| BACK |
The Nature and Origin of
Rights
Writing on the nature and origins of rights is somewhat daunting, given the many great philosophers that have previously weighed in on this topic. Interested readers who want a serious treatise on this topic should read the related works by John Locke, Adam Smith, our Founding Fathers, Fredrick Bastiat, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Nozick. I will not attempt such a treatise here. Instead, this being an election year [during which we will be bombarded with discussions of our “rights” to medical care, education, affordable housing, nutritious food, convenient transportation, etc.], I hope to provide some conceptual clarity on what rights we really have, why they must be protected/defended, and why asserting fictitious “rights” destroys our legitimate rights … sort of a pre-election inoculation against political bribery and misrepresentation. While politicians can wildly assert a panoply of “rights” to gain the favor of voters, it is important to recognize the importance of ensuring that all the “rights” we settle on are non-contradictory. If included among our rights are two rights that contradict each other … which right do we have? Who decides? Wouldn’t the fact that someone needs to decide which right prevails, put both rights in jeopardy? Rights follow Gresham’s Law: “Bad Rights drive out Fundamental Rights”. If a court decides that a “Fundamental Right” must be subjugated to a “Right-of-the-Month-Club Right” … just once … it is no longer a Right. You can’t count on it. It is now little more than a privilege. Rights are not privileges that can be granted one day and ignored the next. They are meant to be something that we as human beings innately have. Something closely tied to the nature of our being. Governments or other men may violate our rights, but they cannot take them away. The only way to ensure that our rights/freedoms are secure is to put any proposed “Right” to a simple test: Does the assertion of this right contradict any more fundamental right? But this implies a starting point. A first and “most fundamental” right must be established. What might that “most fundamental” right be? The answer is: a man’s right to his/her own life. What can be more “self evident” than this? Society doesn’t own our lives; we do. All other rights logically result or are a consequence of this bedrock right. Clearly, if we don’t have the right to our own life, then we accept slavery as an inevitable result. There is no other choice. Our individual right to our life clearly necessitates the right to take those actions needed to sustain our lives, to further our lives, and to make our lives fulfilling … with the only constraint being that such actions cannot violate the equal rights of others to do likewise. The right to take those actions to sustain and to further our lives has no meaning if the products of those actions are not ours, by right, to dispose of. If others (or society) can claim rights over the products of our labor, then we have no right to life … we are all at the mercy of society’s latest whim. Most of the fictitious rights promulgated by politicians every election cycle represent a direct assault on our most fundamental right: the right to our life and to the products of the efforts we’ve made to sustain and enhance our lives. In almost every case, they require that the fruits of the efforts of one person be expended (regardless of their consent) for the benefit of others. A requirement that is intended to be forcefully imposed by the government through the tax code and through the government’s police powers. Our willingness to permit laws establishing these rights has completely undermined our individual liberty. We are now wholly owned by the state. In reality, none of our rights are currently recognized and left un-violated. We now depend on privileges or permissions. We enjoy only what privileges and permissions the voters and the legislature grant. And we better do what the government tells us to do … or don’t earn a living. Ø If the tax
rate is 30%, we keep 70% … that is until the tax
rate is raised to 60%, at which point we keep 40%. We
keep what they say we can keep … no more. But we are the Land of the Free! Free to do what we are told. Rights are not privileges. They are rights. Do we own our life or does the state? Do we own the fruits of our labor or does the state? Can we engage in consensual relationships (private or commercial) without the consent of the state or without fulfilling some bureaucrat’s data gathering fantasy? The sad fact is that the politician’s scam, to have us trade our freedoms to him or her for a dole and a vote, is financed by stealing from our fellow citizens and is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. Their scam lowers our economy’s productivity and lowers our standard of living while curtailing our liberties. We end up without our freedoms and substantially poorer in the bargain. The politicians,
who can’t support themselves with an honest job or
who are too lazy to try … well, they lose to.
Eventually, if justice is served, they pay the
appropriate price. Keep your pitchforks sharpened. Send your questions
comments to ValleyPatriot@aol.com |
Our Founding Fathers, in the Declaration
of Independence, said that our “unalienable
rights”, their origins, and their relationship to
Governments were “Self Evident” (as in “We
hold these truths to be Self Evident, …”). I
rarely take issue with our Founding Fathers but, at least
in this Modern era, I think a little reflection on these
issues is important.