Under their agenda of requiring vaccination passports presented to both public (government) and private service providers alike, politicians have created a political target for discrimination: the so-called ‘unvaccinated.’
In opposition, our guest – leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario Paul McKeever – has called for an outright legal ban on discrimination based on vaccination status. Because such a ban would apply to private businesses and service providers, the question has arisen as to whether such a prohibition represents a violation of private property rights and freedom of association.
Not so, argues Paul in a written report he has called ‘The Rights Argument: a self-destructive perversion of rights.’ Most significantly, notes Paul, the ‘rights argument’ – routinely made by freedom advocates themselves – is perfectly consistent with the establishment of a fascist society. Under this theory, the usual source of individual rights has been described as ‘God-given’ or ‘natural’ or ‘morally-based.’
The classic error made by the ‘rights argument’ is to assume that ‘rights’ – however defined – exist independently of any government or law. Rights are not ‘ethical’ in nature: they are ‘political.’ Rights concern not ‘shoulds’ but ‘shalls.’
The ‘rights argument’ fails to protect rights because it fails to recognize that rights exist to serve the purpose of defending human nature, concludes Paul.
One thing is certain. Unless rights – political and legal – are fully understood in a way that is Just Right, we soon won’t have any.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
3 Responses to “729 – Unnatural rights | Paul McKeever”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Dear Paul,
Open to the cherry picked public: Women’s only gyms / yoga / sports / saunas / dance classes
– no uterus, no service
How does this fit into your paradigm?
In your first example a dark skinned man orders a coffee, the owner refuses the order on the grounds of his own racism. He calls the cops to remove the dark skinned man who wouldn’t leave.
– You claim that if the officers were to ask why, and the reason given was racist, the officers would be acting to enforce racism.
Let’s flip the example: A dark skinned man wearing a shirt with a racist message orders a coffee and at the end of his order he adds a racist comment. The owner refuses to serve him on the grounds that he doesn’t serve racists. The owner calls the cops to remove the dark skinned racist who refuses to leave.
– What should the officers do? Is it up to the officers to evaluate and judge the reasons for the removal request on the spot? If it is, how can they be sure that they have all of the relevant facts?
“In a free society, the purpose of law, ultimately, is to direct government’s use of force such that it is used to defend human nature as against those who endeavour to defeat or oppose it.”
Mustn’t the law protect the possibility of disagreement and protect us to go our separate ways because we’re not omniscient or infallible and may come to different conclusions.
Should the law not protect organizations founded around collectivist ideas that seek to promote collectivism? The Marxist-Lenninist club, the triple K, or Greenpeace?
Thank you Bob,
I really took to heart on today’s topic…
Share this link to register:
https://event.webinarjam.com/channel/awarriorcalls
I would really like it for you and Paul to have a discussion with Christopher James. If you know any of his work, I can attest to his success in winning in court through the knowledge of just what Legal and Lawful mean to we the people…
https://www.brighteon.com/4ed1bdc1-77a6-45a4-af33-8b9dbee1ad31
In this video he shows us how it ” Common Law ” wins in court.
Cheers and keep up the great work…
Ray Falconer