David Little defines human rights as the fundamental freedoms and entitlements that all people should possess, regardless of their characteristics or circumstances. When mentioning “arbitrary” stripping, Little is referring to the removal of rights with no valid reason or justification. Arbitrary Stripping causes conflict because it goes against the whole belief that human rights are inalienable and should be protected by the law. This would not be something that would be taken lightly by any individual. An example in which an individual would lose these rights would be in a case where an individual is being detained due to them being a threat to themselves or others around them. If a person is being put into prison for committing a felony such as murder, then that …show more content…
This letter written by King is a prime example of the effects arbitrary stripping of human rights can have on public disobedience and even social unrest. Overall, King's message was that human rights are inherited and should not be infringed on by any individual that holds power. Little and King both held similar beliefs when it came to human rights. Little stated “Human rights are grounded in the intrinsic worth and sacredness of the human person.” while King stated “All people are “created equal” and possess “certain unalienable rights.” This shared belief is what kept both men fighting for people to be able to have their rights. Both King and Little also believed that nonviolence was the most effective method. Little states “nonviolent action is the most effective way to address injustice and secure human rights.” King states, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” This shows how both men recognized the effects of nonviolence when challenging those of higher authority when it came to human