If the seemingly outlandish title has gotten your attention, then I say "good!" But what does it mean, that rights don't exist?
Let us hearken back a few years where I addressed the question, "What Are Rights?" In that essay we defined a "right" as a "just claim". What I neglected to elaborate upon, however, was the fact that a right does not exist in any meaningful way whatsoever until it is asserted by an individual. That act defines the birth of a right. Proper action pursuant to the claim keeps it alive. The moment the claim is abandoned, it ceases to exist and that which was claimed, arguably comes up for grabs in some manner and degree, the implications at times being profound and wide-reaching.
A right does not exist if it is not asserted in the face of challenge. Where rights are concerned, assertion is tantamount to defense. It is certainly the first step, though in some cases it may not be sufficient, other measures becoming necessary as challenges grow in magnitude of threat.
If I fail to assert my right to my First Property (i.e., my very life), it can be validly argued in some circumstances that I do not in fact hold that right. This, of course, assumes that I am not asleep, in a comatose state, mentally impaired such that I am incapable of making the assertion, and so on. In other words, the statement is qualified with the usual caveat of "all else equal".
This is the stark and most fundamentally real nature of the notion of a right. Because it is a claim, it must in some cases be explicitly asserted in order for it to become manifestly valid and due the respect of one's fellows. If our history has shown us anything about ourselves, it is that we tend not to respect our fellows, unless given good reason.
Consider one's abode - their home, as it were. If I fail to assert my right to my home by allowing strangers to enter thereupon, uninvited, and to rifle through my refrigerator to eat as they please, consume that very costly bottle of single-malt whiskey, sleep in my bed to the exclusion of myself, shower, use the toilet, and basically act as if they owned the place, I have then pretty well relinquished my claims to those properties. Furthermore, reestablishing a claim that has been allowed to the ravages of rivaling scavengers most often proves difficult, at times very costly, is risky at best, and is potentially hazardous to life and limb in some cases.
Does this mean that a man must assert all his rights every time he moves his eyeballs in order that those around him be made clear? No. We assume many of the claims tacitly and this is even reflected in Law. For example, just because I do not tell you that I claim my life as my First Property, it does not follow that you may murder me, or render me into slavery to yourself or another.
But there are those circumstances, which I will conveniently call "special", where the explicit assertion of one's rights is required if one wishes not to be trampled by some third party. Interactions with "government" is perhaps the ultimate example of this, especially in the courtroom. In court, if you fail to assert your rights, chances are good to excellent that you will be procedurally disemboweled, drawn, and quartered by opposing counsel as the judge passively allows it because it is not his job to see to it that your interests are served, as that would indicate bias in one who must remain impartial. The responsibility lies wholly with YOU, which is why the smart man secures the services of a competent and diligent lawyer for all such matters as may end up in a courtroom. In court, the only person interested in your welfare is you, and maybe (hopefully) your attorney. The rest are, at best, neutral. Onus rests solely with you so see to your welfare in court. And so it is with life in general.
Many people see a right as an entitlement. While this is true in an abstract sense, it only becomes real with assertion, and only in the case where sufficiently reasonable action is taken pursuant to the claim in the face of third party threat. That which defines "sufficiently reasonable" can become a complicated and messy issue for another day's discussion, so just accept it on faith for the time being that there exists proper answers for this question, somewhere out there in the aether. The only time one's rights need explicit assertion is when there exists a threat, real or potential, of disparagement, deprecation, denial, or some other violation. That is always the case in courts of law and virtually always so in any interaction with "government", precisely because the "state" is always on record as assuming authority that it cannot prove to hold, in point of fact, yet maintains at the point of the gun.
Therefore, onus rests with every individual to stand tall and to make clear to anyone or anything posing so much as the minutest potential challenge to one's sovereign rights, that they waive no whit of even the seemingly most insignificant of them, for no right is insignificant. The moment you lose sight of this centrally important truth, you have in principle lost it all.
If you will not assert your rights, then they do not exist. Period. Imagine you're on the street and someone asks you about your car that happens to have the keys laying on the seat, saying "hey buddy, is this your car?" If you say "no", you have told that guy that you make no claim to the vehicle. If he then gets in and drives away, you have no basis for complaint in the wake of no longer having a car. Indeed, if you were to file a criminal report with the police, the fact that you failed to assert your claim might well have the cops telling you to take a walk for that very reason. It would be similar to giving him your car and then going to the police afterward. And in the case where cops did your rotten bidding, chances are good that if it went to trial, a reasonable jury would look at you as the architect of your own misfortune, precisely because you failed in your duty to yourself to make clear to another human that you claim the vehicle in question. I know I'd find for the defendant, all else equal.
One cannot lazily count on the good will of others to protect his claims to Life, for his trust will almost certainly prove grossly misplaced at precisely the moment when its fruits are needed most. This is a sad truth about the empirically observable and common behavior of the mean human being. If you will not help yourself when able, you merit none and deserve that which comes to you, such as it may prove.
Failure to assert and defend one's rights is the ultimate abdication of responsibility for oneself. Such failures ought not, and must not be rewarded. If in the face of sufficient ability, one fails to make and reasonably affect the defense of his rights, then in terms of positive reality he holds no such rights, nor any defensible claims in Law against the acts of others whose behavior would have become criminal, had he faithfully and properly discharged due diligence with respect to the affirmations to which he ought to have attested, had at the time he wanted that which a valid assertion would have made manifest.
Absorb this; understand it; accept it; alter your behavior in accordant comport and habit with it, that is, if your rights are important to you. Otherwise, much of the world will trample you into the dust and never bat an eyelash because at the end of the day, even the best among us tend to look out for ourselves first and foremost, which is precisely as things ought to be. This is the nature of life on planet earth and one either gets smart and acts the part, or is consumed by the manifold interests that conflict with his own.
Look at it as maintaining a balance between yourself and a potentially hostile world. It is a necessary skill and habit for all who do not wish to be consumed in the frenzy of human activity, which cares no whit for any individual's welfare.
Stand tall or risk being stricken. The choice is yours. It always has been.
Until next time, please accept my best wishes.
