PROEM & POEM No. 29 - To Consent Is Unalienable / 4th Reprise
---
Intended or not, by the use of the verb “harm” John Locke came far closer to the mark, “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” For by identifying the condition “harmed” as wrong or unacceptable, otherwise “unharmed” as right or acceptable, Mr. Locke also identified by implication one and only one capable of such determinations; the person acted upon thus he/she either a benefactor or victim of the same act depending on his/her preference internally, represented by consent or dissent externally.
It is logically impossible to evaluate a condition harmed or unharmed without knowing the person’s preference solely expressed by consenting or not consenting. To assume any other standard as absolute or unalienable, like lists of rights in declarations, bills or articles, is not only an endless endeavor even folly conceptually, but quite oppressive, intrusive practically as well unethical logically. For lists of 3, 4, 10, 30 or more will inherently transgress, inevitably trample at least a few, often some or many, even at times most in a society, hence always disregarding the Singular Human Right to Consent or Not Consent on all matters intimate, private, philosophical, spiritual/theological, public, social, political, consequently, ethical…inseparably disrespecting the Particular Human Ability to Reason.
---
Enumeration, accordingly, dehumanization resultantly
The inhumane checkmate of individuality unavoidably
Favors as bait then entitled, later righted, ah the prate
Presuming au fait the State yet obfuscating it’s self-fete
Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Copyright © 2016-2017 by D.C. Quillan Stone
No comments:
Post a Comment