No rights, merely options

By Dimitri

Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of the internet, sexual freedom.
All sharing the principles that an authority, frequently established through public opinion,
endorses and officially confirms the very basic principles on which society is built.
These are the very basic “Human-” and “Animal-rights”.
The basis for gender equality, gay marriage and many other motives where it concerns equality and equal opportunity.

There is, however, a small catch. In order for rights to be granted there is the need of an “authority” to justify oneself to.
While Government can be seen as the great “enabler” it is public opinion which forms and dictates the course that needs to be followed or requires the most attention.

“The public”, which forms the opinion, is a mix of brutal honesty and varied opinion but also of one-sided discourse and hypocrisy.
In modern media it has become clear that the general opinion isn’t always as consistent.
One broad picture is being painted by (popular) media but the silent jurors and people use another one.
The recent elections, and its fall-out, being the best examples at the moment.

Another historic example can be found in French history where “media” was highly critical of Napoleon but started to change tune when he re-approached Paris from his first banishment.Other examples can be found in British history with Margaret Thatcher who, in her time, was also a person
of mixed renown and appreciation. Nowadays considered as very progressive, back then reviled and shunned in certain classes.
It is, as they say, “The winners write History”. “The winners” dictate the sentiment and the opposition is painted with a very biased incorrect broad brush.

The public opinion sways through time. It goes straight-ahead, might make a few bends and suddenly stands opposite to its initial stance only to do the same thing many decades later.
This involuntarily shakes the whole foundation on which rights are being built. As the public changes so does its view and opinion.
This clash is made more clear with modern comedians and discussion panels.
Freedom of speech implies opinions can be freely shared on the account they are perceived as harmless and in-line of what is expected.
Slight deviation implies ridicule and even repercussions due to unfounded allegations taken into the extreme.

Can we really speak about rights and freedom?
We can’t. What we can speak about are options and choices.
These are different by reason those are the possibilities and different roads which can be taken.
They stand on their own. They might be well-liked or they might be reviled.
They can be sane or even borderline psychopathic.
A right is nothing more than a choice or option which is backed by public acceptance.
A choice or option can lack this advantage.

If someone says to consider your options, kicking him in the face and brutally murdering his wife is a valid option.
Not the most thought-out or even well-liked one but an option none the less.
The choices that can be made are the freedoms that one can posses.
But there’s also the subject of (personal) morality and standards. Morals are said to be steadfast but with the preceding information at hand it becomes clear this is also unsteady ground, rightfully so.
Anyone who has traveled on an international level will notice people from different cultures have different ideas and morals.
This can even be noticeable in a distance of less than a few hundred miles.

That which is defined as “the public” is nothing more than individuals who are being connected through a small and fragile red line.
In-depth discussion will reveal the similarities are super fluent and the actual individual opinion has that much more sides that one can begin to wonder how all came together to begin with.
When people talk about equality and freedom you may automatically and correctly assume they do so out of self-interest and that the held ideas are super fluent at their base.
No one truly believes in equality. And if so, it will be because of personal gain.
To hold on to egalitarian stances and principles of equality is a devaluation of the own standards.
Never compromise when it concerns your own. To devaluate those standards implies devaluating your own.
A man’s value is determined by what he stands for. To compromise implies to devalue oneself.

Rights and freedoms do not exist. Those are merely indicators of compliance.
You only have options and choices. To choose and follow through is your real freedom.
Stand your ground and be a person of value. It does not matter if your stance stands against the other.
Be eloquent and stead-fast. Do not compromise and have people deteriorate your value.

You have no rights. Merely options.