Rights

I'm currently using a right. Freedom of speech. Isn't it good? Shouldn't it be defended. Hurrah for Freedom of Speech!

The only problem with this right is, like all the others, it's a bit contingent on other things isn't it. Not that the right should be removed, or denied. Of course not. It should be strengthened. However, however, however...

However, I'm using my right to Freedom of Speech here and - at present - seven people are subscribed to read my witterings. I can say whatever I want (providing it's not overtly libellous, or advocating terruh-ism, or the like) and a whole 7 people POTENTIALLY could notice, and pay attention.

Not quite so grand, anymore, is it? This seemingly wonderful right is a little, well, toothless. So, for instance, I could speak truth about a subject, or my interpretation about the truth, and it has little or no impact. So, say, I could make the undeniable point (and it is undeniable) that governmental debt *as an element of GDP* is not particularly high in a historical context, that it's been much higher *as an element of GDP*, that interest on Government bonds is at a historically low level. And my seven readers may read, and agree or disagree. Meanwhile, one newspaper can print "there's no money left" and there, my lone words are drowned out.

Now, you may think my argument is bollocks, and you may argue against it (I'm just using it as an example), but where's my freedom of speech there, really? The freedom to talk quietly whilst someone else has a megaphone. And a PA system last seen when the Stones played Wembley? Not really a freedom is it?

And that's my essential point, which I reached in discussions with Ms Grain regarding rights for women. Rights are all well and good, but if they do not have societal, financial, cultural and educational underpinnings they become meaningless. I have a right to buy a porsche. I do. But unless i
(1) have the money to buy the porsche
(2) know how to drive
(3) live in an area where the porsche will attract admiration rather than resentment and
(4) it doesn't get stolen or scratched

then this "right" is pretty fucking meaningless. And that's where most rights leave us. The contraceptive rights that women gained after the first feminist wave are irrelevant if women aren't educated in their use. The middle and upper classes, strangely enough, were. The working class, strangely enough, don't tend to be.

And that's my issue with fighters for "inalienable rights". Unless they actually address the societal structure that those rights are to be practiced in, the same old same old will get repeated. Those at the bottom will get screwed, those at the top will get to practice them.

Plus ca change, eh kids?