negative and positive rights? agenda 21 connection?

i was just reading some articles on negative and positive rights, now I am not sure if I understand it correctly, so if anyone of you understands it better please tell me.

when I heard the expression negative rights, I was abit taken  back because the word negative has a, well, a negative connotation. so what is it? it basically says leave others alone, do not do anything to them or their stuff without their consent.

postive rights seem pretty good, I mean who does’t like positive? this has a nice ring to it. but what is the darkness that it brings that many do not realize because they take things at face value. So what can be so bad about positive rights, right? well remember negative rights? do not do to someone without their consent? well positive rights try to get around that part of consent. remember in the constitution it says no involuntary servitude? well they have tried and succeeded in getting around that too.

how? well if you have a right to food, housing and clothing and medical care (and your unable to get it yourself under the situation you are in) positive rights put the duty on others to provide it whether they can afford it or not whether they consent to it or not. this is the involuntary servitude I mentioned. Taxes ring a bell? what exactly is their justifcation? isn’t it to pay for these positive rights? well they don’t say it that way they call it welfare and helping the disabled the poor and the homeless you get the picture.

how about we take it a step furthur, what if homeless people are decreed to have a right to housing, and the government has no funds, well they claim they don’t, liars they are, how do you suppose they are going to enforce that right? well will they not force you to house these people in your own homes? is that not the defintion of violating a negative right and involuntary servitude? what if you have no room? what if the persons lifestyle is bad, or they are dangerous to you? what if you can’t afford another mouth to feed then what? will they not say it is your duty to provide these rights to that person or persons which entails food rationing now, where your kids will now have to eat less?

Lets say your a doctor, your duty will then to provide medical care to someone who has no money and the state claims has no funds, how do you suppose they plan on enforcing the persons right to medical care? won’t they force that doctor and nurses and hospital to provide it at a financial loss? is that not involuntary servitude and theft? so are these human rights really about compassion and justice? or is it about destroying prosperity, degrading the human experience and weakening family bonds, and creating resentments, anger, depression and subjugating people to a state of utter misery?

And what about the global community cry I hear all the time, that we are all a global family, let me ask you does that translate into you having a duty to treat all others as your family? are humans really capable of forming emotional attachements to thousands of others? is it even humanly possible to do such a thing? does that mean you now cannot treat your own family any different then others? so does that mean you and I are now obligated to neglect our families to service the needs of others at our own expense while our families suffer hunger and deprivation in order to fulfill your “duty”?

Is this not what they tried to do in former commuist russia? China? did it actually solve the problems of inequality, poverty, crime, violence, poor mental and physical health, and create  human happiness and a technological boom and increase in standard of living for everyone, because now everyone was obligated to help everyone else out and now these things should now be a thing of the past? what does the record show.

Are the policy makers in washington, the united nations aware of this? of course they are. that is why they are doing it. haven’t you heard? poor people are easier to control. and cheaper to, as scarce resouces increase the price you must pay to get them so they can get more production out of you, whatever that entails with little expense from them. but they can’t come out and say that, wow, people would be in on the game, no they have to make you feel guilty(shame you culture) for having properity, property rights and the like and enjoying the fruits of your labors, so you will concede to these positive rights, right now mostly in the form of regulator takings and taxes.They blame the property holders for the plight of the poor as if you went out and stole their house from them, or their food. I mean how do you become guilty over something you have no power to do good or bad over another? the reality is it is not because your guilty of any wrongdoing it is just your a threat to their agenda 21 goal, this is just human cattle farming period.

the cattle must be fed, given health care, and housing, and clean surroundings to maximize profits, but how do you avoid all the liability from it? why you make the cattle take care of the other cattle and take on the liability themselves. with me so far? national health care ring a bell? welfare? disability? you see where I am going with this, agenda 21 is basically just a socilizing of liabilities of human resource farming while taking all the profits for yourself. this is just another form of serfdom, slavery, or whatever you want to call it, it is simply a different route.

so this rhertoric of caring legislations is another lie coming out of the united nations and washington. it si simply harvesting the herd. ever seen that twilight episode “to serve man”? I just watched that, (while the aliens were more fair and humane then modern farmers.)they gave the humans everything they needed to prosper, avoid war, end disease, hunger the world over, and when asked why they wanted to do it they said they wanted to help out man to have what they themselves enjoyed on their planet. but was it true?

The reality was quite different, after they had been tricked to go to their planet, it turned out there was a hidden agenda of the aliens (didn’t your momma teach you that if it sounds to good to be true it probably is?) they simply wanted to make humans happier and healthier so they can harvest them for food. it was about human resource farming. now the farmers of today have no interest in making you happy or healtheir or give you technology like the aliens did so they can have cheap energy and the like, they just want to keep you just fit enough to work but not so fit you can run away or fight back or challenge their monopoly on power, money or weatlh creation and enjoyment. they want to force your right to have a home by putting you into slave labor camps, called sustainable commnities or smart growh development, where you cannot leave, where you cannot complain (because they probably will turn you into soylent green)and because if you have no job you have no life. they will be able to ration your food, medical care, which will end up being minimal, and have to endure company with creepy people you don’t like. every aspect of life will be controlled for the benefit of the farmers. you will thus be in a worse condition then animals were before the human socieity came along. only there will be no humane society for humans at all.

hopefully Jehovah will not let it go that far before he steps in and triggors the great tribulation. but they are trying very hard to implemnt this even tho there are alot of road blocks to overcome.

so welcome to the 21st century of agenda 21. hope you enjoy your stay. you can check in but you cannot check out.

 

Advertisements

One response to “negative and positive rights? agenda 21 connection?

  1. Nice post! This is an important concept that, I think, should be a bigger part of the conversation on taking back America. Great injustices have often been committed for the supposed benefit of the collective good. While the U.S. adopted a welfare state model under the New Deal reforms of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, American disinclination to positive liberty can be attributed in part to the ideological campaign against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviets gave priority to the collective over the individual, which they believed empowered the state to take sweeping action to provide for the well-being and “self-realization” of its citizens, sometimes at the expense of individual civil and political rights, such as the right to political participation.

    Ultimately, it remains an open question whether the positive and negative forms of liberty are two aspects of a common conception of rights or two distinct types of rights that are closely related without being identical.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s