Concurrently Held Rights

To my personal approach to what I have learned from reviewing 18th Century classic Liberty Theory and Social Contract Theories, I have come to the now-obvious conclusion that we as citizens of the United States have long been woefully in error as to how we conceive of the idea of “rights” among us.

I’ve reconciled this gaping sore which has plagued the U.S. for very many decades, and I’ve come to what I feel comfortably is an understanding that “rights” always mean “rights of way” apply to each party in any exchange in life. This means that never does anyone in particular gain trump right exclusive and complete over another person. The “rights of way” we have between each of us operate much like the Department of Motor Vehicles guidelines in driver’s education: all drivers on a given road grid area, as well as any pedestrians nearby, are sensibly and clearly all in possession of their DMV rights of way: of say so and applicability between each other. No matter how traffic goes on the roads, we all yield those brake pedals in response to each other, and we treat all other drivers and pedestrians as if they possess their basic rights of way ongoing, even if yielding to us, and thus never performing an absolute surrender of all right of way, at all.

Therein lies the misjudging of how the word “right” fits in to this. For my part, I merely stay very stubborn to always see “rights” to always be shorthand for “ongoing and always of some power, rights of way, in human exchange and interactions.”


Add a Comment