UN Declaration of Human Rights - Articles 1-10

Herewith do we take a look into the meat of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR).  It is with an eye to semantic clarity, sufficiency, and correctness that we shall turn our attention to the document.  It shall be the purpose here to examine the articles to the point that either they are deemed sufficient and correct and of good and proper utility to the race of men or that they fail.  It is certainly true that in such a declaration of a purported "right" it is required that all elements addressed therein must be clear, correct, and complete to the purposes for which they are contrived to serve.  To that last point we may add that it behooves us to be perfectly clear about those very purposes, what they are, the reasons they are claimed as important, and an examination of all those to whom they purport to apply.

It is not the intention here to compose a vast volume on the merits and shortcomings of the UNDHR, but rather to determine the general timbre and sufficiency of its stipulations and to point out the general nature of its inadequacies, if any.

We will further make note of those places where the rights under consideration stray from those of the inherent and fundamental variety to those of a synthetic, arbitrary, and essentially contractual nature.  For those not familiar with the distinction, a couple of examples should prove helpful.

A fundamental and inherent human right is one that is part and parcel of the being and therefore cannot be excised by any means, whether legal or surgical.  The right to life, for example, which directly implies the right to preserve and protect it from danger, which in its turn further implies the right to acquire, keep, and employ the means to exercising the right, is inherent to the living being.  The right cannot be removed by any means, but can be violated in manifold ways and degrees.

A deer, for example, holds the right to make use of any means at its disposal to protect itself from being killed by a predator.  It may endeavor to remain hidden or, once discovered, to run away as fast as its legs will carry it.  It reserves the right to use its hooves and antlers as weapons against those trying to kill it if perchance it has been cornered.

A man holds the selfsame right to life and thereby the right to the means of preserving it, whether it be with firearms, clubs, fists, or a grenade.

On the other hand we have the contractual right, which is by nature synthetic.  That is to say, it is contrived in the mind and agreed to by the parties to the agreement.  For example, two people contract to have one wash the windows of the other's home and the other will pay him for the service.

In the political context, for example, one's voting rights are contractual in nature even if no specifically signed contract exists.  One is not born with a voting right, but rather it is bestowed upon him through law.  Were voting a fundamental right, it would not be morally permissible to deny one his voting activity during time in prison.  But because the right is artificial and there are conditions of performance attached to one's entitlement to exercise of it, failing to meet or by otherwise violating those requirements, one may forfeit his claim.

The right to the presumption of innocence in cases of criminal law as found in the United States is likewise contractual.  In France, the opposite is encountered, where one is guilty until proven innocent.  Therefore, we see that contractual rights are by their very nature arbitrary and therefore perforce subject to change on an equal basis.

The question of inherent v. contractual right is a very centrally important issue because a declaration of universal human rights should speak only to those claims that are inherent to the creature and not the product of arbitrary contriving, the latter being appropriate to contracts, constitutions, and perhaps some law.

This analysis shall be divided into three separate documents for the sake of taking nominally manageable bites and not present readers with a great wall of text.  Since there are 30 articles, the sections shall be numbered 1-10, 11-20, and 21-30.

Finally, this analysis is as much intended as a tutorial by example of how to conduct such examinations of just about any argument for its semantic quality and content.  If you feel you do not possess the skills to adeptly splinter the assertions and arguments of others, pay attention to how it is done here and you will at least endow yourself with some of the basics.

But to be more helpfully specific: question everything.  Always keep asking questions until you arrive at what you feel are irreducible truths.  And when you have arrived at the bottom of the rabbit hole, ask more questions, because one can never be quite 100% certain that you have run into the wall beyond which questioning will penetrate no further.  This is as much a matter of habit as of knowledge.  There is no doubt in my mind that you are capable of developing the skills and attitude for powerful thought.  It is a mere matter of getting to it and sticking with it.

Without further ado, let us then have at it.

Article 1.

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

The opening sentence, albeit vague, strikes an intuitive chord with many, myself included.  As far as it goes it may be casually considered agreeable, but in a formal document such as the Declaration such loosely constructed language fails to meet a minimal standard of semantic rigor.

The second sentence runs into further trouble, for while it is demonstrably true that some people are endowed with reason and conscience, it is clearly not the case for all.  To be fair, we note here that this is a relatively minor semantic nit being picked, but deem it worth noting in any event.  The second sentence runs into significantly greater trouble in its latter half where it attempts to specify how people should act towards each other.  We may assume the best of intentions here, but that does not save the author's reputation from stain, and in fact deepens the taint.  For one thing, what exactly defines the "spirit of brotherhood" and why "should" we act in that way toward each other?  Who has determined this and by what authority do they claim to speak for so many, if not all humanity?

If one is going to make a Declaration for all humanity, especially one whose tone rides perilously close to that of a universal mandate, the fundamental assertion cannot itself be sufficient to demonstrate justification.  There must be with it given a properly reasoned and sufficient contextual basis upon which the attestation is put forward.  Without it, the Declaration essentially boils down to an attempt at proof-by-assertion, which is invalid and thereby reduces the assertion to non-acceptability regardless of its truth value.  Such statements are of a different league from "I prefer vanilla" because they presume to speak to every living man, compelling performance at the point of the sword.  It is by necessity that when one speaks so broadly and with the presumption of such authority as found in the UNDHR, the requirement of proof of validity and correctness is absolute and cannot be disregarded, save at the peril of all credibility.

Article 2.

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

It may be argued that the placement of this as the second Article is oddly premature or perhaps late, depending upon how one looks at it. But given that as yet the enumeration or other specification of the rights to which reference is made is itself yet to be expressed, how are we able to accept whether everyone is so entitled?  Placement aside, the first sentence carries with it a strong intuitive sense of its truth and propriety because it appears to speak against arbitrary endowment of and respect for the rights in question.  This is a laudable seeming principle on its face and I will go so far as to say that it is correct.  However, the Article stands as incomplete because a sufficiently complete and properly reasoned basis for why the Article is valid and truthful is absent.

No matter how compelling such a declaration may appear or how appealing to the soul, they must not be accepted as true unless they are complete and correct in their specification.  This Article fails the test for completeness including a sufficient demonstration of correctness and therefore remains invalid and unproven.

There are a few other issues with the right as expressed in the Article.  For example, the catch-all, "or other status," is potentially problematic.  If, for example, one has the right to acquire, keep, and use kitchen knives and that right is absolute as clearly stated in the Preamble, then he retains that right even after having been duly convicted of a true crime and sentenced to a term in prison.  Given the sorts of places prisons tend to be, is it really wise to allow the inmates such free access to knives?  Just a point to consider aside from more philosophical issues.

The second line presupposes by implication that any given individual perforce "belong[s]" or must belong to some arbitrarily defined political entity.  What of free men?  The construction of the sentence is semantically vague, requiring a reader to fill in several holes.  For example, one must assume "distinction" refers to the rights to which the first line refers in order for the sentence to make minimally reasonable sense, yet anyone in political power is equally free to assume otherwise.  That aside,  the sentence seems to be saying that a person's rights stand regardless of the listed factors that may be in effect in the land from which he hails.  But what about when he is in a land that is not his home?

To what does "limitation of sovereignty" refer?  Limitations of sovereignty of a nation?  Of the individual in question?  If the latter, judging by the preamble which acknowledges rights as absolute and inviolable, in what manner does the Article speak?  Nothing is clearly delineated in the sentence and as such its meaning cannot be positively ascertained.

The Article is, therefore, reduced to dangerous nonsense and cannot be taken as meaning anything definite, thereby voiding it of all value, credibility, and authority.  These, however, are precisely the semantic properties of which the politically empowered bounder will take fullest advantage as he claims the authority to determine what a given sentence means vis-a-vis what the rest of the nation may think.

Article 3.

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Ignoring the now-customary absence of definitions of terms such as "life", "liberty", and "security", this Article goes a bit futher into specifics as to the right to which we are entitled.  Perhaps some help from the dictionary is in order.  To wit:

life
noun

1.   the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. 

2.the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction,and adaptation to environment.

3.the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual.

4.a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul. 

5.the general or universal condition of human existence.

lib·er·ty
noun 

1.freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

2.freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

3.freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right ofdoing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice. 

4.freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint:

se·cu·ri·ty
noun 

1.freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety.

2.freedom from care, anxiety, or doubt; well-founded confidence.

3.something that secures or makes safe; protection; defense.

4.freedom from financial cares or from want.

5.precautions taken to guard against crime, attack, sabotage, espionage, etc..

6.a department or organization responsible for protection or safety.

7.protection or precautions taken against escape; custody: 

8.an assurance; guarantee.

The expressed "right to life" presents the fewest problems, yet the declaration still manages to fail to meet the minimal standard of sufficiency.  Once again, simplistically stating that each man possesses the absolute "right to life" is emotionally very compelling and the intuition tends strongly to take the assertion as true.  However, the right is expressed with not even nearly the amount of context that is required in order to render it acceptable as a statement of universal human rights pursuant to which the force of law would hold just authority.  But if it is to be claimed that the expression of the right as given above is axiomatically obvious and irreducible, onus still rests with the claimant to demonstrate that it is so.  Neither of the necessary conditions required of proof have been met.

In no way is the issue of conflict addressed.  Conflict of action and right raises very basic issues for which there must be proper solutions.  A declaration of universal and absolute human rights must, therefore, carry with it the acknowledgment of the need for such elucidations or references to them, if not the elucidations themselves, which in principle could become voluminous.  But at the very least such a declaration must make clear that the issue of conflicting rights or rights with actions is to be somewhere found and treated in its full detail and course.

For example, if one's right to life is absolute as the Preamble states it must perforce be, then if one is being murderously attacked in a dark alley, there is nothing in principle to prevent one in political power to declare that morally justifiable acts of self defense resulting in the death of the attacker constitute murder.  This is, in fact, very close to the case in the United Kingdom where people are put into prison for justifiably killing those whose attacks are reasonably taken to have been laced with murderous intent.  In fact, they are often jailed for causing such attackers any bodily injury.

Because there is no treatment of the issue of conflicting rights and actions given in the Article,  whether explicitly or in the form of simple recognition of the issues and reference to the places where specific treatments are given, the door of interpretation is left gaping.  Humanity has been treated to endless examples of the horrors to which such open doors subject the ruled at the hands of the ruler.

The precise same failings apply to the treatments of "liberty" and "security of person".  The latter, however, carries with it some further problems.  What, exactly, is meant by the "right to the security of person"?  The Article gives absolutely no clue as to the precise semantic character of the assertion and the failure is rather spectacular because the potential implications of at least one interpretation of the "right" are vastly reaching.

One possible interpretation is that of a negative right.  In that context we can say that the right to be secure in your person means, for example, the right not to be physically attacked by others.  In this specific case the negative right of one implies a positive duty of others to refrain from attacking him.  This, of course, would be the correct interpretation of the right as vaguely expressed in the Article.  The positive duty implied by the negative right comprises but a single simple and elegant prohibitive maxim that is readily met by all at no cost whatsoever to them.

Another possible interpretation is that of a positive right.  The positive right implies the positive duty of others to ensure one's security not only through refraining from attacking him, but by providing him with security through positive action.  This, of course, could lead to any number of positive obligations such as acting as body guards in the event he is attacked by another or providing him with the instrumentality by which he would mount an effective defense of himself.  Such instrumentality could include weapons such as firearms.  Another possibility would be the duty to provide persons with other means of securing their persons such as armored motor vehicles, impregnable houses, and so forth.  In other words, in principle there are no limits to the positive compulsory obligations that might be imposed upon one toward his fellows.  This is clearly identical to the fundamental nature of "rights" as found under welfare entitlements.  What is left is a legacy of potentially limitless and ungainly obligations, each of which exacts from each individual costs in both material terms ($, for example) and those of his inviolable rights as an irreducible being.

The positive duties concommitant with positive rights such as this comprise a potentially endless list of duties to which each man is obliged to perform for the sake of others and the "greater good".  Taken not even remotely to its extremes, positive rights can rapidly become overwhelming in this respect from the practical standpoint of one's available resources.  Some will argue that this is an unreasonable fear and base their assertion on the positive "fact" that such endless enumerations of onerous duties have not arisen.  This, of course, is readily arguable, but if we grant it as being so for argument's sake, it can point to no other conclusion than that it has not yet happened, rather than it cannot.

But let it be clear that the reason it has not happened is due largely to the enlightened self interest of rulers who seek to continue their reigns for as long as possible.  The interpretation of a vaguely specificed right as being positive in nature leaves open to those rational men in political power the broadest possible menu of potential mandates from which they may pick and choose.  This will always be preferable to them because more power is always preferable to less.  It would not likely serve them well to begin imposing impossibly large lists of specific obligations.  Far better to the purposes of power to choose carefully those mandates that give the best and safest returns on the risks of imposition.

By virtue of its vagary and failure to meet the standard of sufficiency, the Article fails completely and cannot be said to hold any adequately clear meaning, credibility, or authority.

Article 4.

"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."

Missing clear, complete, and correct (CCC) definitions of "slavery" and "slave trade".  As stated, the Article may be interpreted to mean nearly anything and as such offers no clearly identifiable protections. In addition, it places people transacting otherwise legitimate business at the mercy of state caprice.

Far more fundamentally, the Article specifies only a procedural prohibition, failing to specify the underlying inherent right.  The Article is therefore inappropriate to the Declaration and on that basis alone should be removed, perhaps to be included in some statutory specification or elsewhere.

The Article fails to meet CCC requirements, fails to address and fundamental human right, and on those bases carries no credible claim of authority.

Article 5.

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

No definitions of which to speak.  What, then, does this really mean?  What is the meter of "degrading"? Is it degrading to placed into a prison cell after having been rightly convicted of murder?  Not only is a clear, complete, and correct (CCC) definition of the term provided, no reference is made to the practical standard by which "degrading" would be judged, thereby leaving judgment open to arbitrary outcomes and caprice.

Are convicted child molesters, for example, to be afforded gourmet meals, cable TV, and provided with all the child porn they can handle?  After all, it can be reasonably said that denying one that to which he is accustomed constitutes cruelty.  During the 1970s courts even used to make reference to terms such as "relative deprivation", meaning that people accustomed to living in Beverly Hills mansions and brunching on caviar daily are "relatively impoverished" when circumstance would call upon them to eat mere lox for breakfast and live in a tiny ten-thousand square foot house in Belaire, Hollywood's lowly next door neighborhood.  As I recall, such references were often made in divorce cases where one party's legal representatives made cases for increased alimonies, the judges then having found themselves in tears at the thought of the devastation the party was to suffer in the wake of having to live on a mere half a million dollars per month.

The Article makes reference to a contractual right by specifying the benefit, "shall [not] be subjected..." but not specifically to the right in question.  While one may infer reference to an unstated inherent right, the connection is so vague that those in authority remain perfectly free to deny that any such reference exists.

The Article fails to meet CCC requirements and inappropriately addresses a contractual right.  Therefore, it carries neither credibility nor authority.

Article 6.

"Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."

"Person" as in "legal fiction"? Why not phrase it as having the right to be recognized as a free and sovereign man? What is the definition of "law" as used in this Article? Does it refer to true law based in logically provable moral principle, or arbitrary statute? What, exactly, does it mean to be "recogni[zed]... before the law"?

Most importantly, the Article speaks specifically only to a contractual right rather than to one that is inherent, the references to the latter being very obliquely vague at best and perfectly deniable by those in political power.  This is especially worrisome when those in political office are the only ones with access to the means of brute physical force, such as firearms.

CCC failure, as well as failure to address an inherent right explicitly, and thereby bears neither credibility nor does it carry the least authority.

Article 7.

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

"Equal before the law" is another strongly compelling statement, emotionally speaking, and seems "right".  But if one stops to ask the pointed questions regarding what exactly does the statement as given mean in more explicit terms, the problems become immediately apparent.

The second sentence suffers from a vague semantic structure in that "Declaration" may be interpreted as referring to either the Article in question or the entire UNDHR.  Depending on how the sentence is interpreted, the Article may be regarded as having wildly differing meanings, and therefore potentially very different implications, consequences, and effects for all.

More deeply troubling is the absence of any precise explanation of what constitutes "incitement to such discrimination."    This inadequacy leaves the statement wide open as broadly interpretable, thereby placing people at potentially grave risk for acting in ways that no minimally intelligent and rational man would regard as intolerable.

Far more significantly, one should note that the Article speaks more to a contractual right than one inherent, making only a vaguely implied reference to a fundamental right in language to unclear that plausible deniability that any such right is referenced remains strongly in the hands of "authority".

Because the Article speaks to an arbitrary procedural benefit to which it declares all men entitled, it is not appropriate that it be included here.

Once again I remind you that these articles issue from a document that at least implies to purport to stand as universal mandates by which every man on the planet is obliged to comport himself under pain of the sword.  It is therefore clear that the Article fails fundamentally to demonstrate its correctness, completeness, credibility, and the least authority whatsoever.

Article 8.

"Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law."

The Article makes only oblique reference to some unspecified inherent human right via the specification of a contractual right to the means of remedy.  This places the cart before the horse, so to speak, and in a manner such that we cannot tell neither the horse's breed nor even if there actually is a horse of which to speak.  This Declaration is not the appropriate venue for the treatment of synthetic rights and the Article fails on that point.

Far more importantly, note the reference to "fundamental rights" as being "granted".  This is a failure of a terminally catastrophic nature and of monumental proportions such that overstatement would be next to impossible.  This assertion alone is sufficient to deny the least credibility to the entire Declaration and to call into serious question the competence and intentions of its architects.  The nature of this failure is to lace the entire Declaration with a fatal poison from which nothing of value can be recovered.  Also note that it stands in diametric conflict with the Preamble that explicitly states that rights are inherent to the creature, directly contradicting the notion that they are granted by any means whatsoever.

The notion that a fundamental human right is granted to the individual by some conceptual entity such as "the state" is dangerously preposterous and must under no circumstance be accepted as true in even the least epsilon.  The notion behind the words is dangerous to every living man on the planet and should be rebelled against with interminable fury and bluntly kinetic energy lest the race find itself hoodwinked into accepting a notion carrying with it the credibility of a flat-earth theory and he danger of an armed and down-counting strategic nuclear weapon.  Nothing good can come of its acceptance, but much harm will.

Beyond its more alarming flaws, this Article tells us nothing of substance, but announces an emotionally compelling idea shrouded in fog.  It is not only devoid of credibility, it hides a thinly veiled element of profound danger to all humanity and fails most spectacularly.

Article 9.

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."

The standard against which arbitrariness is judged is neither listed nor referenced.

Also note that the Article dances on the edge of propriety and sensibility as it refers indirectly to the fundamental negative right to be free from the violations by his fellows but couches its expression in the language of contractual stipulation and as a broadly expressed principle of legal formalism.  This renders the Article extremely confusing in that one cannot tell whether the right is being recognized for protection, being granted by the "state", or some senselessly contradictory combination of the two.

Recognition of the preexistent and inherent negative human right is appropriate in the Declaration, but must be made far more clearly, and completely.  The method used here is wholly inadequate, failing in every way imaginable.

Specification of the synthetic contractual right to some procedural benefit pursuant to the presumably inherent right as expressed in the Article is not appropriate to this Declaration and should have been presented in another document.  This is a tremendously basic error in structure and speaks very poorly of the performance of the Declaration's architects, or perhaps of their truer intentions.   Note that, given the structure of the Article, one can only weakly assume it refers to the inherent right because reference to it is made in only the most oblique fashion.  This leaves political "leaders" in the real world at ease to decide as they may see fit in any given moment when and how such a right may exist, if at all.

By these various basic flaws is the Article rendered devoid of meaning and is therefore non-credible and bereft of any authority whatsoever.

Article 10.

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."

 Which definition of "tribunal" is at work here?  Is it a court of law or a seat of power?    Where is the cite to reference material so that we may see the specifications of these tribunals and know whether they are satisfactory to the competent dispensation of fair and reasonable justice?  What avenues of redress are open to us when we feel justice has not been served?  Are we to assume that everything has been taken care of competently and honestly?  Human history provides a vast parade of examples of the corruption of rulers and other heads of "state" who have bid their subjects, "trust me" as well as the appalling and seemingly endless horrors that have resulted.

There is no mention of trial by a jury of one's peers.  At least there it may be said with even odds that the people whose job it is to determine guilt are statistically likely to have no horse in the race, whereas a differently arranged tribunal, presumably of judges, may not be able to claim such impartiality with nearly the same degree of credibility and truth.

Note that this Article speaks not to fundamental human rights, but rather to those of a contractual nature.  Such rights differ from nation-state to nation-state, even from municipality to municipality, and sometimes even court case to court case.  This Article does not belong in this Declaration in the first place, but given it is there, the poor craft by which it was contrived voids it all credibility and authority.

Interim summary

As is plain to see, the UN Declaration of Human Rights thus far fails to live up to its title and the promises implied there.  While every article fails the semantic smell tests of clarity, completeness, and correctness, Article 8 carries with it the most deadly conceptual virus imaginable: that human rights are granted by other humans upon the rest.  The wild danger this poses cannot be overstated and one is behooved to educate himself as to why this is the case, a topic which may be addressed in another essay.

Until next time, please accept my fondest regards.

UN Declaration of Human Rights - The Preamble

Analysis.

I have decided to analyze the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I will indulge myself in no prefatory remarks, preferring to get right to the task.

"PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

The opening sentence of the Preamble makes clear that all humanity possess equal and inalienable rights.  The specific nature of those right are not, as yet, specified.  Therefore, some assumptions will have to be made until such time as greater specificity may be encountered.  First, however, let us examine the definitions of "equal", "inalienable", "right", and a few other basic terms.

right
noun
18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral
19. sometimes, rights.  that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.


in·al·ien·a·ble
adjective 

1. not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights. 

Synonyms 

inviolable, absolute, unassailable, inherent.

e·qual
adjective 

1. as great as; the same as
2. like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.
3. evenly proportioned or balanced
4. uniform in operation or effect: equal laws.


claim
noun 

6. a demand for something as due; an assertion of a right

7. an assertion of something as a fact
8. a right to claim or demand; a just title to something


ti·tle
noun

9. property law

    a. the legal right to possession of property

    b. the basis of such right

    c. the documentary evidence of such right: title deeds

11. law
    a. any customary of established right

    b. a claim based on such a right

justadjective

1.  guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness

2.  done or made according to principle; equitable; proper

3.  based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.

4.  in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct

Based on these definitions, we may conclude with certainty that the rights to which the sentence refers are just and absolute.  That is to say, they are made based upon correctly reasoned principle and may not be circumscribed, disparaged, violated, denied, repudiated, or infringed, save by one whose equal claims are being threatened in an immediate and unwarranted fashion.  

In practical terms it means that no man, group thereof, acting singly or severally, as such or under mask of label, may demean, disparage, or in any way trespass upon the equal just claims, which is to say the equal rights, of another individual or group thereof for any reason whatsoever save in defense of self and property from death, dismemberment, destruction, or other real harm.

This is the meaning of the opening sentence of the Declaration and we shall lean upon it as the standard by which the enumerated articles shall be assessed and judged.  

So far, the document is looking reasonably well constructed in terms of meaning.  However, there remains the question of what, exactly, are these rights to which the opening sentence refers?  They are not specified here.  We shall, therefore, have to assume they will be made explicit in the coming passages.

Moving on:

"Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,"

Here we see the beginnings of reference to actual, enumerated rights.  There are, however, some problems.  To wit, thus far no irreducible basis is cited for the existence of these purported rights.  Therefore, the sentence constitutes an attempt at proof by assertion, which is invalid and therefore no proof at all.  This does not, however, imply that the assertions made therein are false, but neither do they establish their truth.  Nor do they define what constitutes "freedom of speech and belief", and while the truth of the assertion may be well clear to many of us, what of "freedom from fear and want"?  Let us forgo for now the fact that this stands as yet undefined.  We may, however, compare the semantic nature of this purported right with that of "free speech and belief".

The right of freedoms of speech and belief are positive rights.  That is, they assert the right to act positively.  You may speak and believe as you please, both of which are positive acts, whereas any right to be "free from" is negative in nature.  A negative right means is that one entitled to be free from unwanted outside interferences or influences.

For example, the right to privacy as guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States is a negative right that forbids anyone from intruding upon the private matters of another uninvited.  It is a proscription upon all against trespass and such is the fundamental nature of all negative rights.

Given the well established general validity of negative rights, we may now set our focus to the specific: "freedom from want and fear".  It should be no great stretch of credulity to agree that most people wish to be free from want and fear.  Therefore, the assertion of the right seems valid and agreeable, so far as it goes.  However, it can be seen readily that it does not go far enough.  What are the metes and bounds of "want" as employed here?  Does one hold the right to free from want for, say, a corporate jet?  A 300 foot motor yacht?  From which wants are we entitled to be free?  The sentence is opaque on this question, and is therefore severely and fundamentally problematic in its chosen construction.

As with "want", "fear" also encompasses a vast plurality of possibilities, not all of which are fundamental, nor are they universally shared by all people.  From which of the nearly endless litany of potential fears are men entitled to be free?  For example, is one entitled to be free from his fear of spiders?  If not, then clearly the use of "fear" in the sentence is overly broad.  If yes, the implications have endlessly radiating effects upon the entire human population, not to mention that of spiders.  

If we agree that even a single one of us holds the negative right to be free from his fear of spiders, let us call him Harry, he can be said to hold just claim not to be beset by that fear at any time or for any reason.  If we acknowledge this right as properly Harry's, it may be strongly argued that the rest of humankind is thereby obliged to preserve him from his fear through positive action.  The logically absurd, yet valid, conlusion is that the only way to possibly guarantee Harry may be free from his fear of spiders would be to eradicate all spiders from the planet.  Forgetting the impossibility of such a task and the endless cost to achieve the goal were it otherwise, not to mention that this is but a single item on the list of all possible fears, even its accomplishment cannot perforce guarantee that Harry will remain free of his apprehensions.  Perhaps he does not believe that all spiders have been wiped out and that one may jump out from behind the next lamp post and bite him. 

I trust you see the basic problem enshrined in the assertion of these two nebulously specified and vastly over-generalized negative rights?  Were we to accept the premise of them as stated, and took them seriously, we would be perforce obliged to attempt to make good on every want and fear imaginable because the negative rights of one man imply a positive duty by all humanity to respect and act such that the right is maintained intact.  If Harry is acknowledged as holding the negative right to be free of his fear of spiders, the implication is that the rest of humanity is obliged by that virtue to furnish him with a circumstance that guarantees an absence of fear.

One may argue that his entitlement to the state of freedom from fear does not imply a positive duty for his fellows to ensure his security.  This is, however, incorrect because if he has the right to be free of his fear of spiders, then he is entitled to that freedom, meaning he can demand it.  But to whom would Harry make such a demand, the spiders?  That avenue of redress is clearly moot and therefore invalid, prima facie.  Will petition to owls provide remedy?  Elephants?  No creature beside his fellow men could possible entertain such an endeavor, and therefore it would fall to his fellows at least to try.

Likewise, if Harry has the right to be free from want of a LearJet, someone, somewhere, is obliged to provide him with one.  This implication cannot be escaped once the premise is accepted as true.  This is why the expression of a right must be sufficiently explicit and narrow such that we do not end up accepting absurdity as truth.

Conceptually speaking, the differences between the brand of negative right as asserted in the Declaration and those in the US Constitution are fundamentally that the latter recognizes the positive duty of all men to abstain from acting in certain ways, whereas the former imposes a positive duty to act positively.  It is as simple as the difference between "thou shalt not" and "thou shalt".  While both are negative rights, one is satisfied through positive action while the other through negative.

Not to place too fine a point on this, but let us return to Harry briefly and his rights, real or imagined.  We entertain two negative rights: to be free from fear of spiders and that of his privacy.  In the former case, his negative right implies a positive duty of the world to act positively in pursuit of the goal of providing him with a fear-free environment.  In the latter case, the negative right to privacy implies a positive duty to refrain from acting in ways that would constitute violations of that right.  In the former case all are required to act and in the latter, to not act.  This is a fundamental difference and it is the factor that renders his right to be free from fear invalid and his right to privacy very much the opposite.

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"

So far as this statement goes, it is good.  It could use some definitions, but if we assume a reasonably universal presumption of common understanding of the words therein, we may regard this as minimally sufficient for a preamble.  It says that because people may rebel against unjust treatment, a fact borne out by our long history of tyrannies, and that by implication rebellion is a bad thing, rights should be carefully protected.  The implication, however, is unclear as to whether it is rebellion that is undesirable because it is presumably directed against government "authority", the fact that it almost always results in death, mayhem, destruction, and misery, or both.  It may be fairly safe to assume the latter, but given the potential significance of such a document, such questions should not be left open to interpretive guesswork.  Once again, a greater specificity is in order even if here the foul is relatively small.

"Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,"

 Again, vagaries.  Who says this is essential?  By what standard do they judge it so?  What is their authority for pronouncing it to be so ostensibly for the entire world population?  What does it mean to "promote"?  The term as generally taken implies no employment of force, yet we have been treated to endless spectacles of political "promotion" at the ends of guns.  What defines "friendly relations"?  Just as so-called "free trade" has absolutely nothing to do with free markets, "friendly relations" as offered here may well in actuality have nothing to do with one's own conception of what that should mean.  Far too many times have we been treated to the semantic chicaneries of dishonest and dishonorable men who seek to gain at the expense of others as they redefine "up" as meaning "down", "left" as "right", "evil" as "good".

Beware of the concussion of language ineptly or malevolently used.

"Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

Who are "the peoples", exactly?  Does this refer to all the populations of all the member states?  Perhaps to their representatives?  Speaking only for myself, I can say without equivocation or other reserve that neither have I reaffirmed the stated faith, nor have I authorized any agent or other third party to do so on my behalf.  The use of "person" here is also vague.

"Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,"

Marginally acceptable, but the lack of specification of "rights" reduces this sentence to mostly gibberish.   Universal respect for and observance of human rights means nothing without sufficient understanding of what defines the claims in question.

"Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,"

Common understanding by whom?  All men or just the UN representatives?

At the very least, there should have been a statement qualifying the meaning of the body of this preamble as being contingent upon definitions to be included elsewhere in the document.  Thus far, the Declaration is constructed either carelessly, ineptly, or with purposeful vagueness.  In any case, the work speaks not well of its authors, for the most part.

"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

As with the rest, marginally acceptable as far as it goes, but failing to go sufficiently far to achieve minimal clarity, correctness, and perfection.  "Progressive measures" raises a very red flag.  Is this a general term or is it political jargon relating to "progressivism"?  A clear and unequivocal answer to this question is centrally important to assessing with precision the position expressed.

And what of non-member states?  Is it the UN position to leave them to their individual wills or will the UN "promote" its agendas there as well?

Conclusion

As we can well see, the construction of the preamble to the Declaration of Human Rights is fraught with imprecise language.  Because of this, it is almost impossible to discern meanings that can be pinned down firmly.  At the very least, this fact renders the document as fundamentally meaningless, largely due to the overly broad assertions and the complete absence of any definitions of terms.

Do the insufficiencies of the preamble spring from and unpublished agenda, or simple and innocent carelessness and/or linguistic ineptitude?  Neither is it possible to tell based on the reading alone, nor is it terribly relevant.  What we do know for certain is that the document, well intentioned as it may be, is thus far inadequate to the point of being grotesque.  I will add, however, that from my personal point of view I find my credulity stretched a bit too far to accept that an organization such as the UN, for which language competence is a centrally vital factor, could innocently publish a preamble so violently rife with flaw as is this one.  This fact should place one on high alert to the possibility that something foul is afoot here.

Having justly and competently raised a list of questions and exposed the profound structural weaknesses embodied in this preamle, I will take my leave.  In future installments I shall address the 30 articles of this Declaration in like manner as we search for the truth underlying its construction.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

DHS to populate its ranks with hardened criminals?

Consider the population of men who control the goings on in the world at its core.  I refer to them as "Themme", "Theye", "Theire" to distinguish them nominally from the dissatisfying vague pronouns of similar and non-capitalized spelling.

Theye have been wildly successful at corralling huge populations into thinking and behaving as they desire.  It seems, however, that of late Theye are running into some hard limits and that the populations for which this can be said are growing, the growth accelerating.

Consider the purported "election" of Barack Obama to the ostensibly highest office in the American system.  Back in 2007-2008 he was the darling of a press that portrayed him in ways just short of declaring his ability to tap-dance across the seven seas.  He could do no wrong.  This continued through his first term despite some of his policy decisions which the rational man could construe only as the product of some combination of wild ineptitude, ignorance, corruption, and bitter hatred for Americans.

This continued through the campaign cycle, but once his reelection was secured, cracks began to show.  One year into his final term now reveals a situation so bad that even those media outlets that were blindly dedicated to his service, rather than to honest and adept reportage, have softened the hard edges of their outward admiration of this president.  In some cases it appears they may be preparing to throw him under the bus as the threat of economic failure looms ever more menacingly to the degree that all but the most terminally devoted can no longer deny truths that were regarded as worse than treason just a few short months ago.

As Theye push the envelope of usurpation, more and more people are beginning to come out of the fog, asking "what is going on here?"  As this population grows, so grows the threat against Theire dominion and the agenda for expansion.  The question naturally arises as to whether Theye will otherwise sit idly back on the one hand as on the other they continue to push ever more deeply their trespasses against the individual.  At this point motives and intentions are rapidly becoming irrelevant.  It really no longer matters whether the intentions are good, if misguided, or openly malevolent.  All that counts are the results, and with each passing day they become more grim in terms of individual freedom and the prosperity that is directly dependent upon it.

If we accept the apparent circumstance as the true one, the question naturally arises as to whether there is a breaking point beyond which the population standing in increasingly open opposition to the trespass of the political elite into their private territory will precipitate material resistance of significance to Themme.  If we further assume the answer is "yes" and that the resultant reaction stands to pose real and perhaps mortal threats to members of Theire ranks, we must then ask ourselves whether Theye will sit passively awaiting their uncertain fates as an enraged population storms the Bastille with torches blazing and pitchforks at the ready.  While speculative, I feel fairly safe in assuming that Theye will not be found quietly waiting with their heads already positioned on the block to receive their richly earned rewards.  No.  Theye will fight.  But who will do the fighting?

The US military, it seems, is a bit of a wild card.  I have been treated to various reports and read articles expressing widely varying opinions that range from "nobody will fire upon US citizens" to "large proportions will follow orders no matter how blatantly and wildly criminal they may be".  I feel confident the truth lies somewhere between those extremes and I suspect Theye may not be so confident that the biggest and baddest junkyard dog on the planet will heed their command to protect Their cadre when the time comes.

What, then, are Theye to do?  Enter the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Forget about the ostensible mission of DHS - to protect the "homeland", a term with which I have never been comfortable as it reminds me too strongly of "fatherland" and "motherland", and we know what greatness spawned those fond monikers.  The question that everyone should be asking there is, who, exactly, comprises the "homeland" and from whom is it being protected?  At this point, given the waters having thus far passed under the bridges of recent history, I am inclined to assume that the "homeland" is not the people of the USA.  I am, however, very inclined to suspect that those very people are the ones from whom DHS seeks to defend their masters.

If we accept for argument's sake that "homeland" = Themme and "from whom" = the American people, a rather unpleasant new picture presents itself to plain view.

Many will immediately retreat into accusations of "conspiracy nut", "tin hat!" and so forth, but the evidence that is out there, that Theye have made no effort to deny, and in fact to which they admit openly via various government agencies and reports, suggests a very real possibility.  There are, of course, the bodies of legislation that have been enacted including PATRIOT, NDAA, and so forth.  Add to that the raft of executive orders that unilaterally grant the president powers tantamount to that of an emperor, and we already have enough evidence to suggest Theye are well into preparations for dealing with a nation that has decided enough is enough.

But the more immediately damning evidence blatantly rubbed in our noses relates to the materiel purchases by DHS  of recent years:

• Ammunition to the tune of 1.6 to 1.8 billion rounds
• Assault rifles numbering in the tens of thousands
• Armored vehicles, last I checked, numbering 2717
• 2500 GLS armored vehicles
• Hundreds of thousands of polymer coffins (Actually FEMA/CDC)

There is much more to the list, but this should be certainly enough to prompt one to ask, "Why? - what is all of this for?"  After all, it is not the Department of Foreign Security.  We have our military for that.  What could they possibly want with so much military grade materiel when they are supposed to be concerned with domestic security?  What are Theye not telling us?  Is China and/or Russia planning an invasion?  If so, are our military forces not adequate to the purpose of defense?

It is pretty obvious that something is up, that is will not be pleasant, and that we the people are not likely to approve.  It is equally obvious that Theye have no intentions of going quietly into the night as we finally decide we have had enough and move to put Themme to ends.

Finally we arrive at a question central in all of this: who, exactly, are DHS?  Literally, who, which is to say how many, make up their ranks?  Five minutes ago I perused the "careers" section of their site and it shows a grand total of 104 open positions at DHS.  This is not suggestive of an organization preparing to go on a war footing as are their materiel purchases, which gives rise to some sense of confusion as to what is really going on.

If DHS is indeed preparing for either a major disaster or civil insurrection, they will need warm bodies and lots of them to man those vehicles, take up those rifles, and shoot all those rebels.  I may be wrong, but I see no evidence that their ranks are nearly sufficient to such a task.  I have made the observation in the past that Theye will derive their manpower from the very populations they seek to restrain, and I maintain that opinion, but not in the initial stages in the case of insurrection.  In that case, DHS will need a cadre of reliably loyal men strongly motivated to vicious repression of their fellows for the opening scenes of this play.  But where does one get such men? 

There have been all manner of rumors of Russian and other foreign soldiers training on American soil, apparently as part of covertly agreed mutual defense pacts wherein if Russia faces insurrection, American troops will be called upon to render aid and the same with Russian troops in the case of trouble in North America.  While plausible, I am not convinced this is going to happen for any of several reasons.  For example, how would Theye know whether Russia would pony up when things became real and immediate?  How would Theye know the troops sent here would obey orders to Theire satisfaction?  How do Theye know Russian troops would not turn on Themme, perhaps constituting an effective fifth column in the event Russia perceived a golden opportunity to advance their position on the world stage?

For me there appear to be too many loose ends with such arrangements, but of course this is based on my very imperfect knowledge of the truer nature of the relations between the various players.  But if my uneasiness about such arrangements is based in good reason, then perhaps other arrangements may be in the works, and that leads us finally to the bottom line, which is this:  In the case of civil insurrection, perhaps in the wake of an economic collapse, DHS will need a sizable force of bully boys upon whose willingness to fire on Americans can be solidly relied.  I submit that we have just such a population right here, several millions strong, and every so motivated to loyal service: those serving hard time in both federal and state prisons, especially the former.

Before dismissing this as some paranoid delusion, consider some of the realities.  At the time of this writing and to my admittedly incomplete knowledge, DHS employs not nearly enough people to do the "dirty work" of suppressing a revolt across the face of a nation as enormous and well armed as that of the United States.  Add to that the fact that perhaps not all current DHS agents are prepared to fire upon their fellow Americans, which will require a special brand of hardness, the sort that is well known to exist in the sociopath.  Our prisons are full of those.  Some may not be that way when they first arrive in prison, but the environment soon changes that.

Given the needs in order to suppress not just a revolt, but one that nearly everyone in the nation will know in his heart of hearts is righteous, and the prisoner becomes a very attractive choice for filling the ranks of repression. 

Consider the motivating factors from the prisoner's point of view:

• You are living in a cage in hell
• You eat lousy food
• There are no women available, so you subsist on gay rape
• You may be the victim of gay rape
• Violence or its threat is everywhere and at all times
• There is no happiness of which to speak
• You face the prospect of decades of this "lifestyle"
• You may even rather you were dead, but lack the nerve to end it

All of a sudden, you are offered a way out.  You will be released from the bondage of your cell if you agree to a different bond of service and if you discharge that service with absolute loyalty and obedience you will be granted a complete pardon.  Your fealty will require that you obey every order issued no matter what it might be or against whom you are called to act.  The least failure to absolute and complete obedience will place you back in your cell, only your circumstance will be at least ten times more savage and severe.  It is guaranteed that you will live to regret disobedience for a very long time.  Among the things required of you will be:

• To be trained in the discipline and operations of a DHS agent
• Conduct missions as given to completion
• To fire upon American citizens in self defense or when otherwise so ordered
• To execute American citizens as ordered without hesitation or reservation
• To apprehend American citizens and convey or otherwise dispose of them as ordered
• To defend your superiors up to and including the sacrifice of your own life to protect theirs
• To defend your fellow agents, albeit secondarily to orders and defense of superiors
• To refrain from all unacceptable behaviors of the prison and other environments
• Starting from a clean slate

In exchange for your service, you will be rewarded with the following:

• Immediate release from your current incarceration.
• Training
• A uniform
• A purpose
• A potential career
• Good living accommodations, paid 
• Good food, paid
• Discretionary income
• Personal security from other inmates
• Authority to act in the service of your nation
• Limited authority to claim booty acquired in the discharge of duties

In reward for your completed service you will receive:

• A full pardon
• Fully expunged record to the outside world
• Possible career offer
• Restoration of full contractual rights, such as they may be at the time of discharge

Given this scenario, which is by no means far-fetched, it becomes clear that the typical prisoner in for the long haul and probably violent to begin with, being likely an opportunistic creature, would jump at the opportunity to escape his past with all honors if he be ready and willing to assume the risks in exchange for the certainty of decades in a cage and man-on-man sex.

We have nearly two and a half million people in prisons in America.  The environments there strongly cultivate anger and pathological behavior and attitudes.  Living in such places is hellish for most and while some may be incapable of "making it" on the outside, the offer of freedom in an environment that provides strong support in the transition to the outside world might be just enough to make even those otherwise reticent souls jump at the opportunity to make a clean break from the past.

With such strong motivating factors at play, coupled with the right program of psychological conditioning, it appears to me that the US prison population stands as a premier source from which an organization such as DHS could pull resources with which to suppress rebellion with perfect cruelty and efficiency.

Until next time, please accept my best regards.

A New Paradigm of Law

These days we find endless reference made to "rule of law", as well as an almost incomprehensibly manic devotion toward law in popular cultural outlets such as film and television.  This slavish idolatry of law is enough to leave the intelligent man brain-numb for its utter lack of sense, particularly given that the law has almost universally devolved into an institution of arbitrary and unjust prohibition and mandate, posing far and away greater dangers to the individual than it does protections.

Many nations presume themselves superior and more "civilized" than others because they operate under "rule of law".  Such nations often beat their chests as they boast of their augmented moral positions as places where rule of law reigns supreme.  What appears to escape anymeaningful examination is the fact that the vast and overwhelming majority of so-called "law" is immorally, ignorantly, and criminally conceived, drafted, enacted, and enforced.

Thomas Jefferson referred to the law as often being nothing more than the tyrant's whim.  A truer assessment has perhaps yet to be made, and yet, not all law is absent of proper moral substance.  Few people will argue that murder laws are morally unsupportable, yet laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, the bearing of a firearm, or securing the services of a prostitute chafe against a great many people; a great majority, in fact.

Clearly, then, it may be said that there are two types of law: those that have the respect of the average man and those that earn his contempt.  But how can this be?  Is the law not the great and unassailable foundation of all properly civilized nations?  The answer to that would depend largely upon one's definitions and the presumptions under which he labors.

Suffice it to say that regardless of the commonly presumed normative values, the positive reality is that much of what is called "law" is despised, hated, often feared, and largely disregarded by enormous numbers of people.  Here we refer to ordinary and good people with no criminality about them whose innate senses of justice and propriety tell them that one law is acceptable whereas another is not.

Dictionaries, including Black's Law Dictionary (BLD) define "crime" in a most painfully absurd way, basically asserting that a crime is nothing more than a violation of written and enacted law.  This is yet another glaring example of just how ignorant, corrupt, or fundamentally stupid "legal thought" is.  What such a definition tells us is that a crime is whatever some arbitrarily constituted body of men say it is and therein after all are compelled to act in accord with the dictates, mandates, prohibitions, and other fiats as the so-called "law" may specify.  The utter absurdity of this would be difficult to overstate.

In the world of American jurisprudence, which derives strongly from English law, there are two basic categories of law.  The first is commonly referred to as crimes  mala in se.  Such are the true crimes that would include murder, rape, theft, robbery, assault, and destruction of property.  In other words, the acts are in themselves evil because they result in a harm being brought to another where there can be no justification for doing so.

The other category of crimes are those mala prohibita, meaning those acts or failures to act that are arbitrarily assessed as being criminal and become therefore punishable even though no actual crime has been committed.  Examples of crimes mala prohibita are almost without end, but a short sample list might include the following:

• Speeding
• Drug use/possession/distribution
• Soliciting the services of a prostitute
• Engaging in oral sex or other "deviant" sexual practice
• Possession, distribution, or production of pornography
• Flying an aircraft without a license
• Operating an unregistered vehicle on public roads
• Building a house without permits
• Using dynamite to remove tree stumps
• Making explosive materials
• Burning your own house down
• Walking nude on a public sidewalk
• Failing to file an income tax statement
• Bearing weapons for all morally justifiable purposes
• Attempting to commit suicide

The list of crimes mala prohibita is enormous and, far more disturbing, utterly arbitrary.  The "logic" upon which such statutes are built and their enactment justified defies all rationality.  So wildly fallacious are the foundations upon which such laws are constructed and foisted upon the people of a nation as to do profound violence to one's sense of credulity.  That such huge populations of otherwise and presumably rational persons have allowed this brand of raving insanity to  arise, much less continue, destroying countless lives in the course of time is an aspect of human nature that must mystify God himself, leaving him scratching his own head in utterly failing comprehension of the behavior of his creation.

As we can see, a core issue here lies with the current, profoundly flawed definition of "crime".  Given that definition, crimes mala prohibita are secured their legal credibility for there is nothing in the definition of "crime" that places any requirements or other restrictions on the formulation of new and improved crimes.  The door is left widely open, and the bottom line is basically this: anything goes for which you can get away with life and limb.  That is the underlying principle upon which such law is built, which does not even qualify as the purely pragmatic, for pragmatism often has an understandable basis for its choices.  What we are examining here does not rise even to that meager standard, but rather nothing better than rank caprice and whim.

Given the definition of "crime", we find ourselves hip-deep in the nightmare of the purely arbitrary where any action may be redefined as a crime.  The implications of this are so profound and broad that "staggering" barely cuts the descriptive mustard.  In this world, it is a literal truth that virtually anything goes because there is nothing in terms of identified principle that delimits legislative action.  We can forget, for example, the dictates of the United States Constitution.  Why?  Because Congress forgets them routinely and any time that "old rag" becomes inconvenient to the goals and objectives of that hopeless body of dangerously foolish persons.

Because of the principles involved - or the lack of them, depending on how one chooses to view the situation - the only thing limiting what Congress may enact is the murderous ire of the people.  Thus far, the people have proven almost infinitely forbearing and therefore that little protection is essentially no protection at all.

Given this, there is absolutely nothing in principle to stop Congress from re-enacting Jim Crow laws.  But why stop at so timid a reach?  Why not just enact a law wherein one population is obliged to hunt another?  Perhaps they will instruct black people to hunt the whites, gather them together, and send them back to Africa.  It may sound crazy, but it is no more so than sending the black ones "back".  How can one be returned to a place they've yet to go initially?

How about a mandate for all women to wear the burka pursuant to sharia law?  How about death by stoning for all women failing to comply?

Yes, these are all wildly insane notions, and yet there is nothing to which one may point in terms of formal and enforceable principle that bars the enactment of such laws by necessity.  Forty years ago, who would have ever imagined laws such as PATRIOT and NDAA could ever see the light of enactment?  To have then predicted a day when such insanity would reign over the United States would have had those around you reaching for the phone to dial the nice men in white jackets to take you back to your padded cell and heavy thorazine load.  And yet, look at us now living under this leaden-grey pall as a matter of daily course, the Congress having enacted these outrageous assaults upon the sovereign rights of the people of America with virtual impunity.

It cannot be overly emphasized just how open-ended this process is and how unimaginably dangerous.  Please take the time to fully consider and appreciate just what it means to wield such arbitrary power.  Nothing is safe; not your rights, your health, family, possessions, investments, food sources, water, air, and so forth.  There is literally nothing that the legislators cannot touch precisely because there is no framework of principles to which the ordinary man may turn as a standard of assessment for judging that which the hand of government has wrought.  Without such a standard, there is nothing against which arbitrary law may be judged for legitimacy in accord with rational, complete, and correct principles of human relations.

Arguing against unjust statutes with "I don't like it", "it just feels wrong", and so forth avails one nothing.  One must be able to point to a rational and correct standard of judgment if they are to hold even the least reasonable hope of prevailing in such argumentation when resisting injustice.  But what should that standard be?

The answer may not be exactly easy, but there is at least one place where we can start: the very definition of "crime".  As we have previously seen, the current definitions are so freakishly absurd as to defy belief.  It is the circular meaninglessness of the word itself that must be corrected prior to moving forward.

Let us examine this a little more closely.  As is often the case, it is a good idea to begin with a definition or two.  From Black's Law Dictionary, "crime" is defined:


CRIME. A positive or negative act in violation of penal law; an offense against the State.

Note how the definition makes absolutely no reference to any irreducible, invariant, and objective concept or entity.  There is not so much as a single fundamental principle upon which the definition rests.  According to this definition, a crime is any act in violation of law, yet the metes and bounds of law are essentially nonexistent in any objective terms.  The metes and bounds as measured on Monday morning may not be the same as those measured by that afternoon.  "Crime" floats freely in the currents of the capricious ether.

In other words, the metes and bounds of that which constitutes a crime are whatever the legislator says they are and with which he can get away without those whom he ostensibly serves turning on him with torches and pitchforks.  Crime by this definition becomes nothing definite and upon which one may rely to learn, know, understand, and trust as a concept because it may be redefined at any time and for any reason whatsoever with no objective and rational rhyme or reason.  Crime may become the product of pure whim, devoid of any quality to which a man may point and call just, reasonable, or even tolerable.

As such, we are not only  not free, but are in fact  reduced to the status of abject slaves precisely because the legislator can in principle pass any law he wishes with almost guaranteed impunity.  This is the core principle at work in our world today.  There may be practical limitations at any given moment, but those can change arbitrarily and with no necessity of predictability.

Once again, from Black's, the definition of "law":


LAW. That which is laid down, ordained, or established.  That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, subject to sanctions or legal consequences, is a "law."

Note here that nowhere does it make any mention of the source of establishment or by what objective basis law must be obeyed.  It simply states what law is.  Note also that the definitions of both "crime" and "law" are mutually circular in a vaguely implicit fashion. A crime is a violation of a law that defines a crime.  Taken as a whole, the true message is that law and crime are whatever those claiming power and authority say they are and for which the people will maintain tolerance.

When one stops to think about this with due care, this foundation upon which law as a practical matter is built is so shockingly flawed, so ridiculous, and so threatening to the rights and well being of the individual as to defy belief that this is the product of rational and benign minds.  No nominally sane and reasonable child, much less an adult, would accept this as sound and just.

For the sake of a better rounded awareness, let us finally take from Black's the definition for "justice", from which we may then understand what it means to be "just":

JUSTICE: In Jurisprudence. The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due.

Given these definitions and if we will be so bold as to presume that the goal of law is justice, how possibly can justice be served if laws and crimes are by their very definitions utterly arbitrary with no principled and immutable mechanism of restraint?  The crystal clear and unequivocal answer is that it cannot be served under such conditions with any faith and reliability from the standpoints of those whom the law purports to serve.

If this is indeed the case, what then is to be done about it, if anything?

The answer, in practice, is difficult.  In theory, however, it is rather simple, elegant, and straightforward.  Let us therefore confine ourselves with the theory, for once we come to apprehend the what, it then becomes better possible to determine the how.

If we begin at the beginning by asking the question of why we should even have law, the concept of justice rapidly comes to mind: to render every man his due.  But what is a man's due?  That answer has proven elusive for many, yet it is plain and simple: his rights.  Nothing more, and nothing less.   For a brief discussion on that topic, see "The Canon Of Individual Sovereignty".  The Canon derives a small handful of fundamental principles by which all proper human relations are conducted.  It provides the irreducible and invariant foundation upon which all other human endeavors are built and to which they must yield and stand secondary.  Without this immutable barrier beyond which none may pass, there exists no solid, reliable, and trustworthy standard by which one may judge his own actions as well as those of his fellows.  It is the simple standard by which one may know right action from wrong.

With such a standard in hand, one may then turn to the notion of justice, which by the given definition concerns itself with ensuring that which is due to all men, which is nothing more or less than his rights, his just claims to life.  Having apprehended this knowledge, it then becomes possible to discard the hopelessly wrong definitions of "crime" and "law" in favor of the correct ones.  To that end, let us see whether we can at least arrive at a respectable first draft of each term.

Redefinition of CRIME: Any unjustifiable act, whether positive or negative, whereby the actor brings demonstrable, qualified, and possibly quantifiable harm to another without the other's consent and in violation of the his rights.

Note the careful wording.  In order for a crime to have been committed, the act must bring harm to another  in an unjustifiable way and that harm must be objectively demonstrable in terms of character and possibly quantity.  By this definition, murder is clearly a crime, whereas killing in defense of life, limb, and property is not because defense is a justifying basis for action.  Likewise, though perhaps emotionally less convincing for some, if one man kills another as per the other's request and it can be shown that the request was made freely and without coercion, no crime has occurred.

Theft is a crime because the thief has brought harm to his victim in the form of removing property that is not his to take.

Redefinition of LAW: That which is laid down, ordained, or established to address issues of crimes committed by one person or group against another person or group.  That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, such that no crime be committed and to which one may be subject to sanctions or legal consequences for violation, is a "law."

With these two new definitions at hand, the practical matter of law in both terms of enactment and administration take on an entirely new character.  Because "crime" is clearly defined such that its metes and bounds are specified in terms of irreducible principles or its derivatives, the formulation of law is now constrained because "law" is now defined very specifically as addressing "issues of crime".  If a proposed bill fails to address an issue of crime, then even if it be enacted it is still not a law and people would therefore be under no obligation to comply with its mandates and restrictions.

Additionally, this restructuring of law based on the new definitions eliminates all crimes mala prohibita because no harm may be demonstrated to have been caused.  For example, if I carry a firearm or other weapon for all morally legitimate purposes, no man or institution may charge me with a crime because the bearing of arms brings no harm to others.  If Johnny Dumb decides he is going to start purchasing heroin and inject it into his veins, the act per se brings no unwelcome harm to others and therefore no crime exists. If, however, after having injected himself with heroin he gets into his automobile and injures someone due to his drug induced incapacity, he would be guilty of having brought harm to another, a crime, and his use of heroin and the irresponsible choice he made to operate a vehicle resulting in injury to a third part could well be regarded as an aggravating factor.

If justice is indeed a worthy goal and is to be properly served, the law and its practice must be sensible to the common man, reasonable, reliable, and must engender a sense of trust in those whom it ostensibly serves. It must, in a word, be just. Anything less than this renders law of less than zero value, for it becomes the agent and instrument of the very harms from which it is supposed to protect us.

While I am sure my proposed alterations could strand some improvement, I am confident that this is a reasonable start.  I hold no illusions of this ever coming to pass, but it is nevertheless a good thing to give people something to which to turn their thoughts, especially in times as troubled as these where usurpers and tyrants run amok across the face of the planet in endless violation and destruction of human freedom and prosperity.

Until next time, please accept my fondest wishes.