In this thread Meister argued you can tell what rights you have by referring to the correct paperwork, not by say, referring to the reality you are faced with:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1769497620/225

But he could not answer the simple question:

Do you believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

He gives several dozen "responses" to the question, but not a single answer.

Rights are permissions to do, or protections against impositions.

They require an acknowledged authority to grant a right; an authority that commits to protecting those rights from those who would confront you when you exercise that right or impose on you where they must not.

In the myth of a state's right to exist, the myth's grantor, if not a nation-state, is usually a metaphysical being, as is the case with Israel.

That someone confronts you exercising that right is not an indication that the right doesn't exist.

Rights are moral categories.  They are about standards of conduct, behaviour, interaction. And since all interactions are contextual, rights are discerned in a particular context.

Morality it is. Putin has the moral right to Ukraine and the US to own Venezuela and Greenland and world trade.  US is righter than others.  This is neatly balanced by Russia's larger nuke benefits which give it the world.

chimera wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 6:18am:

Morality it is. Putin has the moral right to Ukraine and the US to own Venezuela and Greenland and world trade.  US is righter than others.  This is neatly balanced by Russia's larger nuke benefits which give it the world.

American assertions of 'manifest destiny' and exceptionalism are backed by force of arms, not moral justifications or 'natural rights' as expounded in the Declaration of Independence, nor codified in the Constitution.

Monroe's so-called doctrine back in 1823 was a 'wouldn't it be nice if'... the British, Spanish and French quit the Americas. It was not, at the time, a doctrine the nascent US could back by force. It was an aspiration for future total hegemony in North America.

Morality is a main pillar of the granting of rights. But it's not the only one.

No one has a moral right to own, say, 10,000 Hectares of land or 20 houses they don't use... under our system, they can have a legal right to own them, insofar as our system recognises and defends the right for individuals to own more than they need or use.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 7^th, 2026 at 9:26pm:

Rights are permissions to do, or protections against impositions. They require an acknowledged authority to grant a right; an authority that commits to protecting those rights from those who would confront you when you exercise that right or impose on you where they must not. In the myth of a state's right to exist, the myth's grantor, if not a nation-state, is usually a metaphysical being, as is the case with Israel. That someone confronts you exercising that right is not an indication that the right doesn't exist.

Do you believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

Trump nearly trumped Congress on Jan 6 which proves the US myth is fake. The Kennedy Center is fake, for sure to be and all.
Statue of Liberty is hollow.

chimera wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 7:58am:

Statue of Liberty is hollow.

And French.

The French received the royal privilege. "Dieu et mon droit" (French for "God and my right") is the official motto of the British monarch, representing the divine right of the sovereign to rule. It signifies that the monarch is "Rex Angliae Dei gratia" (King of England by the grace of God) and is not subject to earthly authority.' (except George Washington)

The Italian French kings of Poms are right and owned France until the mob took over.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 7:45am:

chimera wrote on Feb 8th, 2026 at 6:18am: Morality it is. Putin has the moral right to Ukraine and the US to own Venezuela and Greenland and world trade.  US is righter than others.  This is neatly balanced by Russia's larger nuke benefits which give it the world. American assertions of 'manifest destiny' and exceptionalism are backed by force of arms, not moral justifications or 'natural rights' as expounded in the Declaration of Independence, nor codified in the Constitution. Monroe's so-called doctrine back in 1823 was a 'wouldn't it be nice if'... the British, Spanish and French quit the Americas. It was not, at the time, a doctrine the nascent US could back by force. It was an aspiration for future total hegemony in North America.

And the drawing of the line at Mexico was not that the US ran out of manifest destiny, it was the realisation that the invasion and incorporation of Mexico into the Union would mean the ultimate naturalisation of Mexicans as US citizens.

Canada was another story... After multiple wars and treaties, the US decided to live with their British northern neighbours.

https://astorlegal.com.au/miranda-rights-and-the-right-to-silence-australia/


Miranda Rights and the Right to Silence Australia

Posted by Avinash Singh, on November 25, 2024


In Australia, the right to remain silent is an important legal safeguard, though it differs from the well-known Miranda Rights in the United States.

Common law and legislation in Australia set out that refusing to answer police questions generally cannot be used against you. However, there are some exceptions in serious criminal matters.


What Are Miranda Rights?

The Miranda Rights, originating from a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case involving Ernesto Miranda, is a statement read by police to individuals being arrested to inform them of their rights. This process is known as being “Mirandized.” You may have watched this happening in Hollywood films and TV, but Miranda Rights apply only in the United States. The Miranda Rights read as follows:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?”.

chimera wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 8:12am:

The French received the royal privilege. "Dieu et mon droit" (French for "God and my right") is the official motto of the British monarch, representing the divine right of the sovereign to rule. It signifies that the monarch is "Rex Angliae Dei gratia" (King of England by the grace of God) and is not subject to earthly authority.' (except George Washington)

The Pope added Fidei Defensor later.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 8:14am:

https://astorlegal.com.au/miranda-rights-and-the-right-to-silence-australia/ Miranda Rights and the Right to Silence Australia Posted by Avinash Singh, on November 25, 2024 In Australia, the right to remain silent is an important legal safeguard, though it differs from the well-known Miranda Rights in the United States. Common law and legislation in Australia set out that refusing to answer police questions generally cannot be used against you. However, there are some exceptions in serious criminal matters. What Are Miranda Rights? The Miranda Rights, originating from a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case involving Ernesto Miranda, is a statement read by police to individuals being arrested to inform them of their rights. This process is known as being “Mirandized.” You may have watched this happening in Hollywood films and TV, but Miranda Rights apply only in the United States. The Miranda Rights read as follows: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?”.

Yep, and in the US, silence itself cannot be used against you in a court of law. In Australia, silence can be... as in, 'If it's true you had an alibi, why didn't you inform the arresting officers at the time?'

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 7:45am:

American assertions of 'manifest destiny' and exceptionalism are backed by force of arms, not moral justifications or 'natural rights' as expounded in the Declaration of Independence, nor codified in the Constitution.

Trump doesn't keep silent about that.  If America is first it must have manifest destiny, which is great and Republicans have the right or they will lose their country.

Meister what do you normally do when a theory contradicts reality? Do you ditch the theory, or do you attempt to ditch reality?

chimera wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 8:30am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 8th, 2026 at 7:45am: American assertions of 'manifest destiny' and exceptionalism are backed by force of arms, not moral justifications or 'natural rights' as expounded in the Declaration of Independence, nor codified in the Constitution. Trump doesn't keep silent about that.  If America is first it must have manifest destiny, which is great and Republicans have the right or they will lose their country.

Yep, the US generally asserts in practise, a divine right to rule wherever it perceives its interests require it... and by whatever means necessary.

freediver wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 8:32am:

Meister what do you normally do when a theory contradicts reality? Do you ditch the theory, or do you attempt to ditch reality?

Rights are neither theory nor reality... they are assertions of principles that often run counter to theory and reality.

They can contradict, agree with both, or agree with neither.

For example, where in the Weltanschauung of the framers of the US Constitution did they observe that all men are created equal?

It wasn't reality, and, by their keeping of slaves, it wasn't even a theory they held.

Quote:

Rights are neither theory nor reality... they are assertions of principles that often run counter to theory and reality.

So the question "what rights do you have in reality?" is impossible for you to answer? You can only answer the question "what rights do you have on paper?" And when the paperwork and reality are at odds, the paperwork is the only source of truth?

freediver wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 8:45am:

Quote: Rights are neither theory nor reality... they are assertions of principles that often run counter to theory and reality. So the question "what rights do you have in reality?" is impossible for you to answer? You can only answer the question "what rights do you have on paper?" And when the paperwork and reality are at odds, the paperwork is the only source of truth?

How else can you, say, purchase land, a commodity, own property, marry a spouse... without a document or (in non-literate cultures) formal authoritative recognition? I guess you could tattoo your insignia onto your spouse's forehead... although your insignia would need to be acknowledged by your community as your right of ownership by marriage.

If rights do not exist in reality, how can you tell whether reality conflicts with the paperwork?

Is this question impossible for you answer: what rights do you have in reality?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 8:41am:

did they observe that all men are created equal? It wasn't reality, and, by their keeping of slaves, it wasn't even a theory they held.

'Fertilization and implantation into the uterine lining forms a diploid zygote with 46 chromosomes.
The zygote divides into 16 cells becoming a morula and develops into a blastocyst of an inner cell mass and the trophoblast (outer layer). The blastocyst sheds its zona pellucida,  and embeds into the endometrial lining in Apposition  or Adhesion where the embryo sticks to the uterine lining and the blastocyst penetrates the endometrium where the trophoblast cells secrete human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG).

This produces wage-slaves and cannon fodder for the top of the government pyramid.

freediver wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 9:00am:

If rights do not exist in reality, how can you tell whether reality conflicts with the paperwork? Is this question impossible for you answer: what rights do you have in reality?

You ask questions like a child...

Define the reality whereby rights naturally exist without having been proposed by aspiration, principles or deeply held convictions... ones that often contradict reality and are not supported by any theory.

Where does the right to remain silent come from? A mine in South Africa?

And how do you even talk about the rights that exist in reality if you insist on defining them out of existence? Have you invented an alternative lexicon to use when talking about reality, or do you simply refuse to acknowledge reality? I guess, based on your elaborate tapdancing, it is the latter.

Children are often very good at acknowledging reality. They haven't been brainwashed yet. If you cannot explain yourself to a child, it probably means you don't really understand what you are talking about. Do you remember mocking people like that when you were a kid? Or were you drawn to them as an example for you to follow?

freediver wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 9:10am:

And how do you even talk about the rights that exist in reality if you insist on defining them out of existence? Have you invented an alternative lexicon to use when talking about reality, or do you simply refuse to acknowledge reality?

I'm stating the brutal facts of rights. You're imagining rights the way a 10-year-old would.

The ultimate, inarguable, authoritative nature of our respective cultures' supreme beings is usually how we teach children to understand that 'rights are real and come from god'.

freediver wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 9:10am:

Children are often very good at acknowledging reality. They haven't been brainwashed yet. If you cannot explain yourself to a child, it probably means you don't really understand what you are talking about. Do you remember mocking people like that when you were a kid? Or were you drawn to them?

If you've had kids, you'd know that they go through a stage of questioning everything one step beyond where you'd rather stop.

'Where do rights come from'... 'From the law'

'Where does the law come from?'... 'from the government'

'Where does the government come from?'... 'from the people'

'Where do the people come from?'... 'From... god'.

'Where does god come from?'... 'Righto... that's enough... eat your dinner'.

Right from the word root *reg- "move in a straight line," also "to rule, to lead straight, to put right".

Nature has no straight lines or kings (regal) but some people claim a royal line after centuries but could be wrong.

So it is the latter?

chimera wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 9:24am:

Right from the word root *reg- "move in a straight line," also "to rule, to lead straight, to put right". Nature has no straight lines or kings (regal) but some people claim a royal line after centuries but could be wrong.

Yep... Edward IV... 6 foot four... taller than all his relatives... born 10 months after his father, Richard of York, left for military campaigns.

Now there's a proof that all are born equal.  You could be Edward XXXIV....
are you?

Awwright... throw freediver a bone...

Even a dog, mistreated by its owner, appears to have an instinct for what is right... a capuchin monkey knows when it's treated unfairly...

Where do these instincts come from? What do they imply?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 9:34am:

Awwright... throw freediver a bone... Even a dog, mistreated by its owner, appears to have an instinct for what is right... a capuchin monkey knows when it's treated unfairly... Where do these instincts come from? What do they imply?

A moral human universe.



Animals do not behave morally with each other. The zebra is never treated 'unfairly by the lion, the mouse unfairly by the the cat.

Morals and therefore rights are human categories, human values.

Other animals have been shown to recognise moral, or at least fair, behaviour.

freediver wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 10:42am:

Other animals have been shown to recognise moral, or at least fair, behaviour.

In the eyes of human - ie moral - observers. See Aesop's Fables, or La Fontain, Mandeville, Graham etc.


The pecking order in a pack of wolves or dogs is not a moral construct by the animals.

Frank wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 10:37am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 8th, 2026 at 9:34am: Awwright... throw freediver a bone... Even a dog, mistreated by its owner, appears to have an instinct for what is right... a capuchin monkey knows when it's treated unfairly... Where do these instincts come from? What do they imply? A moral human universe. Animals do not behave morally with each other. The zebra is never treated 'unfairly by the lion, the mouse unfairly by the the cat. Morals and therefore rights are human categories, human values.

Yep... And yet, a capuchin monkey appears to manifest a comprehension of 'fair play' in that if it is not rewarded in kind for the same action performed by another capuchin, it protests loudly.

A mistreated dog appears to demonstrate a sense that it knows its mistreatment is unfair when, finally, it attacks its owner.

Copulation with father-daughter, mother-son mammals seems to be taboo... even among the extreme free-sex animal 'hippies', Bonobos.

Elephants protect young, even when it's not a carnivore hunting them. A calf was directed back into the herd.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-15/elephants-huddle-to-protect-calves-during-san-diego-earthquake/105177870

chimera wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 12:14pm:

Elephants protect young, even when it's not a carnivore hunting them. A calf was directed back into the herd. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-15/elephants-huddle-to-protect-calves-during-san-diego-earthquake/105177870

Not a moral behaviour.
They are not protecting the rights of their young.

The adults were extending their concern to the young who seemed unaware. It wasn't self-defence by the adults when there was no visible attacker. Young complied with community policy.

Another example is a brown snake that negotiated with me by turning sideways to display the fangs clearly and held that position to make it clear. Then it came halfway toward me, stopped and eyeballed me. I took one step back, negotiations over and snake didn't attack but turned back to what it had been doing. That needed calculation, calmness and response to reaction.  Those relate to balanced behaviour.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of examples where higher-order mammals show what appear to be moral behaviour or awareness of rights.

When lionesses make a kill, the first to eat is the alpha lion, who... well... takes the lion's share - eats first and longest, even if the lionesses together could take him on.

When the lion is rough-housing with one or more of his brothers or cousins and accidentally injures one of them, it immediately knows to back off.

When a small baboon is being monstered by a bigger one, it runs for a baby and cradles it. This act immediately pacifies the larger one, who moves on to another weak baboon.

When rats are wrestling, experienced rats know to allow the less experienced rat to occasionally win.

Even non-rights can be rights. A 'rookery' is where birds steal sticks from each other for nests.  The benefit is mutual....