Do No Harm, But Take No Shit
Why we have things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The United States Constitution (as well as the Declaration of Independence), and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages. The UDHR is widely recognized as having inspired, and paved the way for, the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels (all containing references to it in their preambles).
I think I can speak for everybody when I say that no one likes taking orders all day, and being forced to do things they really don’t want to do. Sure, there are times where it is nice to have our decisions made for us, but for the most part, we like to be free to choose whatever it is we wish to, regardless of the fact that mistakes might be made, or the potential of having to face negative consequences from our decisions.
So far, the mind is mostly free from barriers; we are able to think what we want to think, without anyone knowing about it. Our imagination makes anything possible, and dreams allow us to live out all sorts of otherworldly experiences - at least for a short while. It is because of these things, that progress happens in society. If we weren't able to invision a future that’s different from our current reality, there would be no change, no advancement, and no hope.
At the same time, if we are unable to communicate with others, we are unable to work together. Progress would be even slower than molasses in January, if we couldn't share our knowledge and collaborate, or come up with solutions to solve life’s many problems with those around us. Even in situations where people share an environment with someone else that speaks a different language, we find a way to communicate. As humans, we are very social animals, and therefore having the ability to chat with whoever we please is a necessity.
Of course, not everyone in the world has good intentions at every moment in time. Sometimes we find ourselves being required to make a decision that we never imagined we’d be faced with. Sometimes there is no “better option”, because all of the potential choices available are going to cause some level of harm to someone.
Those who endured an upbringing where choices were limited, and options were unavailable, often find a way to fulfill their needs and wants through improvisation. Thieves steal, politicians philander, manufacturers cut corners, people jay-walk, children engage in bullying, and the list goes on.
But we must remember that everyone else has the same rights and freedoms that we have. Your right to move about the world does not take precedent over my right to life. Which means that if you chose to invite yourself into my home unexpected, and I don’t know who you are, and have reason to be afraid of what your intentions may be, I have the right to defend myself against any harm you may cause me. In otherwords, I can shoot you dead, to keep my ass alive.
Just as we are free to be as we wish, so is everybody else. Your exercise of this freedom must not interfere negatively with mine, and visa versa. If it does, there are consequences that you may end up having to face. These consequences tend to either restrict or eliminate freedom in one way or another for those that have infringed on the freedom of others.
In a perfect world, laws and regulations would be entirely obsolete, because nobody would hinder anybody elses ability to do as they please. If a perfect world could even be possible, that is.
But what happens when it is those who enforce the rules, laws, and regulations, that end up interfering with our freedom the most? Or what if it is the people creating the laws, mandates, and restrictions, that infringe upon our rights?
Abraham Lincoln once said:
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
And I doubt he said it without thinking through the implications. He meant exactly what he said.
More famously, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government.
The primary responsibility of any government is for the safety and welfare of its citizens, and to protect their basic human rights. Unfortunately, most people today will have at least one story about an experience they have had, where it felt like they were up against the government, and that what the government was doing, or trying to do, was having a serious negative impact on their well-being and/or ability to live life as they please.
And what about Canada?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justifed in a free and democratic society.
But is a society really considered “free and democratic” when our government limits our options, and restricts our rights through things like mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and lockdown orders? I don’t think so. Not one bit. Why? Because (and I hate to use this term) it’s a slippery slope. Having the ability to violate the rights of citizens, over the potential that they may be harmed or face illness otherwise, only opens the door for further governmental over reach.
Let’s take a moment and look at car accidents:
Each year, 1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world.
Every day, almost 3,700 people are killed globally in crashes involving cars, buses, motorcycles, bicycles, trucks, or pedestrians. More than half of those killed are pedestrians, motorcyclists, or cyclists.
Crash injuries are estimated to be the eighth leading cause of death globally for all age groups and the leading cause of death for children and young people 5–29 years of age. More people now die in crashes than from HIV/AIDS.
It is estimated that fatal and nonfatal crash injuries will cost the world economy approximately $1.8 trillion dollarsexternal icon (in 2010 USD) from 2015–2030.5 That’s equivalent to a yearly tax of 0.12% on global GDP (gross domestic product).
Do we see the entire global economy shutting down over car accidents? Nope. Not one single time has that ever happened. Sure, there are laws, and license procedures that must be followed in order for a person to drive legally. But are we forcing people to take the tires off of their cars, so that they are unable to cause accidents? No. That would be outrageous. So then why have we allowed the government to enforce mask mandates? Is there really THAT much difference between forcing people to wear masks, and forcing them to take their tires off of their car?
Human rights violations are not accidents; they are not random in distribution or effect. Rights violations are, rather, symptoms of deeper pathologies of power and are linked intimately to the social conditions that so often determine who will suffer abuse and who will be shielded from harm
-Paul Farmer
[Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights and the New War on the Poor]
So how are we to ensure that our rights and freedoms are not being stolen, by those that’s intended purpose is to protect such things? When we are told we must recieve an experimental gene editing treatment that has unknown long-term health effects, or we will lose our job, and therefore our ability to provide for ourselves and our loved ones, what is it that we are supposed to do?
In the United States, as I mentioned earlier, the right to bear arms was intended for the purpose of handling governmental over reach. Canada has no such law that is practiced. But even then, why has nobody acted with the intentions of the Second Amendment in mind? The answer is obviously fear. Fear of having to face repurcussions from any attempt thats made. Be it jail or death, the outlook doesn’t come off as appealing.
According to this website, the government has done a good job at scaring citizens into compliance. When conducting a poll about what people were afraid of at one point in the pandemic, this is what 1780 people said they lived in fear of the most:
<1% Covid-19
68% Government
<1% Global warming
<1% Other races
28% I don’t live in fear
Of course, a poll conducted on a global level would be far more interesting to see the results of. But still, this small number of people has provided us with a general idea of what it is that most are afraid of.
The fact that 68% of people were living in fear of the government should not be taken lightly. The only reason people would become fearful of their government is because of how the government has acted leading up to that point. This poll suggests that whatever was being done by the government, was the wrong approach. And by far, considering less than 1% of people were afraid of Covid.
But again, we are essentially backed into a corner. How can we possibly stand up to put an end to governmental ovet reach, when the consequences for doing so are so extreme?
Only a fool would underestimate a man with nothing to lose.
-Lance Conrad
[The Price of Nobility]
The saying goes “desperate times call for desperate measures”, and eventually that is what we will see, if our journey down this path continues. Just as a dog that is afraid and being cornered will end up biting whoever backed it into the corner, society too, will act out of fear and desperation. People can only put up with so much. Tolerance is not limitless. Eventually, someone will act, and the rest will follow.
The implications of this are rather dark. Many lives could easily end up lost or damaged, on both sides of the fight. But with how little change we see in our favor, when it comes to legislation, and how much pain and misery is caused in the meantime, is peace ultimately not an option at this point?
I'd like to be optimistic about the future. But there is just so little to cling to for hope at the moment, it seems. And I know I'm not alone on my thoughts about this. Just do a YouTube search of “I have no friends”, and you will see just how little we are making long-lasting and reliable relationships with people these days. There is a lot of lonliness and hopelessness in the world today. Hell, I’m 31 and I have literally 2 true friends.
We need to get better at coming together to solve our problems in society. All those being affected by some form of legislation that is being considered by a government should get the opportunity to share their opinion on the matter. Every time. There needs to be some type of organization or mechanism of public action, that guatantees there will be no infringement of our rights by the government. The things that actually matter must be prioritized above materialistic and trivial stuff.
It does feel like all that needs to be done would require an insane amount of effort and planning to achieve, I know. And we can probably accept that as fact. Change is not easy. Especially when people are comfortable. But if we don’t do something about all this shit, our children and grandchildren will end up having no choice but to live with the consequences of our inaction. Not only does it get more difficult to fight tyranny as the years go by, and the over reach becomes more and more in-depth. But it also becomes more dangerous to do so.
Let’s stop lying to ourselves. No one is coming to save us. It's up to us to make sure that the right things are being done. Full stop.
Until another time,
-Davis