Why do you persist in thinking you have Rights?

Because I choose to.

Rights are those behaviours and protections we have mutually come to recognise over time to sustain a mutually supportive, safe society that, overall, works in our collective best interests. What has that to do with being poor or dispossessed? Interestingly, for it to work, we have to recognise the rights of others so we have other social conventions that modify/condition our individual rights. Do I think you had the right to ask that question? Yes. Does that make you poor or dispossessed? No, though you might be for all I know and, if you are, does that mean you have been fobbed-off or is the question, maybe, a bit pretentious?

And yet you think you have the right to ask such a question. The implications of the implied alone is profound. By denying those rights to others you deny them to yourself and in light of this by your own admission you do not have the right to ask this or any other questions. Is this not the very foundation of this bourgeois you speak of? Even the bourgeois would see this. Perhaps you have chosen to see the world from the self proclaimed pinnacle of intellectual self appointment? The spectacles you wear as your own windows into the world are of your own creation and perhaps you will be granted that which you wish to see. One cannot deny the rights to the other without denying the rights to oneself but this conversation at this time would be fruitless according to the tone of the question. You have the right to ask the question. You have the right to think it so. My only caution my friend is to be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. Perhaps you simply are not ready to even ask such a question let alone suggest an answer. You seem to be merely dancing on the outer edges of existence. The most profound element of all of this is that your question is not necessary and nor is an answer. I hope you come to comprehend. I will for you the love and the light. I will for you the eyes to see.

Right means straight up, square, correct, legal privilege, the strong arm. The common meaning for all those concepts is strength. You have a right only as long as you are strong enough to maintain it. You have a right to life, but only if you are strong enough to cling to it. You have a right to whatever it takes to maintain your life but only if you are strong enough to catch the animals or grow the plants or earn by producing for others.

When two or more people live in the same area they must agree somehow to limit their rights where rights overlap. For example, water must be shared. They do this because the blessings of cooperation are better than the loneliness of rights.

Then come the misunderstandings: some people never learn understand rights, they think it's winner take all. Some people learn but then want to force everybody to cooperate, not recognizing that coercion is not cooperation. These failings seem to be wired into the human nature, and every culture in history has eventually collapsed because of them. Not one society ever escaped the slide into oblivion, although some lasted longer than others. Many countries are presently in this collapse process.

I choose to believe you are wrong.

This is my right.

I choose to believe that when a woman in Iran is waiting to be buried up to the neck and stoned, she, along with all those also awaiting this fate have the right to a fair and unbiased justice system.

I choose to believe that all those who have been executed and later found to be innocent had the right to live..i also exercise my right to oppose the death penalty.

I believe it is your right to hold the opinion that Human Rights are a 'petit bourgeois myth', this makes little sense in real terms to me, but that matters little in the scheme of things.

Every time you open your mouth, or express an opinion here about your beliefs, you are exercising your right to free speech.

There are no such thing as rights. Rights are an intangible idea that exist simply to control people. In some cases to attempt to create order. Which is really a way of controlling people. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need rights. If we could be generous and caring to one another through the cause of good will, then and only then will we achieve world peace, and the idea of rights will finally be obsolete. Not that they exist anyways.

We do have rights. Other humans may not behave according to our innate rights but that's the way evil doers are. Just because one believes that the Loch Ness monster exists doesnt mean that it does but laws do exist whether one believes or not. A mans belief better be in allignment with what is, or he is sadly dissapointed.

Because giving in to say I have none doesn't make my days any brighter. Might as well dream if reality wont allow an alternative.

we have to compromise and share - that is mutual respect and mutual responsibility.

compare a country ruled by an iron-fist dictator and compare a country where people are allowed to have free press and free speech. by that comparison, you will see some glaring rights.

http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/MarxIslam.html

BTW I come from Burma.

because people need something to separate them selves from the plain animal form of living, even though its just an illusion.

Rights are just agreements; society is based on agreements.