your face and says, “STFU”? If you can defend yourself, why even get in a position where their gun comes out? If they know the populace is well armed and willing to defend, this doesn’t become an issue.

134 sats \ 44 replies \ @Satosora 31 Oct

Has to be right to near arms. When l was in Taiwan, l thought it a bit weird that only the police could have firearms.

200 sats \ 3 replies \ @Lux 31 Oct

Fun fact: Arms and firearms are two different things in law.

Men can have arms.

Slaves need a license to have a firearm.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 31 Oct

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 31 Oct

You should do the say hello to my little friend one. That would make a good meme. Shooting out bitcoin lol

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

That’s why many people carry.

21 sats \ 39 replies \ @Undisciplined 31 Oct

I agree.

As a matter of practicality, the right to self defense is what allows us to exercise our other rights.

141 sats \ 37 replies \ @Bell_curve 31 Oct

Firearm registration is a violation of property rights?

31 sats \ 17 replies \ @Undisciplined 31 Oct

Yes, Who the hell are they to require that of someone?

37 sats \ 15 replies \ @Satosora 31 Oct

I think a lot of firearms arent registered. Grandfathered into the system.

51 sats \ 13 replies \ @Undisciplined 31 Oct

There are also just a ton of black market guns.

41 sats \ 11 replies \ @Satosora 31 Oct

Isnt everything that isnt registered to the state considered black market? Lol

51 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 31 Oct

Only in states that require registration. In civilized states, that don't require registration, those guns are no more "black market" than your unregistered tomatoes.

Technically, many "black market" guns are "grey market" guns. Agorists make a distinction between items prohibited by the state (black market) and items the state issues licenses for. Doing otherwise legal things without complying with licensing requirements is considered "grey market" activity.

view replies

30 sats \ 7 replies \ @Lux 31 Oct

unregistered firearms are "black market", deserve punishment for dishonor.

arms are just on the market, not the "white" one, the real market

view replies

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

Usually, black market is the market in goods that would otherwise be bearing a heavy tax. An example would have been salt in India and tobacco around the world. (BTW, nicotine kills all [as in every] virus known to exist. Maybe this is why they tax and discourage the use of nicotine products like tobacco, tomatoes and eggplants.)

reply on another page

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

Maybe, free market?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

There are also the “self-made” variety, with no serial numbers. They come in a wide variety.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

The ones with the guns to your head? Funny what one will do when you are over the barrel. Well, actually, tragic.

110 sats \ 18 replies \ @Lux 31 Oct

Arms don't need registration

53 sats \ 15 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 Oct

A revolver made from solid meteorite and gold

38 sats \ 14 replies \ @Satosora 31 Oct

It went to the uae, right? How did they even find a meteorite that didnt have any imperfections? Seems fake. Or maybe just for decoration?

61 sats \ 13 replies \ @Undisciplined 31 Oct

That's actually pretty common. The earliest iron working that we know of used meteorites, because they're pure enough to work without needing advanced metallurgy.

48 sats \ 12 replies \ @Satosora 31 Oct

Did a pharaoh have a dagger made out of meteorite?

view replies

31 sats \ 1 reply \ @Satosora 31 Oct

You are right. They do not need be registered. Except Bruce Lee.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lux 31 Oct

What a slave :)

64 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

That is why the people calling for “mandatory buybacks” are trying to disarm us. Just look at what happened to the rest of the Anglosphere. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Great Britain have all been disarmed. That worked well for them, didn’t it?

120 sats \ 4 replies \ @Lux 31 Oct

The most important? probably this: Article 6 UDHR: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

So, everyone have the right to be recognised as a corporation, dead entity, a slave, property of the Vatican.

And not even in the law, but before/outside of it.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

What is UDHR? Never heard of it before.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @Lux 31 Oct

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

What? Why? It looks like a charter granting rights, which they don’t have the power to grant because we already have them. ITS A TRAP!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lux 31 Oct

#663351

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @79c9095526 31 Oct

In the words of the late great George Carlin, "There's no such thing as rights... They're privileges"

33 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lux 31 Oct

yes there are, but not for persons, or human beings

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @sudonaka 1 Nov

human rights are a shitcoin

human rights are given to you by the STATE. They can change according to documents because the term specifies hu-MAN as being the authority who granted them to you.

Natural Rights are God-Given and completely outside the authority of the man-made "STATE". NATURAL means: outside of Man's authority or dominion.

You don't have to "believe in God" to recognize Natural Rights. (although, I personally ask you to take some time for your soul and reflect on the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.)

The chief of these Rights granted to us by Nature's Creator (God) is the Natural Right to Property. Your Foremost Property is your own body and soul.

This means all forms of slavery, coercion, theft, and force etc- done by any individual or group to another individual or group are unjust and dishonorable before Nature's Almighty God.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 1 Nov

Agreed, natural rights are ours by right of birth.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Msd0457890 31 Oct

I think that the greatest human right we have is financial freedom and the right to stay informed, which the system once stole from us and which Bitcoin has given back to us.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 1 Nov

Perhaps the greatest human right is the right to your own body. After that, property rights.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Roll 31 Oct

The right of meditation for all

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

We have that without anyone’s permission.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan 31 Oct

There are no human rights; all that exists are property rights.

Everything else follows from that. Put differently: nothing else matters.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda 1 Nov

But I'm a large society you need legal protection to ensure property rights. From there it follows that you need arms to enforce the laws protecting your property.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

The first right being, You own yourself.

10 sats \ 6 replies \ @l1b3rt4s 31 Oct

From a broad causal perspective, the right to keep and bear arms underpins our very ability to engage in discourse on fundamental human rights. It stands as the primary safeguard, arguably making it the most crucial right to uphold by any means—within or beyond the bounds of legality.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

You can look anywhere and see what happens when this right is denied. Not good.

20 sats \ 4 replies \ @joda 1 Nov

Eh sometimes. Europe and Australia seem to do fine, citizens maintain their rights to speech and protest.

Also even if people in China and Russia (and the US for that matter) have arms, the government has tremendously more. If it comes down to trying to protect your rights against a corrupt government, the government is going to win 100 percent of the time.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @l1b3rt4s 1 Nov

To think that an armed population stands no chance against a heavily armed government is to misread both history and basic logistics.

The U.S., for instance, has over 393 million civilian-owned firearms distributed among a diverse and decentralized populace. While the government possesses advanced weaponry, it’s constrained by the very nature of governance—its infrastructure, its economy, and its interdependence on that same citizenry. An indiscriminate approach (e.g., deploying large-scale destructive weapons) would be self-defeating, unraveling both state and society.

Historical resistance movements show that power asymmetry doesn’t render the populace powerless. The decentralized, civilian model is resilient, not in a head-to-head militaristic sense, but by making domination unfeasibly costly and practically implausible for any centralized force. This balance is precisely why armed citizens deter tyrannical impulses, not by matching force but by dispersing it.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 1 Nov

I saw an interesting interview today. The guy was an unconventional warrior. He said F15s and state militaries cannot stand to an armed populace, re: America circa 1776, VietNam and Afghanistan. They all fought off the largest militaries in the world. With only the arms the local citizens had. He claimed that the US military would refuse to fight the citizenry here. We know where they live, their parents and their children. We know where they work and play. You stop F15s by stopping their fuel trucks. We are more than 10 to 1. Check your history.
We would be victorious!

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @l1b3rt4s 1 Nov

This.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 1 Nov

Indeed, this. This to a degree so vast that the regular army and police cannot cope with it.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @0371279ce5 31 Oct

Without the right to protect yourself - absolutely - from tyrants, no other rights exist. Your life, liberty, and happiness must be protected by you. Without the ability to unalive someone that is trying to take that from you, nothing else matters.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

Yes, zealously protected by yourself. There is no end to usurpers.

10 sats \ 10 replies \ @Bitcoinisawesome 31 Oct

For me, it's freedom of movement. I think bitcoin does a wonderful job at keeping governments in check. Now that capital flight control is severely weakened by bitcoin, I don't really care that A. governments exist or B. what type of governments there are. If I continue to earn (in any currency) and only save in bitcoin, I'll be prepared to simply leave if my circumstances diminish because of a nefarious government. This is a great feeling! Bitcoin makes the world much smaller, for everyone.

21 sats \ 8 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 Oct

freedom of movement

Do you use a pass-port? Is not pass-port a LICENSE TO TRAVEL? A license means permission, privilege, not a right. The real right of freedom of movement is when you do not use ANY of the system instruments: govID, pass-port, SSI etc

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @Bitcoinisawesome 31 Oct

I don't see anything wrong with subjecting yourself to which ever government you're living at any given time but I do see something terribly wrong with governments removing the ability to remove yourself from them. That's why I bitcoin. I can play their game, and will, to keep myself and my family fed and nourished, but if I get to a point of feeling personally oppressed, I will leave it all behind and take my capital with me. Because I can. I used to be a bit of an anarchist but through the study and use of bitcoin I have actually become a little more in favor of every type of government. They should exist for the people who want to use them and live that way. But there should always be choice, and bitcoin provides that to us all.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

This is fine, but it begs the question of where you would go. Especially with this rampant globalism going on. I realize that there are special privileges in foreign countries as a foreigner. Are those privileges (not rights) great enough?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bitcoinisawesome 31 Oct

Well, I'm fully aware that I would have to lower my standard of living a LOT right now, but I would go to one of the many small bitcoin circular economies and I would plug myself in. I am speculating that the size and amount of these economies will continue to grow. The Bitcoin Network benefits from every user and so does the bitcoin social network so I think we will see an increase of places that will welcome you with open arms if you're willing to spend/earn sats. I have no qualms with living under a palm tree.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

Isn’t El Salvador the place for this right now? I haven’t heard of others.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

I once crossed and international frontier without “proper authorization” and got caught by that county’s border patrol. There is no freedom of movement when they are pointing their rifles at you and demanding identification. I spent too much time locked up with about 45 people in a 3Mx3M cell. Next, I was moved to a 2m x 2m cell with 7 people in a secret police setting. I was just lucky they did not put me in the place where they feed you only water and very hot peppers. I can attest to there being no, absolutely no, freedom of movement under the current international regime. I understand in the past, before WWI, you could travel anywhere, with out ID.

20 sats \ 2 replies \ @Lux 31 Oct

During Covid, some people had to travel, but they didn't let them cross the border with their passports. A friend made them a paper, one sheet A4 with words on it ( I saw it, had it in my hands, heard testimonies and the friend recorded their phone talk to have evidence) Just showed the paper on the border, they let them pass, no questions asked, three borders in a row. And it's not even the only way to do it. Believe it or not

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

Wow!! Exactly, what did that paper say? It sounds very potent.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lux 31 Oct

I hope you understand that giving such info publicly could be dangerous and irresponsable.

I couldn't write it myself now if I wanted. But I get the principle. Still learning. It has to do with UPU (universal postal union)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

Why do you say “nefarious government” that looks like repetition to me. They are one and the same.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 31 Oct

I wonder if many people did mot miss the part that was bolded? That was perhaps the most important thing in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights? Declaratory and restrictive clauses What do you suppose that meant?