Not2BSubjugated
Callous Individualist
Let me preface this little collection of abstractions by saying that, while I was raised Christian, I would currently have to say agnostic is the closest thing to a label that would fit my religious status. This thought is in no way based on any affiliation with Catholicism. To the contrary, I feel the subject is more a fundamental question as to the nature of human rights and the existence of freedom itself, let alone the freedom to practice religion. So when the inevitable rebuttals come at me, don't think that dismissing me as some sort of hyper-religious wingnut is a valid counterpoint.
The first step in the thought process is identifying that saying a person has the basic human right to free contraception is accepting that possession of a particular material item can be a basic human right. It is my contention that acceptance of -any- material item as a basic human right is a challenge to human freedom to some extent.
Let's take, for example, the "fundamental human right to housing". Sounds wonderful. Shelter, in most climates available on our sweet little piece of space rock, is necessary to human existence, and most sane people don't want to see others perish in the elements. When a government, however, declares that every person has the fundamental -right- to housing, it implies that those who can't or won't procure that housing for themselves must have that housing provided to them. Currently, we haven't developed animal training to the point that beasts of burden can be made to build us adequate housing. That means that the housing must be provided by other people. Therefore, a person can choose (and I realize that most don't simply choose, many are truly incapable of providing their own housing. My purpose is not an indictment of the disabled or those un/underemployed by no fault of their own) to contribute nothing to the acquisition/maintenance of their housing, and anyone capable of acquiring that housing for them would be trampling on their legally established, fundamental human rights by not providing that for them. Once again, and I emphasize, I'm not saying people who can't afford housing all choose to do nothing. I'm well aware that most truly are disabled or un/underemployed as a matter of circumstance and not of laziness. However, the fact remains that establishing a right to housing establishes the right to choose to subjugate your fellow citizens, should you be so inclined. If you question whether or not "subjugate" is an appropriate term, remember that slavery is involuntary labor in which the workers have no say in whether or not they share in that labor's fruits. In the case of housing, the challenge to freedom is limited in that housing, due to its nature as a necessity to human existence in many sectors of the globe, offers a clear cut-off to the degree to which people may subjugate each other. Essentially, it offers the fallback of being able to say that people are only beholden to each other insofar as is required to provide the necessities.
The case of a human right to free contraceptives is a much broader, if equally insidious, attack on human freedom in that contraceptives, unlike shelter, are -never- a necessity for basic human existence. The only sort of sex that can really be argued for as a physical necessity (and even then not to the existence of living humans, only to the continuing existence of the species) is sex for the purpose of procreation. When procreation isn't the purpose, the sex can only be classified as recreational (call it deep love making, it's still just an enjoyable activity for two or more people to enjoy together). If it isn't fulfilling a literal physical necessity, the most imperative status you can give to recreational sex is that a healthy sex life is necessary to a healthy social life. This is where the assault on freedom broadens. Basic physical necessities aren't nearly as debatable as social necessities. It is not arguable that not having enough recreational sex will, in and of itself, kill you, the way that not having water, in and of itself, will kill you. Social necessities, unlike physical necessities, are a matter of opinion, as is the very nature of a "healthy" social life. Now, chase the logic with me. . . You establish that possession of a physically non essential material object is a human right by declaring it a social imperative, you therefore establish that anyone who chooses not to procure that item for themselves has the right to subjugate others via government coercion to procure it for him. When that item is necessity only by virtue of the opinions of those in charge, you also establish that people can be subjugated to procure, for anyone who chooses not to procure for themselves, anything that those in charge deem necessary. Furthermore, establishing that item as a fundamental human right establishes that anyone capable of providing it who does not provide it is trampling the rights of those he does not provide it for, meaning that the degree to which subjugation is acceptable is limited only by the whims of those in power and the amount of "necessary" fruit the subjugated is capable of producing.
In summation, the "right" to ownership of a particular material item is, in essence, the "right" to various degrees of enslavement. When that "right" includes items not essential to human existence, freedom becomes a farce beholden to the whims of those in charge. I believe the term is "soft tyranny".
Can't wait for the back and forth on this one =)
The first step in the thought process is identifying that saying a person has the basic human right to free contraception is accepting that possession of a particular material item can be a basic human right. It is my contention that acceptance of -any- material item as a basic human right is a challenge to human freedom to some extent.
Let's take, for example, the "fundamental human right to housing". Sounds wonderful. Shelter, in most climates available on our sweet little piece of space rock, is necessary to human existence, and most sane people don't want to see others perish in the elements. When a government, however, declares that every person has the fundamental -right- to housing, it implies that those who can't or won't procure that housing for themselves must have that housing provided to them. Currently, we haven't developed animal training to the point that beasts of burden can be made to build us adequate housing. That means that the housing must be provided by other people. Therefore, a person can choose (and I realize that most don't simply choose, many are truly incapable of providing their own housing. My purpose is not an indictment of the disabled or those un/underemployed by no fault of their own) to contribute nothing to the acquisition/maintenance of their housing, and anyone capable of acquiring that housing for them would be trampling on their legally established, fundamental human rights by not providing that for them. Once again, and I emphasize, I'm not saying people who can't afford housing all choose to do nothing. I'm well aware that most truly are disabled or un/underemployed as a matter of circumstance and not of laziness. However, the fact remains that establishing a right to housing establishes the right to choose to subjugate your fellow citizens, should you be so inclined. If you question whether or not "subjugate" is an appropriate term, remember that slavery is involuntary labor in which the workers have no say in whether or not they share in that labor's fruits. In the case of housing, the challenge to freedom is limited in that housing, due to its nature as a necessity to human existence in many sectors of the globe, offers a clear cut-off to the degree to which people may subjugate each other. Essentially, it offers the fallback of being able to say that people are only beholden to each other insofar as is required to provide the necessities.
The case of a human right to free contraceptives is a much broader, if equally insidious, attack on human freedom in that contraceptives, unlike shelter, are -never- a necessity for basic human existence. The only sort of sex that can really be argued for as a physical necessity (and even then not to the existence of living humans, only to the continuing existence of the species) is sex for the purpose of procreation. When procreation isn't the purpose, the sex can only be classified as recreational (call it deep love making, it's still just an enjoyable activity for two or more people to enjoy together). If it isn't fulfilling a literal physical necessity, the most imperative status you can give to recreational sex is that a healthy sex life is necessary to a healthy social life. This is where the assault on freedom broadens. Basic physical necessities aren't nearly as debatable as social necessities. It is not arguable that not having enough recreational sex will, in and of itself, kill you, the way that not having water, in and of itself, will kill you. Social necessities, unlike physical necessities, are a matter of opinion, as is the very nature of a "healthy" social life. Now, chase the logic with me. . . You establish that possession of a physically non essential material object is a human right by declaring it a social imperative, you therefore establish that anyone who chooses not to procure that item for themselves has the right to subjugate others via government coercion to procure it for him. When that item is necessity only by virtue of the opinions of those in charge, you also establish that people can be subjugated to procure, for anyone who chooses not to procure for themselves, anything that those in charge deem necessary. Furthermore, establishing that item as a fundamental human right establishes that anyone capable of providing it who does not provide it is trampling the rights of those he does not provide it for, meaning that the degree to which subjugation is acceptable is limited only by the whims of those in power and the amount of "necessary" fruit the subjugated is capable of producing.
In summation, the "right" to ownership of a particular material item is, in essence, the "right" to various degrees of enslavement. When that "right" includes items not essential to human existence, freedom becomes a farce beholden to the whims of those in charge. I believe the term is "soft tyranny".
Can't wait for the back and forth on this one =)
