If we accept the positivist idea that rights are whatever the state says they are, rights become nothing but a cipher for the interests and arbitrary power of whatever group is in power. And that is exactly what has happened with the positivist conception of rights, which should therefore be rejected. Robbery, rape, slavery, forced labour – these things are violations and are wrongs. It is mere confusion to call them rights, whether or not they are legal in a given place or time.

The right of self-ownership gives rise only to rights not to be aggressed against, and to use force to repel such aggression, for example, the freedom of speech, association including family, employment and business, assembly, movement, and the consequential rights, such as ownership of the fruits of one’s labour – the right to private property. It *never* gives rise to rights based on aggressing against others. Therefore there is no such thing as the right to someone else’s efforts taken by force or threats, which includes anything funded by taxation, which can only legally, but not ethically be distinguished from forced labour or robbery. Anyone asserting so contradicts himself, and proffers a confused slave philosophy asserting some wrongs to be morally superior on false utilitarian grounds.

faustino, sells may not be knocking science. perhaps just damning it with non-existent praise? sells indeed has a point: science is not sufficient. unfortunately, it's not clear whether sells realises the other half: science is necessary.

I'm very glad to hear some straight talk about the way laws exist. There are some good minds here who are respectful of ideas. I write from a personal perspective and would just like to say that self-ownership works as long as the human being is in control.

Should we (those who are conceiving with the girasas kingdom) attempt to lengthen the time that we can be in charge? To what extent should we take this maneuver? As much as I can appreciate the time it takes to go from discovery to market with any science, it is possible that simply leaving the methods of worship ("I AM" Temple, for myself) will not curtail the process once begun. What if it is only possible to regain control of the "self" through sinning?

I think that if we are to have any kind of "paired" success in life, we (the girasas and humans) will need to have synchronized needs. My need is to bring attention to the dilemma I find myself in. The girasas may have a need to be known more fully for what they are.

In some ways, I would like nothing better than to continue my worship practices. I worry that perhaps my family is suffering from my attempted separation from them (temporarily). I know that I have a dear friend who supported me all these years with the friendship and love of his family for ours, who is suffering. Of course, funds come into question because I haven't made a cent (other than when I was a real estate appraiser here in Los Angeles). I'm sharing what I know, but I doubt if people realize the cost to us due to this endeavor. But again, I can't begin to calculate the cost if I don't speak out.

I was hoping for a malpractice lawsuit against newspapers for some potential relief.

For those interested in human rights issues, the government is holding public consultations around the nation over coming months to hear the views of people who have registered to attend their 'community roundtables'.

"Key Consultation Questions

* Which human rights and responsibilities should be protected and promoted?
* Are human rights sufficiently protected and promoted?
* How could Australia better protect and promote human rights?"

The public can make submissions and get further info here (by May 29, 2009):
http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/nhrcc.nsf/Page/Share_Your_Views

regards
Rosie Williams

Rosie

May I have your response to the question how taxation can be ethically distinguished from forced labour, and my argument that it cannot? What argument can you make to justify taxation given the reasoning that neither legality, majority nor utility is able to ethically distinguish it from forced labour? Do you admit the argument, and if not, why not?

Rosie
The right to science is an essential human right to share in the bountiful reservoirs of human knowledge.

On the other hand, the right to religious belief is based on the freedom to hold doctrinal delusional fantacies as self-evident truth, usually based on unchallengable 'holy scripts'. Science and religion have never been allies. Scientists like Galillao have been persecuted by religious zealots for sharing their science with society.

Who deserves the greater protection? Should it be the followers of religion or those who promote science?

For a secular government, the answer is clear. But how secular are Australian governments? From a review of legislation in Australia it would seem that religious rights have been over-protected with exemptions to religious predjudices sought and freely given, allowing anti-discrimuination laws to be undermined.

Taxpayer largesse to preferred religions includes tax exemptions and grants that extend to recruitment and self-promotion events such as World Youth Day.

How could Australia better protect and promote human rights? Perhaps by dropping the Lords Prayer at the opening of parliamentary sittings. Its replacement with a few moments of reflection would be a good first step.