Segui post taggati #freedoms tra pochi secondi.Registrati
“The public library is a true American invention. Perhaps no other place captures the values of freedom of expression and democracy like this venerable institution. Libraries represent what we should never take for granted: the freedom to read, the freedom to choose and the freedom to share our ideas.”—Luis Herrera, the city librarian of San Francisco, in the New York Times Op/Ed “More Relevant Than Ever”
Stevens: “Raul Has To Be Given The Same Freedoms That Ribery” ! http://newish.info/22320-stevens-raul-has-to-be-given-the-same-freedoms-that-ribery
Stevens: “Raul Has To Be Given The Same Freedoms That Ribery” : http://newish.info/22320-stevens-raul-has-to-be-given-the-same-freedoms-that-ribery
I get to wear make-up when I turn 15.
Which is in a few more weeks. When I actually turn 15 I will probably just practice using make up and probably stick to eyeliner, keeping it understated for a while. I don’t even feel like wearing make up now that I can… My mom still won’t let me get my hair done at a salon and she hates the idea of wasting money on manis and pedis. I agree! I don’t need my hair professionally done anyway, how difficult is it to use a flat iron to curl hair? Also, I get to dye my hair, which I don’t know about (maybe just a dip dye). I’ll use a little of my birthday money to get my first liquid eyeliner. I’ve been watching make-up tutorials since I was 13! :D
“The ‘liberal arts’ are called that for a reason: they are the skills and ideas that are appropriate for free people. Back in ancient Rome that meant: people who are not slaves. Today it means: people who have the skills necessary to govern themselves and undertake the collective effort of steering our republic. Education for citizenship is a unique challenge because the world is a uncertain place, and solving the problems we face as a country is not like learning a recipe or performing rote work.”—In America education should produce citizens, not workers | Savage Minds
Rights vs. Reality?
I’ve read, over the last while, a lot of strange internet commentary on rights.
Weird assertions like “You cannot vote about rights” and other delusional statements.
There seems to be a lot of confusion over what a right is.
I’ll paraphrase John Ralston Saul here (I believe this was from the 1995 Massey Lecture which was an adaptation of his book The Unconscious Civilization, but I’m a bit fuzzy there). You can have a right, or you can have a freedom. A right, must by definition, take away a freedom. If I wish the right to keep unwanted strangers off my property, then I must sacrifice the freedom to wander at my liberty. Heck, if I want property, then I give up equal access to everything. It is not the case that the loss of a freedom is negative or positive; if there are no laws, secular or social, then everything is permitted. The right to be physically unmolested by most strangers is a right enjoyed by many of us in the west, and we are happy to give up the freedom to molest without consequence as it clearly is a freedom worth giving up for the resulting protections. Of course, The State has mechanisms to supersede said rights, and even in the most enlightened of countries agents of The State, such as police officers, can violate almost every right they’ve granted you. Rights come at a cost, and it’s not an even playing field.
Rights are granted. They are NOT intrinsic, and a right must be conceived of before it is granted. Rights are granted to deal with emergent problems. I do not have the right to think about pink elephants, but I am free to think of them. It has never been the case where others have interfered with my ability to think of pink elephants and had an impact on my life. I could be granted this right, and a system can be set up to enforce this right, if I was successfully able to lobby to get it enacted. Rights are living things, some old ones disappear as they context of the world around them changes. No one would demand the right to have an expert phrenologist testify at a trial in their defence these days. New ones emerge as the world changes, you would now want the right for legal recourse from online crimes that didn’t exist 20 years ago. Rights are granted, and taken away, they do not have any inherent existence.
In an enlightened society, rights are always voted upon. They may not be voted on directly by the citizens by referendum, but are most certainly voted upon by the elected proxies of the majority of a population. There is no other way to assert a right’s existence since you need the consent of The State to enact it and to enforce it. In a less enlightened society rights are mostly dictated, but they remain a political and legal construct. They do not, under any analysis, have intrinsic existence.
If we accept, which I think I’ve argued, that all rights are a social and legal convention, then how do they have meaning? They can only have meaning through enforcement. Although there exist social mechanisms for rights and enforcement within a community or subculture, I hope you forgive me for not including them in the scope of my discussions. They are subject to the same forces, but I find it easier to discuss on an individual and State level. A right must be not only enforceable but when violated enforcement must take place. Many so-called universal human rights fall into the set of unenforceable rights. For example, Article 25 subsection 1 of the declaration of human rights says all people have a right to food (among other things whose supply are not necessarily within the power of anyone to assure. It also does not offer any protection from religion. Basically, I’m not impressed with the document, but I digress). This is unenforceable. Somalia is now in a famine, and there is not enough food to go around. Since this declaration of the UN does not cite force majeure as an exception nor does it say who shall supply these concepts and items, including food, the Somalis are clearly having their rights violated. Yet how can we talk about rights when there cannot exist a method of enforcement? A right that is declared and valued by the citizenry but is not enforced, either due to apathy of The State or in deference to a special interest group (such as the enforced servitude of women justified by religious dogma) then that right is without meaning. The right, inasmuch as it exists, is used as PR to the rest of the world and a carrot on a stick, that if the citizenry give up enough maybe they will be given actual protection the right seems to promise, but it has no functional meaning. All because a right exists doesn’t mean it’s existence has any meaning or consequence.
People approach rights like selfish children clutching everything they can and screaming “MINE!”. They claim rights that don’t exist, can’t be upheld or that crush other peoples freedoms in disgusting ways (such as so-called “anti-blasphemy laws”). Rights are not entitlements, they are hard fought for, and if you think they give you power, especially power over the state, I hope you never have to learn how wrong you are.
So, how is my head up my ass about this?
So tonight’s my last night being eighteen years old.
I don’t know why nights like this always seems so important to me. Every day gone is different. I’ll never have October 11th, 2011 back, so why is October 12, 2011 any different? A year is only 365 days long because humans decided that it was. The day and night are really the only measurements of time that is built into nature. The rest of it is all decided by us.
I know this, and yet I’m still always sad to see it go. I wasn’t prepared to turn eighteen. I never really felt old enough to be eighteen. And tomorrow I’m going to be nineteen.
I don’t understand.
In so many ways, I still wish I was 14 years old. I hated how people were, and I hated how I was treated, but I was taken care of in so many different ways. I had so much more freedom. You think that the older you get, the more freedom you get, but in some ways it really doesn’t feel that way. You also have so much more responsibility that it almost creates more barriers.
I’m still really lucky now, though. I have a wonderful roommate who cares so much about me, and a fantastic boyfriend who has been bending over backwards to take care of me, especially in these past couple of days. Some people my age are really alone, and I’m not. Sometimes I feel like I am, but honestly, it’s just because I’m melodramatic and make things out to be so much worse than they actually are. I also have the best mom in the world who is doing the best she can to help me, even from the other side of the country.
So really, in this case, age is just a number. I’m not going to be any “older” tomorrow than I am today. The number that I call myself may change, but I’m really not going to be any different yet.
“The day after the attack -- one which, per capita, was as significant for Norway as 9/11 was for the U.S. -- Oslo Mayor Fabian Stang, when asked whether greater security measures were needed, sternly rejected that notion: 'I don't think security can solve problems. We need to teach greater respect.' It is simply inconceivable that any significant U.S. politician -- the day after an attack of that magnitude -- would publicly reject calls for greater security measures.”—An un-American response to the Oslo attack
“I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.”—Rand Paul, detailing the long-held libertarian philosophy of arbitrarily limiting speech by jailing those who might have paid attention to such forbidden speech or otherwise come into contact with any kind of inconvenient political speech.