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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?”.

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

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?'

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

'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.

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:

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'.

So it is the latter?

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

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



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.

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



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.

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...

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.

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

Of course, animals can’t demonstrate morality and express or respect rights in the way humans do… animals do not get to choose their behaviour by reason, and, with morality, a component of behaviour being considered moral is the choice to act contrary to it. If you couldn’t but act morally….

Frank wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 3:40pm:

Moral behaviour requires an underlying set of decisions / attitudes/ whatever. One person's right means others willingly constrain themselves to allow it.  It means a concept of 'group'.
Elephants particularly need to belong to a group for mental well-being. (many species need their herd). Ducks almost commit suicide to divert an attacker's attention from ducklings.

chimera wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 4:19pm:


Instinctive animal behaviour is not driven by moral considerations.  No duck ever say, 'bugger it, I'm going fishing instead". No elephant identifies as a giraffe or a meercat.

The point of morality is rooted in freedom - you could act otherwise.

chimera wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 4:43pm:

Idiot.

chimera wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 5:17pm:

I have.

Reason and freedom that comes with it.

We have them (not you, perhaps), animals don't.

A moral act is the freely chosen expression of ideal behaviour within a given context. It could be mowing the lawns of the old lady next door, or helping an old lady cross the road, or even a chicken, or in a specific context, it could be the old lady throwing herself onto her husband’s funeral pyre.

"What rights do you have?"

It seems to me, that the quality of my 'rights' [living in Australia],
were more tangible and real 50 years ago, than my 'rights' are today.

Why is that so ?



But aside from the above......
My creator endowed me with a right,
to live [within this house of clay],
until the day that i will die.

My creator endowed me with a right, during my sojourn here,
to make [many] choices [and He also enabled me, to observe and ponder the consequences of my choices],
until the day that i die.

And also......for me to either celebrate those choices i made, or, on reflection, to repent of them.


Yadda, is a repenter.


.


Deuteronomy 8:2
And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God
led thee these forty years in the wilderness,
to humble thee, and to prove thee,
to know what was in thine heart,
whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.


Psalms 119:45
And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.
46  I will speak of thy testimonies also before kings,
and will not be ashamed.
47  And I will delight myself in thy commandments,
which I have loved.
48  My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved;
and I will meditate in thy statutes.


Psalms 119:176
I have gone astray like a lost sheep;
seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments.


.





[Jesus said]....
John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.


Matthew 19:17
[Jesus said].....if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18  He saith unto him, Which?
Jesus said,
Thou shalt do no murder,
Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not steal,
Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19  Honour thy father and thy mother: and,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


John 15:10
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love;
even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.


Psalms 119:1
Blessed are the undefiled in the way,
who walk in the law of the LORD.


Why ???

Why are those who   'walk in the law of the LORD'   deemed to be, 'blessed' ???

Frank wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 8:36pm:



Wash out your mouth off your keyboard...with carbolic soap.

Oh that is so cruel frank.

Suggesting that i am Brian #02




Matthew 24:9
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you:
and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10  And then shall many be offended,
and shall betray one another,
and shall hate one another.

Frank wrote on Feb 8^th, 2026 at 8:36pm:



frank,

Many of us cling so strongly to what we think that we have in this life.

"the pride of life"



But what do we, individually, have ?

Only a 'dependency', on what we, individually, have come to believe, and to accept.

That which is 'in our life' and which is 'in this world', it is all 'vanity' mate.



We each posses 'self awareness'.

And where does that 'self awareness' go to, after we 'pass' ?

We ought to look for, seek after, enduring truth.....while we can.


1 John 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Sprintcyclist wrote Yesterday at 12:07am:

Do you think the state is just whimsically virtue-signalling when it makes good on its granting of rights by defending them, by force if necessary, with blood and treasure?

The colony of 1788 began with no rights and they were gradually permitted by HM men. But land title can be lost by government resumption and conscription can force men into the army or be jailed. Just a signature will do it.

Freemen were less free than in UK as the early governors did a yearly inspection of farms to ensure civic respectability. Convicts were assigned as slave labour.  Macquarie even flogged freemen for pinching his vegies.

Rabbit thieves were wrong until extensive "rabbit-proof" fencing (built 1901-1907), trapping, poisoning, and hunting. Rabbiting then was right.

This was government rabbiting. 'Built by the WA Government it consisted fences spanning over 3,200 km.
In 1907, a staff of 35, including 25 "fence runners" and camel drivers, were employed to maintain the fences.'

There were fines for immigrant rabbits ('illegals') which can be $250,000 today or shooting.

My set square is just off a right angle but I still believe in 90 degrees. My spirit level also is slightly off but parliaments may one day give a true outcome. Right?

Quote:


Have you ever noticed that when you chop a sentence in half, you change the meaning, and get yourself all confused?