Rights On Paper Vs Effective Rights

Updated: Apr 22

A nation is not run by rights and laws on paper but by effective rights. Effective rights are consequences of the values people hold in that nation.

Consider college campuses in the US. You have free speech on paper, but if you dissent, you won’t get any opportunities. The effective code is tyranny on leftist matters. You effectively don’t have free speech.

Consider the American south. On paper, you have a right to practice any region or not practice anything at all. In practice, the law in the south was -- become a Christian or starve to death. It was very hard to get a job for non-Christians. Many Christians even agreed with discrimination against non-Christians because businesses must hire people with similar core values, which meant vaguely-defined Christian values.

Consider India. You have the right to voice a dissenting opinion. But you are likely to get shunned. India is collectivistic. Thus, you effectively can't dissent. The culture doesn't support it from within. If it did, the right would become futile.


Consider discrimination against dark-skinned Indians. On paper, it is illegal, but we know it makes no difference at all. No matter how many laws you make, so long people are obsessed with skin tone and don't grow above it, dark-skinned Indians are destined to suffer.

Therefore, what really matters is how philosophically and morally developed a nation is. A nation with no speech protection can afford you more freedom than one that protects speech if people intrinsically support variety of opinions and understand it to be a pillar of human development. If they have to be legally forced to not kill an apostate, they are intrinsically a bunch of animals. Rights do, however, put forth a charade of morality, making you think that a nation is more moral because it has more laws or legal protections when what right you really have there depends on their moral values.


Thus, I really want to persuade you to understand that rights on paper are futile. They really don’t matter at all if people are not morally developed. Your life depends directly on how moral the population is. It absolutely doesn't depend on the legal structure. Thus, moral development should be the ultimate goal for a leader.

Recent Posts

See All

Men's logic: Is it or is it not? Women's logic: Is it or Is it not? Either is or is not? Neither is nor is not? Sometimes is and other times

Join my mailing list

Thanks for subscribing!