Rights
Human Freedom, Animal Rights. One Struggle, One Fight!
This is often the argument of the animal rights crowd who claim that animals have a right to live free from being used as a food source by human society. Animals, they argue, being living creatures should have the same right to life that we humans enjoy. This statement however raises the issue of what exactly is a right and who decrees that one has the right to something? Equally who decides what one does not have a right to?
If we take for example the theory that an individual has certain unalienable rights. Rights that they can not abdicate such as the right to self determination or the right to live free from persecution. Who is it that defines these rights and how far reaching are they?
The right to self determination for example. How far does that stretch? Is it simply that an individual has a right to vote for whomsoever she wishes in a liberal democracy? Does the individual have the right, if she so wishes, do remove herself from society and live a life of ascetic misanthropy?
What of civil rights? These rights are surely entirely subjective and dependant upon the society within which one lives? Does a woman have the right to vote? Does a amn have the right to take another man as his lover?
All of these concepts of human rights are bourgeois concepts that seek to bind us ever closer to the state and the idea that we are answerable to the state and authority.
A right is something that is granted by a central organ of power and as such is something that can easily be taken away.
The right to freedom of expression is a right that is often curtailed when it is an expression that offends the sensibilities of bourgeois society.
The right to take who you wish as your lover is something that is regulated and controlled by the state and as such only stretches as far as the state will allow.
When talking of the things we are able to do within society it is mistaken to talk of rights as a right can only ever be handed down by the bourgeoisie. It is not something that is inherent.
What is inherent however is freedom.
We, when discussing such matters, must be careful not to talk in terms of human rights but n terms of human freedoms.
A freedom is something that can not be dictated from above but is something that can be seized from the bourgeoisie and that can be fought for.
Rights can only ever be begged for.
There is no pride in being granted a right, to being cast crumbs from the masters table. A slightly longer leash with a shiny new collar.
A freedom is taken by aiming a pistol between the eyes of the bourgeoisie and taking from them that which they stole from you.
Do not beg for your rights.
Expropriate your freedom!!
The Miserablist Speaks 
Very well put.
It’s not a question of Human Freedom and Animal Rights, but of freedom for human and non-human animals. Something that WILL be taken and not begged for!!
One thing maybe to mention is that “rights” are defined for “people”, which so far includes humans and corporations. So begging for rights, is reinforcing the “rights” of corporations to not be campaigned against or “harrassed”, such as by obtaining SOCPA injunctions
More importantly though, this is just the beginning. First it was classified using “harrassement”, then it was “blackmail” (which ironically defines any direct campaign), next campaigners will probably be imprisoned for “assualting” companies if they cause any physcial damage.
As property destruction is defined as violent by most states, its clearly to (very soon) define such an attack as “assault”, to increase potential sentences for political prisoners. What next, “attempted murder”?? There’s no reason why not, corporations are now “people”.
Very good read.