> OK, what did he expect by explicitly stating that he wanted to bring disruption to a country?
Exactly right! Order above all else, even rights. If you break the rules, you no longer deserve rights. Rights are based on your adherence to the state, not on natural or universal law.
I assume you're being sarcastic, but you're essentially right. There's no such thing as natural rights or universal law. We only have what the people in power grant us. That's been the case for what I assume is the entirety of human history.
I wish that wasn't the case, but ultimately whoever has the guns gets to decide what the rules are. There's nothing, unfortunately, more "natural" than that.
You don't think that "whoever has the guns makes the rules" is not a violation of your universal rights?
Lol. Great comment. I think people missed the sarcasm.
Poe's law strikes again.
Was it sarcasm? I wondered if it was satire.
It's a reflection of The Doctrine of Fascism[1] (Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile 1932). I find it important to read original works and point out when those threads resurface. Rights as a product of the state is a core belief as described by facists themselves opposed to the universal natural rights of the liberal project. You can see how rights tied to the state naturally produce an in group and out group, and an obsession of law and order, two common features of such regimes.
The original passage reads
"Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission..."
1. https://dn721808.ca.archive.org/0/items/mussolini-archive/Th...