Day 24 - On the value of Life

In Europe we are proud of of our laws prohibiting the death penalty. In our Human Rights Treaties this is called ‘the right to life’ and that is said to be a sign of our so-called ‘humanity’. 

The historical truth is that the death penalty became problematic for governments to uphold, especially in cases where a convicted criminal was afterwards proven to be innocent. In other words, the ‘death penalty’ became a political time-bomb because within putting innocent beings to death the governments were placing themselves at risk of civil disobedience and civil war. 

It was seen as much less ‘risky’ to simply imprison criminals for life as the ‘harshest sentence’ instead of putting them to death. Hence it was not an insight into the intrinsic value of a human life that caused the death penalty to become problematic. It was purely political ‘pragmatism’. 

This is why in todays world governments have no problems putting a gun in the hands of their nationals and sending them to war, even if that means an extreme probability of them being killed or of them killing others, even children. Clearly: life has no value. My conclusion is that schools and mass media are a threat to world-peace because the governments have used the schooling system and the media to continue brainwashing entire generations into accepting nationalism and state-authority as something actually worth dying for, instead of humanity realising our interconnectedness and oneness.

What is the solution? Civil disobedience? Dropping out from school? No, the answer is you take responsibility for yourself so that you may walk this world free of brainwashing and stand as an example of what it means to care for another as yourself. 

Investigate Desteni, investigate self-forgiveness. 

Day 23 - Planned Obsolescence is of the Past

In an article in Le Monde Diplomatique, a solution was suggested for the problem of overconsumption. Overconsumption is a relevant problem to study, because it gives us an overal indicator of the time that the human species has left on earth. All creaturs on earth 'consume' in some form or shape - but what sets humans apart is that we have started to 'overconsume'. We use more things than ever before but we also throw away more things than ever before. Our consumption is overall generating an imbalance in our world. Some research suggests that the rate of consumption per individual in the industrialised world, is the determining factor behind the environmental crisis (global warming, deforestation, pollution of the oceans, pollution of the air, extinction of the majority of animal species, etc.).

The solution in said article tacles one issue in particular: planned obsolescence.

What would it take to go from a throw-away society to a society that honours it's environment and it's recources? Stopping planned obsolescence seems an obvious place to start. If we start producing and building items that are made to actually last - then we remove one of the causes of our widescale pollution. This in itself would undermine many of the current frameworks on which the world economy is based - yet, this is a decision that will one day have to be made.

A shift in this direction would allmost automatically uplift local economies as production, repair and maintenance of products, will result in more localised models of production. Herewith replacing 'globalised' models of production (where products are produced and shipped from lowcost countries overseas.) The article points out that in Europe for instance a minimum 2 year warranty exists on products, as per EU legislation. The article then suggests that warranties should be used to create an incentive for stronger and better products. Consequently the minimum warranty on products should be at least 10 years by law. 

From my perspective this idea has a lot of potential and should be explored and discussed.

Who would you be if you bought items that last you for 10 or 20 years because you know you can always find services that repair your broken items and replace broken parts? Is life really about buying new stuff - or is there some other meaning to it all which you have not yet discovered? 

Note to the reader: this blog was written several years ago, but never published because I was uncertain of myself. The blog remained saved as a draft and I had forgotten that I even wrote it. Amazing how that works... Today I post it, without having altered a single word of the draft. It's a good blog, no need to doubt myself.  

Day 16: Corporations and Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed, and adopted by the United Nations Assembly in 1948. Looking at history of humanity it’s safe to say that these documents really do represent a revolution in human development, and evolution – because this charter do suggest that human beings are to be treated with care, and given a life of fulfillment. Obviously – as can be seen – none of the provisions of the charter have been honored in reality – the words that expressed a care for humanity as a whole has remained nothing but words – nothing but hope, and good natured intentions. It’s fascinating that it’s so hard for the leaders of our world to agree upon setting our differences aside and instead focusing on how to create a world that is best for everyone – yet history have proved over, and over again, that regardless of how many attempts that have been made to corporate, and place the best of humanity before the self-interest of the individual – it has utterly failed.

In this blog I am going to take a closer look at one of the reasons as to why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have become nothing but empty words – standing as a monument of the failure of humanity to come to a equal agreement on how we should care for each other, and our world – our common home.

This is taken from Wikipedia:

Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and have been responsible for numerous human rights abuses.^[57] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies is both controversial and ill-defined.^{[citation needed]} Multinational companies' primary responsibility is to their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies may be larger than the economies of some of the states within which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated in a report in 2003:

[T]he growing power of transnational corporations and their extension of power through privatization, deregulation and the rolling back of the State also mean that it is now time to develop binding legal norms that hold corporations to human rights standards and circumscribe potential abuses of their position of power.

—Jean Ziegler^[58]

In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights.^[59] These were considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004, but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.^[60]

Problem

What is the essence of a corporation? In the economic literature it’s given a fascinating definition – it’s called a “nexus of contracts” – meaning that a corporation is in-fact a entity consisting of numerous parties that have joined forces to support their own personal self-interest – and within this they have agreed to follow the forms of a standard-contract – this contract being the corporate law that exist in similar forms in countries all over the world.

The essence of this standard contract as the corporate law is that parties/individuals invest their money into a legal-entity – these people/parties then become the so called shareholders– and they are now in a contractual relationship with each-other – and the clauses of that contract consist of the corporate law.

According to the corporate law – shareholders are not meant to run their company by themselves – but they are to elect a board of directors, and also a chief executive officer (CEO) – these will now become hired by the corporation and be the henchmen, and forefront of the corporation in the world. These henchmen get their specific code of conduct from the contract that is the corporate law – and their main objective is in almost all cases – to ensure that the shareholders will profit on their investment – in other words – they are to make lots of money.

So – here we have to two first parties, and personal self-interests that have been managed through a contract; the management of the company – and then the shareholders of the company. These are the most prominent interests.

Then on top of these basic and fundamental interests of the corporation we have the banks, as the creditor of the corporation – and the interest of the creditor is to make sure that he receives money, and surety for the loan that’s been given; a.k.a. being able to profit on the investment.

More over we have the contractors to the specific corporation – for example – if a corporation has it’s specific field in the construction of new houses – then this corporation must align contractors, and suppliers to it’s business – in order to get the necessary skill, and raw-material in order to be able to build the new houses. The interest, and desire of these contractors, and suppliers is to get paid on the work that they commit to, and also to hopefully be hired again for a new project at a later stage.

What I am trying to show with this walkthrough of the various parts that a corporation consists of – is that it’s a huge spider-web of intermingled, and intertwined interests of various parties – but the one thing that unites them in their movement is that – they all want to have MONEY – they all want to make a profit – and they all benefit when the corporation benefit. Thus – the corporation is in-fact nothing but a faceless, and anonymous mass of people that are hidden behind a legal-entity – that have together formed a contract to together make as much money as is possible. Because remember – that the interests of the corporation can’t be held accountable for the crimes that the corporation commit; they are instead protected behind the mask, and entity of the corporation.

Now – this doesn’t work very well with Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the reason being that profit is never free but always comes at a price – and this price is paid daily by earth, and human beings around the world – that have been abused, and used in order for corporations to be able to make more money. Obviously this is what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is supposed to stop – but this hasn’t happened – and instead the form of the corporation as a contract between people to make money – allows individual parties to hide, and become anonymous, and differentiate themselves from the complete destruction that the corporation creates – and instead say that “it’s the corporation – it’s not me! I am just a shareholder!” – or “I am just the CEO, I just do my job! It’s in my work description to make money!”

Thus – it’s fascinating – that we’ve created a way in this world for people to come together and without any legal responsibility make money by any means necessary – I mean – why is it that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t recognize that in essence – a corporation is merely a group of human-beings that should be held accountable for their actions – and that this so-called legal entity as the corporation is nothing but smokes, and mirrors that simply hides the real driving force of the corporation as several interests coming together to profit?

This is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t function – and will not function in this world – because it’s not about demanding actual accountability – it’s not about demanding human-beings to act with integrity, and respect – it’s about politics – and where politics enter the picture so does the incessant drive to earn more money – greed – and as such it’s obvious that this faceless entity as the corporation has had a say in creating the current definition and understanding of the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights – in order to protect all it’s various individual parts interests.

Within looking at this point – it’s also fascinating to see how the corporation is really a baby that has been breed out of so-called normal, and average human-beings pockets – because when we invest in a stock – we invest in a stock from the perspective of wanting to gain profit – and within that we are the anonymous investor that can’ be seen, and can’t be heard – yet still is a silent driving force behind the corporation – that acts as the henchmen of the stockholder – so that there is a return on the investment – so really – we can’t blame the acts of corporations on anything but ourselves – and by ourselves I mean us as the normal, and average high-level living standard human-being – because we’ve invested in and brought this monster to life – and made it our scapegoat, and our cover-up so that we can commit crimes against human rights and get away with it.

Solution

A business attorney called Robert Hinkey has since 10 years back been propagating, and showing that there is a simple solution towards making sure that the corporation starts to care for, and consider human-beings, and human rights – and that is through changing the law of the corporation – to instead of having it’s primary purpose to create profit – to instead having the purpose of creating profit but within the limits that nobody must be harmed.

That is according to me a cool solution as to how to make sure that the faceless entity of the corporation get’s a face that we can see and make sure does not overstep any boundaries. And to enforce this point that chief executive officer, as well as the board of directors can be held accountable if the boundaries are not respected – I mean – this is already currently done but in relation to points that involve wasting the corporations money, or not following the rules of the stock-market effectively – so why not also insist on rules that are created to serve the betterment of humanity?

The simple point to understand is that there is SO MUCH we can do to change what is currently happening on earth – the question we should ask ourselves is WHY DON’T WE? How come that intellectual revolutionaries such as Noam Chomsky, and Chris Hedges are able to write books that specifically outlines, and shows the corrupt nature of our current world-system – yet still NOTHING happens? I mean – it’s fascinating that so little is happening while the problems are very clearly shown – it’s like humanity as a whole do not have the ability to ACT on words – but merely to write down words, read words, and consider words – but not LIVE WORDS!

And that is the problem with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – it’s a cool document yes – but – it’s not been lived! It’s remained as a gesture, and a hope for a better world – but not a actual, and directive push to create a world that is best for all in every way possible.

Thus – the first point the must be established by humanity if anything is ever going to happen is to realize the importance of action – and that words that are not taken into living practical application are worthless – they mean nothing – and will merely remain as a vague hope on a paper that nobody really cares about.

So – the solution is to first – active ourselves as humanity – and stand up within ourselves, and our worlds and make the decision to walk a change – and then – the second point is to change the corporate law – to make corporations responsible for their decisions, and to enable holding CEO’s and board of directors liable for their corporations crimes against human rights – thus making sure that the corporation does not function as a veil to hide from responsibility.

Reward

In creating the corporate law – and consequently the corporation – to consider and adhere to human rights – and enable to hold leading key figures in the corporation responsible for any crimes against life, and humanity that the corporation commits – we’re able to utilize the organizational structure of the corporation as a way to product profit for humanity as a whole.

As such we can develop, and experience a life wherein production, and profit-creation is walked within considerations of what is best for humanity, and earth – and thus produce a life for human beings that are fulfilling, and without stress, pressure, and wage-slavery. We will have an employer as the corporation that do care about their employees – and that do care about honoring human rights, and producing the most effective, and effective products possible.

The simple point that must change is the starting point – we must wider our horizons and realize that Life can never be fulfilling when only profit is considered – life – humanity – and earth must always be considered if not it will lead us to certain destruction, and a life of competition, and strives – that is not necessary!

For more information on how to re-form society in a effective, yet simple way in order to produce a populous that do care for human rights – read the following blogs:

Bailouts Are No Solution

Basic Income and Nationalized Resources

Basic Income Can Save Capitalism

Basic Income and Minimum Wage

Basic Income Grant and Nationalization of Banks

Basic Income Grant and Pensions

Basic Income Grant and Oil

Basic Income Grant and Owning Property

Day 416: Prism: The Secret Agent of the Secret Mind
Day 417: Basic Income and Nationalized Resources
Day 418: Basic Income Can Save Capitalism
Day 419: “The Lord, My God”
Day 420: Basic Income and Minimum Wage - See more at: http://creationsjourneytolife.blogspot.com/p/timeline.html#sthash.inxp5Mn4.dpuf

Related articles

• Day 320 - What are Human Rights?
• Day 418: Basic Income Can Save Capitalism
• Day 417: Basic Income and Nationalized Resources
• Day 411: GPS: the Global Paranoia System Reaches Turkey

Day 15: How to obtain your right...?

In this blog I want to make a “critic”, if you want, to the perspectives that have been brought on the “Basic Income Studies”:

http://www.usbig.net/index.php

Quote: “Rights are about advancing and defending human freedom. They are universal and they are inalienable. I cannot give away my right without degrading my humanity. To be meaningful, a right is an aspiration, a goal to which we march.”

If one aligns and fosters the circumstances, then one aligns the consequences that we are searching…yet, there is a question that should be asked: Is that point going to be able to sustain itself? Our current system was implemented in the same way isn´t it? One creates a controlled environment, through the repetition of circumstances aligned in a determined pattern of morals, ethics, rules and suddenly you have an environment, a system operating accordingly within the alignment that has been superimposed with the “initial starting point of the creation of this system” which was (apparently) to create the best society possible based on the “common good”, yet, “the goods were never available to everyone”, they were never common to everyone, implying that those that were not aligned with the “best civilization”, the best civilization being by definition that which is more advanced on culture, and therefore that which is supposed to teach everyone else how to live, are not worthy of been considering as “advanced enough to take part in the important decisions and so on”, which is also what happens on the structure of our educational system, those that are not “properly educated” you know, they are there, they are criminals, they are ignorants of what it means to be in a society, that is why they deserve to be poor, and so on and so on; that is why the modern societies are apparently able to sell you their law of attraction and their secrets to success and essentially their education models, yet, none of them were capable to consider a structure that can actually functions for each and every human being? Those that didn´t align themselves with the rules were not able to be part of this great dream, “The American dream” because you have to be sleep (or brainwashed enough) to believe it. 

Have a look at our model of consumerism, our society is divided into classes according to the amount of money available, is your position in the system, implying access to education, food, clothes, house, etc.; Hasn´t been said that our human rights are paid through money when they should be by definition, that which is given to everyone unconditionally? And the point remains the same, If Human Rights were real, they would not require to be defended or protected, one shouldn’t have to compete for them, to struggle for them, to have to get money to pay for them.

The question is: Is it possible to propitiate the circumstances without any understanding or education available for everyone in the same direction of consequences which also implies the constitution and manifestation itself of a right? Obviously not

Right to labor! So…we need to propitiate the circumstances to develop our right to develop, create and work? This is fascinating statement, because, it’s like saying that you need to propitiate the circumstances to bring that which is actually inherent to the Human, which is the development itself of work, yet, of course not disregarding that each and every form of human activity have consequences, which actually brings forms of development, creation and work (because everything requires a certain input), nevertheless, what we are developing, creating, working on, is really abusive stuff, weapons, drugs, unhealthy foods, vicious cycles of greed, jealousy, anger, violence, you name it. Maybe the question is: what is it that we are creating through our labor? How is it that we are going to direct the development of humanity to bring the change that we are looking for? What are we going to produce? More unnecessary stuff that is going to be pilled on mountains of garbage in the outskirts of our cities? 

Another interesting question arises independently, yet, connected and intertwined with all of these…What is the purpose of our work? To sustain ourselves and our survival? Our partner? …or…the future generations?

See, the ultimate goal of marriage is reproduction; it was defined in this way in the antiquity, and so this is lived today, but I want you to see the mental relationship that we have created in regards to our human interactions; it would seem that when we "learn" to form relationships…I say learn because they are established on moral and ethical basis and regulations for you to be able to define and maintain these relationships “within and without”. But what would be our interactions without these defined structures? If you think that it would be chaos, I strongly suggest you to first you see the interaction in your physical body, the body is made up of trillions of living molecules that are aware in your body, each one of them with the capacity to experience pain that is actually expressed and manifested through the rest of the cells thanks to the nerve connections that link it with the rest of their companions, each one expresses their individuality, yet they are also  collectively manifesting themselves in a body, and that is, the interaction itself that manifests from the smallest point as this molecule individually, to all of the other molecules with which it interacts, and that is what makes possible, for each and every one of these cells, to be sustained with and by each other, starting with itself, and just considers the fact that a cell that is altered in its constitution , showing "a cancerous principle" that can harm the group, it completely removes itself from the equation, giving the opportunity to others to keep the interaction with the welfare of the body; it is only when the infection is too much that it is inevitable that the cancerous manifestation continue generating discomfort on that principle throughout the physical body, it is something that has to be manifested in the entire group of cells for the cancer to keep its constant growing as this cancer with permission and acceptance of each one, in its induced abuse to continue throughout the physical body, because what affects one, affects all and the same goes amongst the humans, however, What is the principle that is allowing the separation between humans that is this cancer? This is due to and internal and external consequence, a consequence that is manifesting itself as the disregard of what exists in the environment, from our fellow humans, to the environment in which we exist, pollution of the environment that has manifested disease, pain, violence , abuse.

First of all we should look at the relationship we have created towards this world, towards ourselves and our fellow man. See, If the ultimate goal of our interactions, is only to get to the perfect relationship to create a family and “have kids”, which has been abstracted within the concept that the experience that we define as love, is what will sustain it, then it seems that we have not understood what it really mean or interactions and our communication, with ourselves and the physical, is simply not understood, this is the consequence of our consumerist culture and it can be seen in the fact that there is not real understanding of the interaction with our own mind, how it can actually cause consequences that just seem to be "aberrant for humans" as the manifestation of abuse and are considered unmentionable, and that kind of “studies” are reserved for college levels, in which the students are misleaded in their way of understanding how the mind works and operates, because the psychologist are not being prepared for resolving the problems within the mind, they are being trained to make everyone fits in the model of the “society”.

Work is not competition, is not survival, is not gaining money, imagine what would happen if the cells had the kind of separation that we as humanity are accepting and allowing, or even the molecules within this existence, if no one cares about the other maybe this existence never would have existed. What is the manifestation of dead if not the separation of ourselves from the physical body? It is said that when one dies, the body is left behind, yet, do you think the heaven could be a “nice place” knowing that your beloved ones are dying in wars, starving in poverty, suffering due to the survival system? Would you be able to go to such a place leaving everything behind to live in complete bliss? Obviously not, what if that was the ultimate test? It is said that the kingdom of god is within man, the heaven is on earth, yet if we disregard what is here, what heaven could exist if we focus only in what is awaiting for us in the other life searching for our self-interest? The heaven on earth must be created, by man, as simple as that, and for that, we cannot be separated, we must work together, so, it doesn´t matter if you increase the minimum wage to an sufficient amount to cover the basic needs without first have a structure upon which we can re-educate "the culture of humanity" I refer specifically to competition, and survival. Because then we are going to return to the same bullshit, some people are going to be fighting to have the better car, the better house, and are going to fight for more and more and more = greed, why not to guaranty to everyone the best house possible, the best car possible, without the programed obsolescence that comes “added” in your products?

I suggest you to read the following blogs to understand in a more specific way, how this was placed:

http://creationsjourneytolife.blogspot.com/2013/05/day-387-anarchists-mothers-and.html

http://creationsjourneytolife.blogspot.com/2013/05/day-388-anarchists-mothers-and.html

Look at the Declaration of The Rights of the Children, there is a fascinating thing that we should consider, first of all, this declaration came “after” the Declaration of Human Rights, and I mean, that is strange, because aren´t our children also humans? For practical understanding of what I want to explain here: For you to be able to exercise your rights, the State has to recognize you as a citizen, and that is only acquired after having come of age, why do I say this? Because it’s interesting that if the children were including in the declaration of human rights, maybe they would be actually really consider as the pillar of the entire Humanity, which implies that the principle of prevention of Crime, Poverty, Diseases, etc., would be a total different situation that what can be seen today, and to understand this, I suggest you to read the blog of “Children’s Human Rights | Equal Money” link that you can find here: 

http://marlenvargasdelrazo.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/367-childrens-human-rights-equal-money/

The question is why is it that one has to wait until you are properly indoctrinated, sorry, have come of age, for you to be able to exercise your rights?

“The child is already born into limitation as young as 13 weeks of gestation in the mother’s womb where the parental patterns are integrated as part of the mind that the new born will develop throughout an entire lifetime. This is how no matter how much we would want to apply basic human rights, the conditions that limit the newborn are already integrated by default as the result of who we have accepted and allowed ourselves to be and become in our  mind that becomes the very genetic information transferred to every newborn.”

Following this quote, just consider the fact that the chromosomes that are transferred during the sexual intercourse, are in fact what? It´s genetic memory; just consider the amount of emotions and feelings that you experience in one day, the patterns and orientation that they have in relation to your thoughts, for this you have to be really self-honest, and see what is it that you accept and allow, within that, just take into consideration the fact that, all of it is going to become part of you genes, as it has become so much a part of yourself that the substances that nurture your genetic material is in fact making and developing the “nature of your genes and of course what would be the nature of your child”; see the children have a predisposition to follow certain ideas and patterns, but it is only as consequence of what is already integrated within them, as them, isn´t that also why when the woman is pregnant, is necessary that she follows certain diet? Because that is part of the components and “materials that are going to mold and shape the physical body”, yet, the memory and “nature” of the genes, will give to the child the mold and shape of the “personality of their parents”.

“This also implies that no matter how great the parents can be, by virtue of existing in one single environment in which we are all existing in, it is virtually impossible to prevent the danger, abuse and insanity of this world to affect your children, because this is the culture that we have created wherein there is little to no support for children to develop the trust and confidence within themselves to walk throughout a lifetime – instead, the schooling process and education at home becomes the survival-training in a world where life is not a given right and where each one is taught to ‘fight for their right to live’ instead of it being given and assured from the cradle to the grave.”

And what the child is going to see around him would be consider as “normal”, why? Because he/she will just follow the “nature reflected by those equal to her/him”, and of course it will be accepted by consequence of that predisposition of following, denying any common sense as that is not “valuable as the logic that you require to survive in this system”.

The point in itself, within the marriage bond, results in the creation of the family, being the superior interest of the Nation, as it is the pillar of the establishment and existence of the Nation itself, however, the manifestation of our interaction and participation within this system, that was supposed to resemble the existing physical interaction within us, is that of separation. Many comments have come from this, from: "That’s how it is human nature" to "is because of the government", because "it reflects what exists within us" however, the constitution of our physical form, the magnitudes of the separation that is manifested in our actions as humans, doesn´t come from our physical body, it comes as a reflection of what exists in our minds. If you have followed the links of the Creation Journey to Life blog, you will see that the coercive control imposed onto the children, didn´t just came out of nothing, it was mold and shaped and reinforced from the genetic code impressed in the child, showing us what we have accepted and allowed within us. That is where the “Basic Income “cannot sustain itself, and I mean, yes! It is a step to develop a new system, yet it’s insufficient.

From the Bill of Rights of the Equal Life Foundation:

16. The Equal Right of future generations to receive a living planet free of pollution, disease, hunger, violence and destruction so that life shall endure and thrive into eternity now and forever.

Participate and this time; let's really work on a world that is best for all

http://Desteni.org/

http://desteniiprocess.com/

http://lite.desteniiprocess.com/

https://eqafe.com/

http://equalmoney.org/

Day 11 The basis of the Constituion of Life

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)