Mind Mastery

You must know what your rights are before you can respect others rights.

We all have the right to perform any action which does not initiate a violation of consent or cause harm.

Said another way, we can do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't violate anothers rights by thieving their consent or causing harm.

You have the right to choose how you live and if you wish to follow basic guidelines for co-operation, or not.

Rights are essentially actions that are 'right' to do.

A right is something which is not 'wrong' and anything 'wrong' is considered something which violates an aspect or many aspects of morality.

For instance, is it right or wrong to change a babies nappy if you do not have their consent? Well obviously in this context, you do not mean harm and the baby cannot give consent, so thus you have the right to do such a thing.

How about physically grabbing and pulling someone without their consent? Do you have the right to do that? Again, it depends on context. Did you intend to cause harm or to prevent it? If they were trying to board a train and were stuck inbetween the doors, then yes not only do you have the right but it is the right action to take to grab and pull them onto the train.

No one has the right to rob, rape, threaten or violate someone else.

We all have the right of free speech, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and again, freedom to do whatever we want, as long as we don't infringe upon others rights or violate actual Lore.

Many people wouldn't sign contracts with banks or government agencies if they really knew what was happening behind the scenes.

They have no right to deceive people the way they do and have them agree to dodgy contracts.

View how honest and genuine contracts should be formed according to these guidelines here.

No one has the right to swindle, deceive or manipulate others.

We all have the right to do what we want as long as we are not breaking any lores.

A man has the right to garden naked in his front yard, until a neighbour complains and says that he is disturbing the peace by exposing himself to their children.

A woman has the right to drive at 200kmph on the freeway at 3am on a Tuesday night with no one else around.

A man has the right to sell his goods for whatever price he likes.

A woman has the right to open a new store competing with his prices.

No one has the right to demand that those business's owe them a percentage of their earnings.

Everyone has the right to volunteer their time, donate their currency and to support whatever cause they like.

As long as what they are contributing to is not breaking any of the lores.

No one has the right to pay taxes to governments, as governments are warmongers and violate every Lore of Morality.

No one has the right to initiate violence against you if you are peaceful.

Yet you have the right to defend yourself against violence in a proportional manner.

If a little old lady was attacking a big strong man, he doesn't have the right to shoot her.

But if a big strong man was trying to kill a little old lady, she does has the right to shoot him.

You have the right to respond with equal or necessary force to protect yourself.

Escalation and deescalation of force is important.

But in times when force is required to defend against violence, it may be hard to do the right thing as you fear for your life.

For situations where a crime has been committed, (there is only a crime if there is a victim) independent arbitration systems can be used to achieve an equitable solution for both parties.

Such as in the case of self defence, you may cause harm or even loss of life to another.

But if it was the right thing to do in that situation, then you are not in the wrong.

Sometimes, being violent and taking another's life as a last resort is the right thing to do.

If a mad man held a gun to your family's head and your only option was to kill him or allow your family to be killed, then you, then other family's, you would be in the wrong if you did not kill the mad man.

You could of course try not to kill the mad man and instead shoot him in the legs and arms, incapacitating him, then take him to a rehabilitation centre to try and heal whatever caused him to go mad.

This would be the best option, but may not be possible.

There are times when you may have to make tough decisions.

That's why it's important to have a fully functioning moral compass, a conscience, to ensure you try and do the right thing if the time comes.

90% of the time, what's right and what's wrong is obvious.

When it's not, we have independent arbitration systems, that aren't influenced by money or politics, to adjudicate situations where the lines become blurred.

People have the right to fresh and healthy food, clean water, a place to live, to an education and anything else which is a good or right thing to help them sustain their life, which is their standard of value.

But they do not have the right to demand or forcefully take food from others who have produced it, or to move into someone else's home without their consent.

We all have the right to the basic necessities of life, but that does not mean we can violate others rights to get those things which we have a right to.

If a tyrant had claimed a whole landmass as his territory and said no one else can live there, then people would have the right to take that land from him and live there, as the tyrant does not have the right to make such a claim.

If a towns water supply was being processed and poisoned at the local water facility, people would have the right to stop this act of aggression because they do not have the right to do such a thing because it is a wrong action. 

If someone littered in public, they are creating harm to the environment, which belongs to the people who live there equally, so it can be considered as a crime against all the people of that town. One would have the right to apprehend the litterer, ask them to pick it up and not do it again. They would not have the right to physically make them pick it up if the litterer did not comply, but they would have the right to report this crime to community protectors and file a case against them at an arbitration centre for a professional remedy to be organised.

Rights are actions which we have the right to do. What is right is anything which is not wrong. Wrong action is action which violates objective morality. To know what is a violation of morality and what is not requires competency in knowing the difference between wrong and right behaviour from experience, skill and understanding context.

---

The term “individual rights” is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.

The expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms.

Any group or “collective,” large or small, is only a number of individuals. 

A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. 

In a free society, the “rights” of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application of these individual rights to a specific undertaking. 

Every legitimate group undertaking is based on the participants’ right of free association and free trade.

A group, as such, has no rights. 

A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess.

Neither geography nor race nor tradition nor previous state of development can confer on some human beings the “right” to violate the rights of others.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. 

There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. 

Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life.

Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man’s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men.

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

- Ayn Rand