Been feeling distracted and tired lately. Concerned about money. Not “OMG, how will I keep the lights on?” money issues. More like “How do I juggle all this?” It’s temporary (vehicle repairs, taxes) and I’m not asking anything from anybody. Everything is fine<\/i>. Just know that right now I feel muzzy-headed, unclear on many of life’s little details, as if I want to crawl back in bed by 9:00 a.m., and for some reason also ravenous for protein. Preferably protein saturated in honey and brown sugar (so it’s a good thing I made beef jerky the other day, yes?)<\/p>\n
Anyhow, I don’t have much for you right now, so I thought I’d just share a little email exchange from the weekend. It’s the kind of communication that should make you glad you didn’t opt for a career as a freelance writer.<\/p>\n
Background: I wrote a S.W.A.T.<\/i> magazine<\/a> article asking, “Do we have a right to rebellion?” The article isn’t online, but basically I was answering that statist eejit Paul Begala’s multi-idiocy remarks<\/a> from earlier this year. Then some “expert” answered me.<\/p>\n Before I get to the exchange itself, I’ll acknowledge that, yes, I’m well aware that some readers here deny that any such things as rights exist. Consider your point to be noted in advance. We have a right to differ. \ud83d\ude42 But my position in the article was that we damn well do<\/i> have a right to rebellion, Mr. Begala to the contrary.<\/p>\n For the rest of you who consider discussions of the nature of rights meaningful, on to the exchange.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n One Nicholas Johnson of Kentucky wrote (capitalization his):<\/p>\n A Correction Regarding CLAIRE WOLFE’s April 2015 article “Right To Rebellion” <\/p>\n CLAIRE WOLFE’s April 2015 article “Right To Rebellion” is a colorful political rant based on an argument that self-destructs within the title itself. The author’s conclusions about rebellion are clearly based on a misunderstanding of the nature of government and rights. For the sake of helping the author not publish such a mistake again in the future, I submit a short lesson in the fundamentals of politics. To begin, let’s look at the definitions of the words in the title. A ‘right’ is a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. ‘Rebellion’ is the act of resistance to the position of an established authority. In short, a right is a legal entitlement, and rebellion is resistance to authority. Therefore, I think the author would agree, “Right To Rebellion” is analogous to saying “legal entitlement to resist authority.”<\/p>\n However, this oxymoronic expression is inherently contradictory. Rights (legal entitlements) by definition stem from the established legal authority. To rebel is, by definition, to work outside of and against the authority. For the author’s premise that there is a “Right To Rebellion” to hold true, it would be necessary for the established authority to grant the right to work outside of the establishment. Obviously this is impossible, as, by definition, working outside of the authority of the establishment is not a right which can be granted by the authority, as this would inherently invalidate and delegitimize the authority itself.<\/p>\n To put this in very plain terms, the author is essentially declaring that “the established authority gives us the legal entitlement to work outside the established authority.” Obviously this is impossible as working outside the established authority is inherently rebellious, and if the right to rebel were, in fact, granted by the established authority, then it would be permissible and thus not rebellion. As one can see, “right to rebellion” is an inherently oxymoronic phrase and a logical impossibility since if something is a right, it is granted by the established authority, and therefore not rebellious, and if something is rebellious, it is working against the established authority, and therefore not a right.<\/p>\n Thank you for considering this factual correction as a service to your readers. Perhaps in the future CLAIRE WOLFE can stick to writing about “SURVIVAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS” instead of illogically misconstruing political terminology and concepts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Normally, I’d ignore such. But Mr. Johnson wrote to the S.W.A.T.<\/i> Mail Room and editor Denny Hansen asked me to respond. So, duly chastized for my illogical misconstructions and quaking with humility for being “factually corrected” by someone so obviously superior in knowledge and reasoning, I wrote:<\/p>\n \nAh, but speaking of arguments that internally self-destruct, Mr. Johnson’s does exactly that!<\/p>\n In his first paragraph, he states that a right can be a moral OR legal Dictionary.com defines a right as “a just claim or title, whether legal, So the _moral_ aspect of rights is clearly key. And morality is completely separate from and far deeper than law. How, then, did the moral aspect of rights disappear so effortlessly from the rest of Mr. Johnson’s argument?<\/p>\n The notion of rights being granted by government seems to have been created by the left to justify such things as a “right” to housing or medical care. Enlightenment thinkers knew better. Our own Declaration of In other words, rights are built into human nature. And “[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of If rights are solely the gift of government, then they can be obliterated by government at whim. I wouldn’t care to live under such tyranny! And I don’t. No matter how bad government gets, every individual in the world has an inborn, inalienable right not to put up with it.<\/p>\n I thank Mr. Johnson for taking the time to bestow his “factual correction” on my misconstructions and to cure my woeful illogic. However, I believe he needs to remove the beam from his own eye before getting upset over the mote in mine.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Quite possibly you could do better than I did. I could have done better myself, had I had full use of my brain.<\/p>\n Perhaps together we can give Mr. J. something to think about. Feel free.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Been feeling distracted and tired lately. Concerned about money. Not “OMG, how will I keep the lights on?” money issues. More like “How do I juggle all this?” It’s temporary (vehicle repairs, taxes) and I’m not asking anything from anybody. Everything is fine. Just know that right now I feel muzzy-headed, unclear on many of life’s little details, as if I want to crawl back in bed by 9:00 a.m., and for some reason also ravenous for protein. Preferably protein saturated in honey and brown sugar (so it’s a good thing I made beef jerky the other day, yes?) Anyhow,<\/p>\n
\n“entitlement.” Then he goes on as if the word “moral” never appeared —
\nas though rights are solely granted by law.<\/p>\n
\nprescriptive, or moral” and “a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.”<\/p>\n
\nIndependence is quite clear on the matter: all men “are _endowed by
\ntheir Creator_ with certain unalienable Rights.”<\/p>\n
\nthe People to alter or to abolish it …”<\/p>\n