TRIGGER WORD: “RIGHTS” “We have the right to…” Translated: “We do not violate

TRIGGER WORD: “RIGHTS”

“We have the right to…”

Translated:

“We do not violate the principle of cooperation by doing ….”

It’s almost always false. Cooperation isn’t a question of equality, but one of incentives. If you engage in parasitism, I don’t have the incentive to cooperate with you.

The first question of politics is: Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? So when you say “We have the right to…”, you’re saying this won’t make you prefer to kill me and take my stuff.

And that means that whenever the statement ‘if I have the right to…” occurs, the question is only whether the speaker is engaging in parasitism or not. If he is engaging in parasitism then he doesn’t have a right whatsoever.

So claiming one has a right is a contrary indicator – almost always. You do not possess a right, you possess a prohibition. You are prohibited from parasitism. The other fellow has demanded a right of non-parasitism in order to rationally cooperate with you.

So when you speak honestly, you find that the response is quite different.

All talk of ‘rights’ is a means of deceit.