MIGHT vs. RIGHT
(Might IS Right)

From "Naked Came the Earthling" by H. G. Stratmann, Analog (Science Fiction/Science Fact) magazine, July/August 2001, p. 96.

[Quote]

"You refer to several quaint metaphysical concepts common to primitive civilizations. 'Fairness', 'rights', 'justice' -- such ideas are useful only to the weak and defenseless, not the strong.  The Inspector has the power to judge and destroy you.  If s'he wishes to eradicate you, s'he will.  If s'he decides not to, s'he will not.  That is the only reality.  Your only option is to obey hir whims -- and hope s'he spares you."

Adam whispered, "There's no possibility of bargaining or reasoning with her?"

"No.  Why should there be?  S'he is strong, you are weak.  Nothing else matters."

[End quote]

Unfortunately, the concept of rights is just that, a concept.  Like the concept of "God" from which the concept of rights frequently is derived, there is no basis in reality for the concept(s).

Granted that you and I, being weak not strong, have had an attraction at least to the concept of rights, if not to that of "God" in addition.

Your "rights" and $3.00 may get you a Starbucks latte.  The "rights" are immaterial; the $3.00 is what's important.

Challenging the concept of rights is not new, even amongst libertarians and conservatives.  'Ragnar Redbeard' wrote a book some years ago, published by Loompanics Unlimited (www.loompanics.com) entitled "Might is Right".   A later version is "Might is Right - The Survival of the Fittest".   L. A. Rollins wrote "The Myth of Natural Rights", also available from Loompanics.

Some years ago, I attended a debate between George H. Smith and (if memory serves) Rollins.  Smith was a proponent of the natural rights concept as espoused by the U.S. Founding Fathers, Ayn Rand ("Atlas Shrugged"),  and many others.

In my biased opinion, Smith lost the debate.  In fact, Smith could not answer unevasively my question during Q&A something to the effect of, "Which would you rather have, the RIGHT to be free, or the POWER to be free?  Which would be more useful?"

Granted, rights are a handy tool to wield against someone else or some group that also believes in them.  But if that other person or group doesn't believe in or observe them, you are S.O.L.

Which would you rather have -- the right of privacy, or the POWER to keep your affairs private?  Which would you rather have -- the right to smoke your dope without harassment by the pigs, or the POWER to keep the pigs off your back?  Which would you rather have -- the right to keep your earnings, or the POWER to keep the thievin' hands of the IRS out of your assets?  Which would you rather have in general -- the right or the POWER?

So, whining and claiming rights may, or more likely may not, be effective to some limited extent.  But this is getting less effective daily.  An alternative to consider is to get, individually and collectively, POWERFUL.  Also useful would be to learn and use tactics of evasiveness, avoidance, deceptiveness, and concealment.  Books on WARFARE, such as Sun Tzu's "The Art of War",  "The Art of War",  "The Art of Strategy: A New Translation of Sun Tzu's Classic The Art of War",  and Karl von Clausewitz' On War,  On War,  might also be useful in that regard.

Forget the cliches.  On the contrary, Might IS Right.  Might DOES make Right.  Might DEFINES Right.  That is reality.  To think otherwise is the wishful thinking of the weak and defenseless.