Have you ever looked at some of the basic human rights every human on this planet is entitled to?

Such as food...and shelter? These are main things. To take away these things would be a violation of human rights. However, who exactly has the RIGHT to dictate what a right is?

Surely, we humans are not THAT conceited that we believe we are ENTITLED to \'necessities\'. Of course, because of our ability to communicate on complex levels, we\'re able to communicate to each other. To negotiate....that way, we don\'t end up becoming primitive and what not.

But who has the right to say what you CAN and CAN NOT do? the PResident??? HAH!!! The Government??? HAH!!! I understand that we as in the public (not me...) put men/women in the government in charge, but that just means we\'re too damned stupid to really think for ourselves, and judge what should happen to ourselves. Of course, I understand perfectly that human rights enable civilization, and also organization, that way, the human race doesn\'t go stupid. But still, who\'s to say that we DESERVE these rights? Who\'s to say whether or not we DESERVE anything at all? Who\'s to say that DESERVE can even be USED in this piece??? The Truth is, no one can. But people do, simply because they are \'supposedly\' in charge of it. That they have the authority.

I\'m not sure WHERE I\'m going with this...maybe I just wanted to bring it to your attention.

There is no such thing as a right that people are naturally entitled to; instead, there are rights granted to man in certain countries that were decided to be beneficial for the common man. They\'re to protect society. Nobody is truly entitled to them, but we as humans decided we should be because it\'s something that would benefit everyone. Anyone who disagrees that we shouldn\'t have rights is likely ignoring that without these rights the person likely wouldn\'t be where they are now.

The attitude that people putting governments in charge due to their own inability to make their own decisions is far too condescending. It\'s true in some people\'s cases, but not in all. Society wouldn\'t function very well in an anarchy state; humans are far too aggressive by nature and if each individual had the power to decide what\'s legally right and wrong it\'d be dangerous. Laws don\'t dictate what is right or wrong really, they outline what has been generally decided to be dangerous to society and needs to be outlawed to protect the common man.

But anyways, I got too far off there. Anarchy wouldn\'t be a safe way to rule things, it\'s in people\'s best interest if some sort of authority is in place. Personally I\'d prefer it to be one people decided on instead of someone claiming they have the power because God said so(like how many European countries operated long ago). Also, we humans as a civilization can advance more if we have specific people running things instead of everyone individually doing it; there are other jobs to be accomplished in life which should be focused on, and if we let elected officials act on our behalf we can put our energies into these areas.

Post redacted