Darkover
Archangel
- Jul 29, 2021
- 5,138
Our lives are the only things we truly own. We did not choose to be born, yet from the moment we arrive, we are subjected to rules, expectations, and obligations imposed by society and the state. Governments claim authority over our bodies and choices, dictating what we can do with our own existence—whether it's where we live, how we work, or even whether we are allowed to exit life on our own terms.
But autonomy is the foundation of true freedom. If we do not have sovereignty over our own existence, then what freedom do we really have? The government does not experience our pain, our suffering, or our burdens—yet it presumes the right to tell us that we must endure them. Laws against assisted suicide, for example, are not about protecting individuals; they are about maintaining control, ensuring that people remain functional cogs in the system, regardless of their personal suffering.
To say "these are our lives" is not just a statement of belief—it is a fact. No government, no institution, no ideology should have the right to dictate what a person must endure. The ultimate act of self-ownership is the ability to decide whether to continue existing. Anything less is forced servitude to a system that sees people not as individuals, but as resources to be managed.
The idea of "human rights" is often framed as a universal truth, but in reality, they exist only as privileges granted by those in power. If rights were inherent, they wouldn't need enforcement, nor could they be revoked, ignored, or manipulated by governments. What we call "rights" are, in practice, permissions—given conditionally, often in ways that serve economic and political interests rather than individual well-being.
The most glaring hypocrisy is the so-called "right to life." Governments use it to justify restricting euthanasia and assisted suicide, yet they have no problem sending people to war, allowing poverty to destroy lives, or letting medical systems fail those who are suffering. If life is a right, then shouldn't it belong entirely to the individual? If we are forced to endure suffering with no way out, then what we have is not a right to life but a mandate to exist—whether we want to or not.
A true right to life would include the right to end it, free from interference. Otherwise, "human rights" are just another form of control, dressed up in moral language to keep people obedient.
If human rights were truly about dignity and autonomy, they would prioritize individual choice above all else. The fact that governments enforce a "duty to live" rather than a genuine right to self-determination exposes the illusion. A right that cannot be freely exercised is not a right at all—it is a condition imposed by those in power. Until the right to exit life is recognized as fundamental, "human rights" will remain what they have always been: a carefully constructed illusion designed to keep people in line, not to set them free.
But autonomy is the foundation of true freedom. If we do not have sovereignty over our own existence, then what freedom do we really have? The government does not experience our pain, our suffering, or our burdens—yet it presumes the right to tell us that we must endure them. Laws against assisted suicide, for example, are not about protecting individuals; they are about maintaining control, ensuring that people remain functional cogs in the system, regardless of their personal suffering.
To say "these are our lives" is not just a statement of belief—it is a fact. No government, no institution, no ideology should have the right to dictate what a person must endure. The ultimate act of self-ownership is the ability to decide whether to continue existing. Anything less is forced servitude to a system that sees people not as individuals, but as resources to be managed.
The idea of "human rights" is often framed as a universal truth, but in reality, they exist only as privileges granted by those in power. If rights were inherent, they wouldn't need enforcement, nor could they be revoked, ignored, or manipulated by governments. What we call "rights" are, in practice, permissions—given conditionally, often in ways that serve economic and political interests rather than individual well-being.
The most glaring hypocrisy is the so-called "right to life." Governments use it to justify restricting euthanasia and assisted suicide, yet they have no problem sending people to war, allowing poverty to destroy lives, or letting medical systems fail those who are suffering. If life is a right, then shouldn't it belong entirely to the individual? If we are forced to endure suffering with no way out, then what we have is not a right to life but a mandate to exist—whether we want to or not.
A true right to life would include the right to end it, free from interference. Otherwise, "human rights" are just another form of control, dressed up in moral language to keep people obedient.
If human rights were truly about dignity and autonomy, they would prioritize individual choice above all else. The fact that governments enforce a "duty to live" rather than a genuine right to self-determination exposes the illusion. A right that cannot be freely exercised is not a right at all—it is a condition imposed by those in power. Until the right to exit life is recognized as fundamental, "human rights" will remain what they have always been: a carefully constructed illusion designed to keep people in line, not to set them free.
