|What are " rights " ? I believe that " rights " are defined by its opposite pole : obligations, hence, they define each other. A society is a unifying system binding people together in production, goals, culture and religion, expressed through one body : the government, coercing monopolistic, statutory laws. The majority, as it is the leading force, presents certain codes of conduct and a contract of responsibilities which thought to be suitable for " everyone ", consequently, anyone who differs is statistically categorized as a part of a minority and I suppose that as a reward of blindly abiding the rules, you will silently receive, at a certain age of consent, another code which will be called " your rights " that the State will be eligible to protect them, referring as ' protecting you ' as a member of them, both rights and responsibilities progress as long as the thoughts of the majority changes. The ruling class has persistently attempted to keep them ignorant of new, revolutionary concepts in order to slow down this type of evolution. In an anarchist society, " human rights " would not exist, as " human responsibilities " wouldn't, for two reasons : 1) There would be no absolute law, which is either used to intimidate or protect 2) Anarchism intends each individual to have a set of principles of their own.
My purpose here is to argue about the distinction made about rights : Legal and natural, or moral rights. Apparently, the above description of " rights " can be considered as " legal rights " but what are natural rights ? They are defined as rights which are not dependent on laws, nor societies, they are inalienable and unlike legal rights, they are acquired since birth and are Universal . However, it is questionable whether the particular " moral goodness " in these types of rights aren't relative, my criticism resides in its biased perception of Nature and morality. Why are they only applied to humans ? And why is it assumed that the " natural " is " good " or " goodness " is " natural ". The American constitution asserts that these rights were given by a Creator, then would not these rights still be based on a theology which is still relative to the country's culture ? Of course, despite the assumption made that the Creator favors us over other species, and the assumption that this Creator even exists. Since, according to this biased perception, the good is natural, therefor the bad is unnatural, what a self-serving view ! Human preferences determining the reality is the worst insult that could ever be made to Nature.