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)