Human
Rights:
Before
going into the definition of Humans Rights I would like to share some research
that I have done over the definition itself of what is a Right. Because
something very interesting within the study of laws, is that there is no real
definition of what a Right really is, and apparently "no one has been able
to define it", and I want to remark this point, because apparently, when a
lawyer tries to describe what a Right is, they tend to give descriptions about
the laws but they forget completely the origin of all of them and the reason
why, we as humanity have completely forgot how to prevent unnecessary
consequences.
And
first of all I would like to look at the Roman Empire, because it brings quite
some interesting considerations about the structure of our current law system in
regards to their codes and studies of Rights and laws; now is not necessary to
go into a deep study of all of it to define a right, we will just look at the
basics
In the
beginning the definition of the Rights was very intertwined with Religion, the
reason for this was that, they were trying to define an order over the
"RULES OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS"(Fear of Survival, Fear of future loss,
Competition, Guilt, Shame, and so on) that is why when one reads the law, is
almost equal to read a mind...(so to speak) by this I mean, that if you look at
the first relationships that we made in regards to our social order, nothing in
regards to the laws was written, it was more something that the entire society
must knew as part of their basic education, this is what is called CUSTOMARY
LAW which is the basis of the COMMON LAW in the United States.
But
something that is necessary to remark within this point is that the Romans had
very specialized jurists, these people were not paid to work on laws as it is
now with our legislators, they had to have enough income to not depend on
others, and I mean, not disregarding that it must be the reason why it was
accepted so many abuses in Rome as the fact that slavery was seen as normal,
that is not very different from today, they knew the people and were known by
the people, and they committed their entire life's to the study and creation of
laws, and everything that these men said would be considered by decree as the
"law". And what is fascinating is the following, as you have read
above, the relationship of laws was very intertwined with religion, and the
only ones who could knew about the laws, were the pontiffs, look at the entire
construct of religion today in regards to the act of “confession” for instance,
who could knew better the people that those guys, who were aware of the secrets
and “sins” of the people?
Now, one
can now understand why their "arguments" for the creation of laws,
were so specific and precise, that the compilation that was done of all the laws
of Rome and principally the arguments done by the jurists almost at the end of
the period of the Roman Monarchy, would be used again after the modern age, to
restore the basis of the legal system, beginning with the German system, which
was the "BGB". this may seem irrelevant, but only consider the fact
that, the studies done of the social order by this jurists, was actually so
specific, that their arguments had really just too little changes (in matter of
opinion) obviously because after several wars and scientific discoveries, we
changed a lot of values in consequence of the ideologies and things that got
and lose importance and value over the ages, it’s not the same to make a war
with swords and arrows than a war with nuclear bombs, (but that is for another
topic).
One of
the definitions that is still used for the definition of the study of laws and
rights has been that: "It is the art of that which is good and
equitable", and now it has been modified to several definitions but the
most used is this one: Set of rules, bilateral external heteronomous and
enforceable generally aimed at regulating human behavior in its
"subjective" interference.
And this
was something very interesting to look at, because there are several types of
categories within the rules, and a rule is considered to be "more
perfect" when "the legal act has no effect in reality", but
proceeding more from the perspective of that it "prevents" that
certain consequences that are not desired take place, because it implies the
lose of contracts and money and you know...all of the things that maintain the
order of the system for the specific areas that are required to keep the
balance and so on.
Something
that supported me to understand another staring point that we can use as a new
definition for a Right was that:
I
Imagine "the case" in which one gets a terrible disease, like marrow
cancer, I mean you are going to die and go through extreme suffering, and there
is this point about the Euthanasia, let’s say that you are the jurist that is
able to determine "if it is approved or not the application of the
Euthanasia", I mean, it is a decision that is not only going to affect
you, it is going to affect all of humanity, only YOUR ARGUMENT will be enough
to change the course of the life of millions upon millions of beings, ¿What
consequences would you create far beyond of those that you want for yourself?,
and I mean, I one can look at oneself and only consider how much one tend to
believe that one is too small and too inferior to disregard completely the
consequences of every single word, action, comment and argument that one use,
because, something amazing is that by making that question to myself, I begun
to think in all the arguments that I heard on that topic (Euthanasia), that is
exactly what I didn't did before, I never placed myself in the shoes of that
person that is going to die and that is suffering so much, that is almost
something that one cannot even imagine.
From
this point I was able to see something: The laws are important, but not because
they regulate a behavior in the people, but because the arguments in which they
are founded should solve in the direction that is best for all, by preventing
unnecessary consequences to manifest.
If one
goes into the books that study the criminal laws, in the first pages, you will
certainly find that it is recognized that we are not able to control the
manifestation of the events, and that implies that is already recognized that
we are not capable of controlling the behavior of the humans, but what has been
done is that we act only over the consequences and then it is pretended to
control the outflows of the events by placing more and more restrictions to
more specific things to find "the cornerstone of the whole point of the
situation" to then only place forms of control over that point, and
creating consequences and fear onto the people of that consequences to keep
them as far as possible from that point.
The
problem is not the state trying to manipulate us, because it is impossible, I
mean, in that search for control, they are controlling themselves with the
illusion that “they have power over the people” when that is not so, and is
also the people that has believed that they have not power at all, when actually,
every single law and consideration that the legislator made, is founded over
the consequences of the actions and words of the society.
From
that what one then is able to see is that a right is that which one would do
unto others as one would like to be done unto him/she, to be considered and
consider what is best for all, a Right is something that is voted by the people
and for the people.
Nevertheless,
there is a situation here, which is that, the laws have been defined as the
liberty to create dependencies over the consideration of our self interests,
therefore a primary resource that I am now exploring is the point of education,
because it is part of the civil liability of the parents towards their children
over the legal basis that is called "food", but the "food"
also implies clothes and shelter and education and you know. Therefore what I
was looking at is that if one takes Mexico for instance, we have 80% of a
population that is ignorant, therefore it has been violated the individual
guarantees of the children, and I think that this is a point in which we should
look at how we are able to establish psychosexual evaluations to assess whether
the father is responsible enough to have children or not.
Another
observation, the laws are founded over the observation of multiple scenarios,
and from them it is created which is called "a case", and if you look
in the laws they are written as "in the case of", this means, that
the argument of the law is founded over the assumption or supposing that an
event of certain "characteristic" (persona, acting from a certain
personality, and from that derives the criminalistic studies and so on) takes
place, or must be applied, this law, which is the resolution or the consequence
that "will be the best" (apparently)
Another
point that is very interesting to look at, is that in the text of study of
laws, one of the first things that you see is a separation between the
"natural rules and human rules", and what is fascinating is that the
consequences in nature manifest instantaneously, or at least, it accumulates
the events until the consequences manifest, and in the case of the human laws,
the effectiveness of the laws is quite dependent of various conditions,
beginning for the states of corruption that most of the times obstruct the
procedures
I am
very interested into studying the "laws of life"
HUMAN
RIGHTS: Beginning with IUS NATURALISM
These is
the introduction in regards to the natural law, which is the basis of Human
Rights, is necessary to look at it because the sources are the basic
fundamentals that enable a coherent argument with which to respond within a
corrective principle of the current legislation
These
are the basics:
Returning
to the Roman Empire, we have already looked at the definition of the Rights,
now for this theme, it is necessary to look at the definition of Justice
Justice
- Definition from the Romans: The constant and perpetual will to give to each
on his right.
One
point that is constant and continuous within the statements of the ideology of
the ius naturalists, is that over the assumption that the people possess
things, there is a "right by attribution" of the owner which must be
protected at all cost, and the effectiveness of the owner to be able to possess
and enjoy that which he possess depends of "the society", now here is
where the law enters, because it is possible that another possesses that which
"belongs to another by right" is so, that the law can exist, where
there is no abuse, there is no law or right. (very interesting)
And this
is the statement: The things "must go to the owner", and get into the
hands of the individual to whom they are attributed, because this NEED is the
primary effect of things to be of someone, so that you can say "are
yours".
(Check
how the word Need is used to describe an apparent "sense of meaning"
to the existence itself of the human, as fear of loss)
And
within this what is being said is: Giving each his own is a social need, now
this is quite interesting from the perspective that the Capitalistic system
focus all its attention into the need of fulfillment of desires, wants and
needs, but nothing of this constitutes a practical requirement of the human
physical body, or life itself.
Second
statement: give each his own, requires, first to want to give it, if someone
doesn't want to give to another his right, is obvious that he will not, in any
case, if he doesn't want to give it, it will be applied pressure to make him to
give it, and then he will give it, or by the social force, it will be snatch
from him; but in this case, he didn't gave it, it's not enough that someone
wants to give to another his possession, is not less important to know to who
pertains the possession, or that it is fairly of the other, because, without
knowing it, or he will not give it to its rightful owner, or he will not decide
to give it, this knowing corresponds to the practical reason, which consist of
knowing what to give, who to give it, when to give it, how to give it and where
to give it.
If one
analyze this, it is true that is actually not a matter of want to give, to
give, but this is using an starting point based on survival, so, in recognition
of what is best for all, the principle here could be very easily changed to a
matter of just giving what the other need and requires because you don't need
to survive cause you have been already provided with all your basic needs,
therefore, what could you want or need or desire?
Now, it
is necessary to point it out, (because it is going to step out anyway, lol),
that the principle of authority here, functions as an act that is completely
separated from the person doing it, because justice is considered the virtue of
him who behaves and acts in a certain way, in this case those who are educated
to be authorities. What is fascinating is that, if the principle itself,
existed within the recognition of life as all as one as equals, I mean, the
right then becomes something which is part of the life itself, and within this,
the principle of authority becomes the same as the directive principle of self,
where everyone knows what is best for all, and act in the benefit of all life,
then, one can really say that justice exist.
The
current starting point: The things are spread, and attributed to different
people, that is why we speak of what is mine, yours and yours. And it is
pointed out, within the version of several ius (jurists) naturalists, that the
justice does not give or attribute things, it follows the principle that these
are already distributed, so it limits itself to only maintain a certain order
within the system, and we must also consider during this research that, the way
in which the law proceeds is that: there cannot be an act of justice, where
there is not a title over one thing. because as we have already seen, a right
is consider that which is taken as a value placed on wants, needs and desires,
from the capitalism perspective.
But,
there is also one point that is in our favor, the very existence of justice,
depends in itself of the existence of the society, because without anybody
existing in survival, then there cannot be laws and so on and so on, then, if
one really consider our current situation, the only way in which Justice is
able to exist, is to get sure get sure that everyone is provided with that
which is essential for a dignified living, so that nobody steals, and everyone
is able to enjoy their "goods".
The
titles of property must then be redefine in its very structure, because is like
when you buy food on the market, and you get your buying ticket, which is the
title attributing you as the owner of the food that you buy (I will walk the
figure of contracts on other post)
The
concept of source comes from the words (in Latin) fons and fundo, which means:
"the place from which something emanates to the outward", our acts
are consequence of our decisions and choices, and for this the point of self
honesty, in the case where a man steals food to feed the family, the man is
self honest, I will take the statement that jack makes over one video, can life
choose to not be life?, the man is only acting as a consequence of survival,
then if certain conditions must be fulfilled for life to exist, and if we have
become so dependent of the properties, then this must be considered a natural
right (human right), which will then allow us to demand a shelter for each
person.
So when
it is spoken from the starting point of: give each his own, we can redefine
this to: (tatarara) Justice is the principle of equal distribution.
And
already to get to the end of this blog, is necessary to look within the point
of human rights, and that is the polarity point, which is enslavement.
In the
first stages of the Roman empire, slavery already existed, and long before
Rome; however, what is interesting to note here is the legal figure that the
Romans had in relation to slavery, from the perspective of "how it became
something accepted" seeing, that slavery was legislated as a right that
people had, by this I mean, they had the right to have slaves.
Now, the
recognition that this was against the natural rights came along with some
jurists on the latter stages of the Roman Empire, but as everyone has already
noticed, this is still existing in this world, and the human rights have only
created a facade defined as "liberty" to give the illusion of
freedom.
The
slave (servus) is subject to the power (potestas) of a lord, a master
(dominus), this power is known as dominica potestas and on the first stages
it was unrestricted in its form.
There
was several forms in which one could become a slave. By birth, by Captivity
(this specifically being utilized in relation to war prisoners), by a penalty,
and there is one within all of them, that is able to give a better sight of all
of this, which is the enslavement by "a debt", and this works as
follows:
"Nexum"
is the definition of "obligation" and this means: the legal bond
between a creditor (Credit) and a debtor (debt), this was also: to attach
something in guarantee, where what is left in guarantee is actually you, if one
doesn´t fulfill the debt, which is actually quite funny if you see that this
entire world doesn´t have money any longer, all our money is debt… (in the
first stages of the roman empire, they didn't had something as contracts, everything
was solved through the faith in the word of the other).
The
obligational relationship exists between a creditor (credit) that can claim to
a debtor (debt), who must pay the debt (the word, pay, comes from the Latin
(pacare), which means appeasing, this means: give something to someone to calm
him down and preserve the peace, by fulfilling the debt), and when the debtor
didn't paid, he would become a slave of the creditor, is not coincidence that
the basis of our economy is the debt.
With the
passage of time, the relation of the "dominica potestas" gets
reduced, sometimes by "humanity", others by fear to the rebellion of
the slaves, some families had more of 500 slaves, (those with more money) And
this brings an interesting point within the entire point of enslavement, which
is that, the master can "set them free", but the problem within this,
is essentially that, if they were released free, it could become a problem for
the slaves that had no right to make agreements of purchase and sale, because
the roman empire was really big in its territory, and if they weren't able to
get food, is equal to what one can see today if one don't have money on the
actual system, maybe you are free, but you will die of starvation.
And that
is why the slave “preferred” to be slave of a master than a "free
man", there was a lot of cases in which they got their freedom and they
had rights to buy food and so on, but they will never be able to leave Rome,
now, it is interesting that we preserve this relationships, by only looking at
how much things we use and buy in this world, like our gadgets, shoes, clothes,
and so on; we are actually depending of a lot of slaves to do the things for
us; we are paying for this things and most of the times we do it through
institutions of credit that creates debt, the debt is what keeps the entire
economy going, because one has to work to pay the debt, but then one goes and
buys more stuff which keep the entire construct of enslavement between the
countries, that one understood as the competence between potencies, the country
with more weapons and more money, is able to buy more stuff to more countries,
which makes other countries to become dependent of the economic policies of the
first world countries, and that is what allows us (citizens) benefits, or
"RIGHTS", that is where our rights (privileges) come from. The best
example of this is that: the people with less money, is not able to have access
to their basic/fundamental rights, like water, food, education, and so on.
And if
one looks at the figure of charity, it is entirely dependent of someone having
this nice feeling of sorry for another, which is equal to a feeling of
superiority which creates within the person this sense of specialness (dominus)
because they gave to charity, and now, this is quite deceptive, because if you
look at the relation of credit, as long as there is someone giving to charity,
there will always be enslavement, because there will always be dependency from
the slave towards his master, which is the people giving to charity, the
solution that will be part of the proposal in relation to human rights, will be
that any form of enslavement on this world will not be accepted and for that,
everyone must have all their basic needs covered, and this will guarantee the freedom
of the people.
The
theme is more extensive than just this, I will go into detail within it, as I
proceed with the research this is all for the moment.
(If
someone can bring more points/perspectives or points of correction, it would be
quite cool)
