Subversive "rights."

These ‘rights’, always in opposition to long-standing tradition or community custom, require large governmental, if not international, force to institute their authority.

Paul Johnson's The History of the English People states that in medieval England and before, the people believed that the way to correct abuses is to restore ancient practices. Often enough, naked innovation was concealed under the rubric of "restoration" but this was the tribute that vice paid to virtue. "Virtue" as commonly understood by the people. Johnson states that it is only in modern times that the idea of reform has come to mean the devising of some new, hitherbefore-never-encountered-who-knows-what scheme to remedy "ills" and "abuses." I've added my own twist so that's not exactly what Mr. Johnson said, though I'd like to think that there'd be no objection from as to the substance.

Given a choice between the two positions, I'd much prefer the "medieval" outlook and see restored a healthy skepticism toward concepts that are right out of the box. No doubt there are ideas that simply must be incorporated wholesale stat but is it always wisdom – when confronted with the known practice of 500 years -- to cleave to the unknown practice of the next 10 as though there can be no doubt that the old ways must be jettisoned?

Clearly the answer to that is a resounding "no," but which do you suppose is the default practice of the 20th and 21st centuries?

"The Wrongs of 'Rights'." By Matthew Roberts, Taki's Top Drawer, 10/15/07 quoted in "Egalitarians and the 'rights industry'." By Vanishing American, November 20, 2007.