Love for Life

Man's whole being is not to be alienated from any "natural rights" to freedom and self-determination not simply against involuntary slavery but against any explicit or implied contractual forms of slavery.
Mike Maxwell
25th August 2008

A whol’e mans whole right, called "that power of self-determination which all agents, as such, possess," is inalienable ….. as long as man … remained man.

Along came Charles Darwin and with ‘fiction’ and forgery made most whole men, animals apes homo sapiens, Apemen

uh oh …that’s why my rights are wrong and wrong is right…

Truly in this state belting out its evolution (evilucian) theory - I am Charlton Heston (the whol’e man in minority) in the real Planet of the Apes…

The rest are apes now….they cant see it cause being ape is normal now … there so dumb

And numb they think this is normal

Statue of Liberty head from Planet of the Apes - perhaps the most shocking scene in cinematic history, the symbol of liberty and escape from tyranny provided the apocalyptic revelation at the end of Planet of the Apes … when astronaut Taylor looks up from the beach only to realize …… he was on planet Earth all along!

Homo Sapiens are from the familia of ‘simians’ apes and are in the Kingdom of animals ‘animalia’

Mike Maxwell
25th August 2008

--------------------------

Rights based on de facto inalienable capacities

One golden thread of argument was developed in the anti-slavery and democratic movements. It dates back to the Stoics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoics and descends through the Reformation to the Enlightenment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment (mostly Scottish and German). The Stoics held that no one was a slave by their nature; slavery was an external condition juxtaposed to the internal freedom of the soul (sui juris). Seneca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger wrote:

It is a mistake to imagine that slavery pervades a man's whole being; the better part of him is exempt from it: the body indeed is subjected and in the power of a master, but the mind is independent, and indeed is so free and wild, that it cannot be restrained even by this prison of the body, wherein it is confined. [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights#cite_note-4#cite_note-4

The Stoic doctrine that the "inner part cannot be delivered into bondage" [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights#cite_note-5#cite_note-5 re-emerged in the Reformation doctrine of liberty of conscience. Martin Luther http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther wrote:

Furthermore, every man is responsible for his own faith, and he must see it for himself that he believes rightly. As little as another can go to hell or heaven for me, so little can he believe or disbelieve for me; and as little as he can open or shut heaven or hell for me, so little can he drive me to faith or unbelief. Since, then, belief or unbelief is a matter of every one's conscience, and since this is no lessening of the secular power, the latter should be content and attend to its own affairs and permit men to believe one thing or another, as they are able and willing, and constrain no one by force. [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights#cite_note-6#cite_note-6

The Scottish Enlightenment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Enlightenment in the person of Francis Hutcheson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hutcheson made the de facto inalienability of this liberty of judgment into a theory of inalienable rights.

"Thus no man can really change his sentiments, judgments, and inward affections, at the pleasure of another; nor can it tend to any good to make him profess what is contrary to his heart. The right of private judgment is therefore unalienable." [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights#cite_note-7#cite_note-7

In the German Enlightenment, Hegel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel gave the most developed treatment of this inalienability argument. Like Hutcheson, Hegel based the theory of inalienable rights on the de facto inalienability of those aspects of personhood that distinguish persons from things. A thing, like a piece of property, can in fact be transferred from one person to another. But the same would not apply to those aspects that make one a person, wrote Hegel:

The right to what is in essence inalienable is imprescriptible, since the act whereby I take possession of my personality, of my substantive essence, and make myself a responsible being, capable of possessing rights and with a moral and religious life, takes away from these characteristics of mine just that externality which alone made them capable of passing into the possession of someone else. When I have thus annulled their externality, I cannot lose them through lapse of time or from any other reason drawn from my prior consent or willingness to alienate them. [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights#cite_note-8#cite_note-8

The historical sophisticated apologies for slavery and non-democratic governments were based on explicit or implicit voluntary contracts to alienate any "natural rights" to freedom and self-determination. [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights#cite_note-9#cite_note-9 But the de facto inalienability argument provided the basis for the anti-slavery movement to argue not simply against involuntary slavery but against any explicit or implied contractual forms of slavery. Any contract that tried to legally alienate such a right would be inherently invalid. Similarly, the argument was used by the democratic movement to argue against any explicit or implied social contracts of subjection (pactum subjectionis) by which a people would supposedly alienate their right of self-government to a sovereign as, for example, in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes According to Ernst Cassirer,

There is, at least, one right that cannot be ceded or abandoned: the right to personality...They charged the great logician [Hobbes] with a contradiction in terms. If a man could give up his personality he would cease being a moral being. ... There is no pactum subjectionis, no act of submission by which man can give up the state of free agent and enslave himself. For by such an act of renunciation he would give up that very character which constitutes his nature and essence: he would lose his humanity. [11]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights#cite_note-10#cite_note-1...

These themes converged in the debate about American Independence. While Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence, Richard Price http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Price in England sided with the Americans' claim "that Great Britain is attempting to rob them of that liberty to which every member of society and all civil communities have a natural and unalienable title." [12]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights#cite_note-11#cite_note-1... Price again based the argument on the de facto inalienability of "that principle of spontaneity or self-determination which constitutes us agents or which gives us a command over our actions, rendering them properly ours, and not effects of the operation of any foreign cause. [13]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights#cite_note-12#cite_note-1... Any social contract or compact allegedly alienating these rights would be non-binding and void, wrote Price:

Neither can any state acquire such an authority over other states in virtue of any compacts or cessions. This is a case in which compacts are not binding. Civil liberty is, in this respect, on the same footing with religious liberty. As no people can lawfully surrender their religious liberty by giving up their right of judging for themselves in religion, or by allowing any human beings to prescribe to them what faith they shall embrace, or what mode of worship they shall practise, so neither can any civil societies lawfully surrender their civil liberty by giving up to any extraneous jurisdiction their power of legislating for themselves and disposing their property. [14]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights#cite_note-13#cite_note-1...

Price raised a furor of opposition so in 1777 he wrote another tract that clarified his position and again restated the de facto basis for the argument that the "liberty of men as agents is that power of self-determination which all agents, as such, possess." [15]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights#cite_note-14#cite_note-1... In Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism, Staughton Lynd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staughton_Lynd pulled together these themes and related them to the slavery debate:

Then it turned out to make considerable difference whether one said slavery was wrong because every man has a natural right to the possession of his own body, or because every man has a natural right freely to determine his own destiny. The first kind of right was alienable: thus Locke neatly derived slavery from capture in war, whereby a man forfeited his labor to the conqueror who might lawfully have killed him; and thus Dred Scott was judged permanently to have given up his freedom. But the second kind of right, what Price called "that power of self-determination which all agents, as such, possess," was inalienable as long man remained man. Like the mind's quest for religious truth from which it was derived, self-determination was not a claim to ownership which might be both acquired and surrendered, but an inextricable aspect of the activity of being human.[16]Applications in international law

Many documents now echo the phrase used in the United States Declaration of Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence The preamble to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights asserts that rights are inalienable: "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." However, of course, there is dispute which "rights" are truly natural rights and which are not.