Apparently you have certain 'rights' , these rights, are often governed, by 'Human Rights Laws'
However, there are instances, where these rights can be ignored, or infringed on.
This is often because of something called a Mental Capacity law. This law apparently deals with, being able to understand a thing said to you, being able to remember what has been said to you, and being able to communicate something to somebody about something
If you are deemed as not having sufficient mental capacity, then descions that you would otherwise be able to make for yourself, can be made for you. And you don't have to be told about it.
Is this okay?
Surely any information your required to give a descion on, could be made in writing, and given to you. And surely if you were deemed incapable of having mental capacity, this too could be made in writing, and given to you
However, it is not...scary huh
And these can be big descions regarding your health and any proposed treatments for your health. So in effect, you can be treated against your wishes, and not be prior or post informed, and, at least in theory, you may not even be aware of, when it is happening. And this ties a rather ugly little knot, as if your not aware of it, then surely your don't have mental capacity.

And with this in mind, do we even actually have any rights at all? When after all, this other law, totally trumps your right to have rights, or to even have the knowledge to know, that you don't have rights, whilst all the time, being deliberately misinformed that you do

Is this okay? Is this not okay?

Okay or not is moot. The okayness is dependent on the specific application.

In the States we have something similar called Power of Attorney.


How to Assume Power of Attorney/Guardianship

If Your Elderly Loved One Cannot Grant It.
Get a doctor's blessing.
Consult with an attorney.
See their Living Will.

Agreement to grant POA to someone is usually okay. Its done automatically in some marriages/families. It allows a spouse or parent to represent you.

Sometimes a medical POA is granted by law for someone unable to conduct their own affairs or who, if left to their own devices, would perish or negatively affect those around them. Also when someone is unable to understand the conditions for life. By intent, these types of POA are okay.

The problem with all POA is individual abuse of the privileged. Any unfair use of the POA is not okay and often punishable by law.

In legal matters, mental capacity is often assumed. For instance, If you are about to enter a contract or sign to allow a medical procedure the details are explained before you sign or not sign. If you do not understand the details as explained and sign anyway, you are the one who chose to sign. If you do not understand, you can not sign and ask then to explain what you don't understand. If they force you to sign or convince you to sign and you sign anyway, you still signed something you don't understand. Once you sign, it is assumed you have the mental capacity to make that decision.
You can trap yourself.
You can be deceived into trapping yourself.
Whether you unknowingly give permission (blindly signing) or are deceptively manipulated to giving permission is it not okay.

The problem is, many times there is no way to actually know if someone has the mental capacity to understand something.

There are also instances where one might think they understand something enough to sign but don't actually understand it. This ignorance of the 'intent' of the contract is why people often consult lawyers before signing a contract.

Again, once the contract is signed, it is assumed the one signing understands what they signed. This assumption has to be okay because if it isn't, it would void every contract ever written.

There is also government specific instances which allow a government official to take an individual's freedom to make their own decisions. In most of the 'free' world, this is done by a system of laws and the deliberation in the courts. It can result in jail time, prison sentences up to and including death, mental institutions and suspension of one's credit line.
Again, this is okay because it stabilizes the specific society according to the social mandates currently in effect.

In the 'non-free' countries of the world, no such safeguards are in place. You can be shot or imprisoned or ruled mentally incompetent at the will of the elite or the power regime. Think Nazi Germany and the Jews.
These are usually not okay according to the people in the 'free' world but from the perspective of those within that power structure, inevitable and status quo.

There is a fundamental flaw in mental capacity worldwide.
This flaw has to do with the definition of mental capacity defined by society.

Society is dependent on agreement. It thrives by similarities.
People are unique. People are individual.
Mental capacity applies to an individual person.

Society is a unity of individuals existing in alignment with one another.
As time progresses, the morals and standards of societies change.

What was once deemed insane, may one day be considered sane. There are many examples of this in our social history.

Since sanity and mental capacity is defined by society and society changes it is not a true measure. The only 'true' measure of mental capacity is the individual. But, there are stipulations of agreement which mandate a social authority.

The obvious one is social safety. Most of the world (people) exist in one form of society or another. Many stable social mandates are geared toward maintaining unity in the group.
The preservation of life and limb, wealth and power are social mandates which seem to be stable throughout the world.

When an individual demonstrates inability to maintain social stability mandates, society steps in and removes the individuals power to make unstable decisions or conduct actions which threaten the unity of society.
Its why we remove unstable individuals from society.

Another flaw in the mentality of society is "rights".

Rights are permissions granted to an individual or group of individuals by other individuals or groups (society).

Rights are dependent on the grantor.

Rights, at the legal level, are protected by laws. Violation of rights are punishable by law. Not all societies grant the same rights. Some societiers grant no rights to individuals. Some societies grant only the rights according to the current ruler.

Rights, at the current personal reality level, are dependent on the individual granting them. Any individual can at anytime violate any of your rights, person to person. This is exemplified by the fact there are rapes and murders commited daily. While the violation of your rights, at a personal level, are protected by law. It won't help you in the present when the violation is happening.

This 'fact of life' establishes the invalid nature of rights.
*Rights are dependent on the grantor.
*Rights change as society changes.
*Rights may be violated by anyone at anytime.
*Rights are only protected by law.

Society defines rights and mental capacity. Try to imagine our world without those mandates. The unity society creates keeps us safe. There is a reason why this is so. Society thrives in unity and destructs in chaos.

From the perspective of a murderer on death row their rights have been violated and their ability to make their own life decisions has been taken from them.
From the perspective of society, the violation of the murderers rights is valid to preserve the unity of that society.

Society values life over death. It values unity over chaos. If an individual lacks the capacity to care for themselves, society, to preserve life and unity, steps in and makes their decisions for them. Most 'free' societies care for their feeble individuals.

Likewise most 'free' societies teach their populations standards. Most public education systems teach common material set to social standards so the individuals within that society have a common unity.
The "Golden Rule" in 'school' is to learn the common language of society so when adult, you can function in society in unity with that society.
Those who do not or can not learn that common language of society fail to function in their society in unity. So, they have trouble living in that society.

Whether it be lack of discipline, lack of guidance, or mental capacity which causes the deficiency is not important to society. What is important to society is whether that individual can function in unity with that society.
Those who can't are problems for society to deal with to preserve and promote social unity. One way society deals with those probmatic individuals is to take away their decision making ability and suspend their rights.

I would argue this.

All rights are derived from Property. Full stop. That is what separates a (wo)man from a defined slave or slavery in of itself. If you do not even own yourself, or you under the care and responsibility of someone granting you your existence for the lack of a better word. That is a Slave.

A right is not something you can give or take away from someone. You can give or take away someones privileges however. Or as even our own US Government is famous for for the last 140yrs or so now is circumventing the Constitution for profit but that's a whole other Maury Povich show.

A so called society does not nor cannot "grant you rights" and to say they can alone is an infringement on/of your rights. That's clearly "Rights violation(s)" or being violated. In most places in the world, there's some argument to whether there's a 195 or 194 countries in the world depending on how you feel about Ireland or Isreal's recognition but in all of the world, there are still basic human rights and yes, you would be CORRECT that those people and their rights get tresspassed on by the thousands worldwide and daily.

Its like the argument to whether something is legal or illegal which I find to be abhorrently inaccurate words by definition but in the commercial world, they are fitting - by those who operate within the system.

In all honesty, they mean little to some of us. They're merely words that describe the abilities or actions someone else says you can do. Not because of any moral reasoning or for your safety but merely for the fact that another (wo)man states that you can not do or must perform some action. NO other man should be really doing that but hey, I know it's 2020 and as Ice Cube once said, "People don't know how to act".

But here is why and how I justify the use of two better words. "Lawful" and "unlawful". Why you might wonder? Because they add morality to everything under the highest law in the land and from our creator (whomever that may be to you), Gods Law, sometimes referred to as natural Law which is what common law is based on.

Taking the above scenario for example, the slave or the sovereignty of a man. It can be understood by saying, and speaking on behalf of the US here;

"At one time in this country, it used to be "LEGAL" to own a slave or slaves. However, that doesn't mean it was a "LAWFUL" act."

Do you see what happens there? You added morality and accountability to whom it belongs to.. not permissions from another man whom is and should be equal to you.

Here's another one.

"It is "ILLEGAL" to fish in that river but, if you pay me for permission [a license (?)], you can fish in that river." Here you take a a RIGHT to feed ones self, and take it away as if it was a privilege, then SELL him back his right, PROFITING from them, and giving them a permission to do something that would otherwise be "ILLEGAL". right?

No.. Your rights are yours from your creator, again whomever you may believe that is, I know there are several cultures on here. To trespass peoples rights is unlawful, even if they're in a uniform. I'm sorry you can claim 11th amendment all you want, qualified immunity, whatever.. Violate my rights, you can take someones life as they know it away from them.

In the US you have rights, The Constitution was written to outline to the Government what those rights are and inform GOVERNMENT what their limitations are... Not yours, and you have courts to use them in to get remedy or redress.

The Constitution doesn't grant you your rights and is often stated in deep error in such words. The Constitution is one of 3 most prestigious documents in this country but it is only a very large sheet of hemp paper. If you were to shred it up or burn it you would still have your rights! However, that action would unhinge the Country as a sovereign Democratic Republic to which would no longer exist under the actions of Congress.

Remember at one time President Lincoln was not only not a President for 45 days because of this, but the country technically did not exist during those 45 days either.

Back to the above topics of rights. And this is the part out of all this you may actually want to write this down or copy paste into a Word Document the following:


-- 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights;

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)


-- 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law;

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

And don't forget...


-- 42 U.S. Code § 1983.Civil action for deprivation of rights;

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)

I agree and disagree.

Consider the world before rights had legal support.

Caveman Jim would kill anyone he met if he could.
He would take their stuff and steal their women.
If caveman Bob couldn't protect his own, caveman Jim would take it, up to and including caveman Bob's life.

If caveman Jim decided not to take caveman Bob's stuff and allow him to live, caveman Jim was granting caveman Bob the right to live and the right to keep his stuff. As long as caveman Jim allowed caveman Bob to have his stuff and live another day, caveman Bob had rights afforded to him.

There are places in this world today where caveman Jim still grants rights to the caveman Bobs of their control. Countries in dictatorships, drug cartels, even gangs on the street grant rights to certain people but not all people.
Rights which they can and do rescind at their whim.

This basic interaction between the 'grantor' and the 'controlled' manifests at different degrees throughout the societies of the world. It is evident wherever a society forms, from family dynamics to government of nations.

Rules are there to dictate what is permitted and what is not.
Many rules are not enforced by the controlled. Many rules are created by the grantor of rights and are stipulations which dictate when and which rights you are permitted to have. Violation of those rules leads to certain rights being withheld.
In this manner, people are controlled. Rights are granted or withheld.

There is no right to life. If you find yourself in places where the right to life is not available, you will be killed. A hungry lion will eat you. A crocodile will eat you. A gang can rape and kill you. Your boss can fire you. Your spouse can beat you. Your child can betray you.

In some societies the police can enter your home and seize your assets or kill you. Your rights are only those they grant you.
Punishment is only a deterrent and only works up a point. That's why people kill other people. If rights were a natural thing, a lion would not eat you and there would be no need for prisons. Dictatorships would not exist. Wars would not happen.

Rights are permissions granted to an individual or group of individuals by other individuals or groups

well you have to really embrace the fact that all these actions you are referring to are taken only in the circumstance that the person is not able to navigate them on their own ...so if you are present in the moment interacting with people and having positive experiences I dont think you have anything to worry about