http://i.imgsafe.org/7ff195d861.jpg

**What is a "right?"**

**The dictionary defines "right" as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something."** 
Do you have a moral or legal right to wiggle your little finger? A moral right to move and operate your own body? Of course you do! Right? If you are arguing against this then I am sad to inform you that the very act of using your eyes to read this article is a violation of proclaimed belief.

Okay, so we've established that we have a right to move our fingers, our bodies, etc. It is a kind of birthright, so obvious we don't even question it, and for good reason. It would be completely absurd to.

**Well, if you have a right to move your body, then you also have a right to move your body *around.*** That is, to convey your body from point A to point B. Great. But wait a minute. The state makes you get a license for that if you wish to use a car. If you don't get their special, magic plastic card they claim ***they have the "right"*** to put you in a cage. Yes, that's right. No, you read it right. **A fucking *PEOPLE cage.***

http://i.imgsafe.org/7ff9e918cd.jpg

**Hmm. well, let's see. I think we can tear this one apart. If I have the right to move my pinky, and I have the right to move the rest of my body, and I have the right (by nature) to move the rest of my body around, then I also have to right to move my body in the motions required to build a car or to labor to acquire funds with which to buy a car. So actually, logically speaking, the claim of the state that I must get a license to operate my own body as I choose (moving my arms at work to make money, taking said money (via body movement) to a car dealer to buy a car, buying the car by moving my money from my hands to the dealer's hands, and finally using my body to operate the car) is invalid and inconsistent because, by that logic, I might also need a license even to breathe, as that act involves freely "moving" the lungs of my own body. So by what metric did they draw this line? By what rationale? By what standard? *BY WHAT RIGHT?* Why does driving require a license, but, say, running does not? "Well, we can only trust you so far," says Mr. Government. "By what right!?" Say I.**

Apply this line of thinking to anything human beings do, and you will see that the only crime there really is, according to the natural order, is to prohibit another human being via the application of force, from the free exercise and operation of his or her own body. As we anarchists say ***"no victim, no crime."*** If I have the exclusive natural right to the exercise and operation of my own body (nearly everybody, save those with actual severe brain damage, implicitly believes this) then it follows that anything I do peacefully--without violating this right in the life of another--is legitimate. Smoke cannabis? Fine. Collect rainwater? Yep.. Go fishing? Bam. Punch myself in the face? Sure, if you want to. Weirdo.

http://i.imgsafe.org/7ffcd83ea6.jpg

To close, let's take a good step back and look at how silly this is:

***I believe that some people, because of the clothes they wear, and because of the words they are called (like "president") have "greater rights" than other human beings, and have the right to dictate to other human beings  how they can and cannot use their bodies.***

This, my friends, is called "slavery."

***
*Graham Smith is  Voluntaryist activist residing in Niigata City, Japan. Check out more of his work here:
www.facebook.com/VoluntaryJapan
https://twitter.com/VoluntaryJapan
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN1H4Vhv8fqY8uiKcnqYkKQ*
PEACE, LOVE, and ANARCHY