"The right is conditional, and they have broken the conditions." Exactly so! With rights come responsibilities - this is what we, as English people, have learnt from the cradle. It is the unspoken agreement between us all and it has been trashed by socialism.
You tackled beautifully an universal issue that shouldn’t be avoided.
In US, we have many times written laws but sometimes it takes guts to apply them. In today’s essay, Jeff Childers: “… In a case that could redefine the reach of presidential war powers, the Fifth Circuit is the first to weigh whether the President can invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA) —a dusty relic of the John Adams era— to summarily deport alleged members of a Venezuelan street gang. The law, originally designed to empower the president to detain or expel nationals of hostile nations during wartime or invasion, has been used only sparingly in U.S. history— mostly during declared wars.
But Trump’s Justice Department argued that the gang Tren de Aragua, which it claims has infiltrated 40 states and is tied to Venezuela’s Maduro regime, constitutes a modern-day invasion.”
Indeed, it’s been reported that Maduro deliberately emptied his jails of violent offenders with the enjoinder to go to America. That sure looks like a kind of invasion.
The perfect explanation of how our rights should be interpreted and how our rights are unique to our culture and civilization. Those outside our culture, our nation, are not deserving the rights we enjoy by being part of the "tribe". Thank you.
Excellent. May I recommend that you check out https://substack.com/@elderofziyon ? He's been discussing this concept for a while, explaining that what is really needed is closer to a concept of universal obligations.
Thank you. Now we all know why these things have bothered us so much. Because what we all do have is a sense of justice, of rightness.
And unless you have been so battered by Propaganda that you have ceased to think for yourself any longer, you know exactly what fits that sense of justice and what doesn't.
We all start out with universal rights, but our requirements to interact with one another begins to put limits on them. We purposely abridge our rights as a compromise to form a coherent society. It’s the frisson between absolute and abridged rights, and where that border is, that is the political fight we wage every day and what keeps it all interesting…
We all start out with universal rights, but our requirements to interact with one another begin to put limits on them. We purposely abridge our rights as a compromise to form a coherent society. It’s the frisson between absolute and abridged rights, and where that border is, that is the political fight we wage every day and what keeps it all interesting…
Very good. I would leave this out though: "Welcoming an immigrant who genuinely wishes to adopt our ways and be loyal to us makes sense". Welcoming the nicer ones is less insensible than welcoming the nasty ones, but not positively sensible.
Not an accurate one. I have rights that I don’t think others are entitled to. All real rights are exclusionary to some extent. Parental rights as exclusive to those parents and those children, for instance. Another parent may have the same rights, but not over the same children unless they are their children too. I assert my rights as a citizen, whilst being unwilling to recognise the same in non citizens.
Superb essay!
"The right is conditional, and they have broken the conditions." Exactly so! With rights come responsibilities - this is what we, as English people, have learnt from the cradle. It is the unspoken agreement between us all and it has been trashed by socialism.
You tackled beautifully an universal issue that shouldn’t be avoided.
In US, we have many times written laws but sometimes it takes guts to apply them. In today’s essay, Jeff Childers: “… In a case that could redefine the reach of presidential war powers, the Fifth Circuit is the first to weigh whether the President can invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA) —a dusty relic of the John Adams era— to summarily deport alleged members of a Venezuelan street gang. The law, originally designed to empower the president to detain or expel nationals of hostile nations during wartime or invasion, has been used only sparingly in U.S. history— mostly during declared wars.
But Trump’s Justice Department argued that the gang Tren de Aragua, which it claims has infiltrated 40 states and is tied to Venezuela’s Maduro regime, constitutes a modern-day invasion.”
Indeed, it’s been reported that Maduro deliberately emptied his jails of violent offenders with the enjoinder to go to America. That sure looks like a kind of invasion.
Beautifully said. Thanks!
Referring this onward….
The perfect explanation of how our rights should be interpreted and how our rights are unique to our culture and civilization. Those outside our culture, our nation, are not deserving the rights we enjoy by being part of the "tribe". Thank you.
Excellent. May I recommend that you check out https://substack.com/@elderofziyon ? He's been discussing this concept for a while, explaining that what is really needed is closer to a concept of universal obligations.
Thanks Russell, I’ll check it out. 😀
Another good article!
Magna Carta 1215 - where they wrote down what people already knew about right and wrong.
Another excellent piece Daniel…thanks for putting it all together for me👍
Yer man Scruton nails this nonsense. You too, Daniel
https://www.roger-scruton.com/articles/260-human-rights-nonsense-on-stilts
Thank you. Now we all know why these things have bothered us so much. Because what we all do have is a sense of justice, of rightness.
And unless you have been so battered by Propaganda that you have ceased to think for yourself any longer, you know exactly what fits that sense of justice and what doesn't.
This has hit the nail firmly and squarely on it's head.
We all start out with universal rights, but our requirements to interact with one another begins to put limits on them. We purposely abridge our rights as a compromise to form a coherent society. It’s the frisson between absolute and abridged rights, and where that border is, that is the political fight we wage every day and what keeps it all interesting…
We all start out with universal rights, but our requirements to interact with one another begin to put limits on them. We purposely abridge our rights as a compromise to form a coherent society. It’s the frisson between absolute and abridged rights, and where that border is, that is the political fight we wage every day and what keeps it all interesting…
Very good. I would leave this out though: "Welcoming an immigrant who genuinely wishes to adopt our ways and be loyal to us makes sense". Welcoming the nicer ones is less insensible than welcoming the nasty ones, but not positively sensible.
A man may have no rights which he’s unwilling to recognize in others. Could this be a universal principle?
Not an accurate one. I have rights that I don’t think others are entitled to. All real rights are exclusionary to some extent. Parental rights as exclusive to those parents and those children, for instance. Another parent may have the same rights, but not over the same children unless they are their children too. I assert my rights as a citizen, whilst being unwilling to recognise the same in non citizens.