| 
The Meaning of Rights
Constitution
and Law Series #10
By Timothy B. Lewis of the Constitutional Freedom Foundation
As I explained in prior articles, there are certain words that
are so impressive to us that we tend to use them regularly in
arguments. However, the meaning of such terms is not static.
Through widespread misuse, a word’s meaning can change radically.
In the prior two articles I discussed the meaning of the words
“justice” and “equality.” The purpose of this article is to
consider another such word – “rights.”
Declaration of Independence
It used to be that rights were associated with status – for
example, the rights of a king, the rights of a Baron, the rights
of a peasant, etc. Our American Revolution moved the concept along
towards the notion of universal human rights. Our most famous description
of rights is found in the Declaration of Independence. We discussed
it in the prior article on equality, let us now consider it for
the purpose of understanding the true meaning of the word “rights:”
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator
with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these
rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form
of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right
of the people to alter or abolish it...."
There are several different philosophic aspects worthy of comment
in that statement. First, fundamental rights are God-given.
Second, they equally apply to all people. Third, they pre-date
government and the fundamental purpose of government is to protect
them.
Fundamental Human Rights Are God-Given And Pre-Date Government
Let us quickly consider the first and third points together.
We have already discussed at length in a prior article the idea
that our liberties are a gift from God, which gift imposes certain
moral obligations as to how we are obligated to use those liberties.
Since all of our fundamental human rights, including liberty,
are a gift from God, they all predate government. This is important
to consider since many people today seem to think that their
rights emanate from their government rather than God. Again,
understanding the proper ordering principle is important if
our fundamental rights are to be effectively maintained in perpetuity.
Government didn’t come first, but rather, second – and its
purpose is to protect our pre-existing human rights, not create
them.
Confirming our founders’ views on this subject, Frederic Bastiat,
a French philosopher of the mid-1800's, observed:
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men
have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life,
liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make
laws in the first place.” [1]
For Something To Truly Be Considered A Right, It Must Apply
To Every Member Of Society Equally
It took us a while to fully recognize the second principle
(equality) specified in the Declaration of Independence. We
were on the right track conceptually, but it took the later
passage of the Constitution and a few Amendments thereto (i.e.
13th, 14th, 15th, 19th,
and 24th) before we finally recognized equal rights
regardless of race or sex.
Balint Vazsonyi, introduced a prior article, congratulated
the drafters of the Magna Carta in 1215 for discovering the
following simple truth: “A person’s rights are best secured
by conceding the very same rights to every other person under
the same jurisdiction.” [2] He called these “reciprocal rights” and commented
that “Legal scholars of distinction [had] produced writings
to fill several libraries, yet this seemingly obvious prescription
for domestic tranquility [had] escaped them [prior to this point
in time.]” [3]
He reminds us that for something to legitimately be considered
a “right” it must apply to all people. In other words, universality
of application is required. Therefore, “group rights” that
provide benefits to only those within the applicable group and
not to those outside that group, are not really “rights” at
all but must be called something else. Said he:
“Individual rights reflect our similarities; group rights
emphasize our differences. Individual rights permit every one
of us to be special; group rights create stereotypes. Individual
rights are unalienable, and are guaranteed by the Constitution;
group rights are born at activist rallies....
“Individual rights and group rights are mutually exclusive;
we cannot have it both ways.
“Individual rights provide a sense of security. The
greater the sense of security, the more of people’s creativity
will be converted to productivity. The higher the productivity,
the greater the sense of independence.
“Group rights instill fear. The greater the fear, the
more the limitation on human activity. The greater the limitations,
the more total the dependency on the wielders of regulatory
power.
“Group rights – invented rights, that is – come, of
course, with an important financial dimension. The bearer is
entitled to unearned benefits – more directly put, to the fruits
of other people’s labor. Of greater significance, however,
is the gradual destruction of society by the fear that attends
group rights.”
[4]
So it is a misnomer to call something a right unless everybody
equally enjoys it. I refer you to the section entitled “Equality
Under The Law” in the last article for further discussion including
quotes from Madison, Blackstone and Locke.
Trading The State Of Nature For Civil Society
If one were to live in a state of nature devoid of all human
society, then his natural fundamental rights to life, liberty,
and property would be at their highest level. However, as George
Washington noted, when man enters into civil society, he has
to give up some things in order to gain others. If his right
to life were absolute, he could never be punished with capital
punishment for murder. If his right to liberty were absolute,
he could never be incarcerated for committing a lesser crime
against somebody else’s rights. If his right to property were
absolute, he could never be forced to pay any taxes to support
the operations of government.
In the same way William Blackstone distinguished “natural liberty”
from “civil liberty” in prior articles, perhaps we can distinguish
“natural rights” (i.e. the God-given, fundamental universal
rights) from “civil rights.” To borrow Blackstone’s earlier
language, perhaps we could exchange the word “rights” for “liberties”
and say that civil rights are natural rights, “so far restrained
by human laws (and no farther) as is necessary and expedient
for the general advantages of the public....In this definition
of civil [rights] it ought to be understood, or rather expressed,
that the restraints introduced by the law should be equal to
all, or as much so as the nature of things will admit.”
From this perspective, the rights delineated in the Bill of
Rights to the Constitution seem to be more in the nature of
civil rights than natural rights. In other words, it is obvious
from the language of those Amendments, that under certain circumstances
the government can take away our life, liberty or property,
but those Amendments set the ground rules for doing so. For
example, due process of law has to be observed before that can
happen. The federal government must get a warrant before searching
and seizing evidence on private property; it must use a jury
of peers to convict; it must allow the accused the opportunity
to be represented by legal counsel and the ability to cross
examine the witnesses arrayed against him, etc.
In other words, the Bill of Rights are civilly imposed handcuffs
on government action against us consistent with the compact
theory of government. In order to gain other desirable benefits
from forming society at the federal level, we agree to potentially
give up some of our natural rights to life, liberty and property,
but only under certain circumstances and the rules of engagement
set forth in the Bill of Rights.
In both the case of natural rights and civil rights, universality
of enjoyment and equality of application must accompany them
to properly qualify under the term “rights.”
What Are Minority Rights?
In the true meaning of rights where they are universally and
equally enjoyed by all, there is no such thing as “minority
rights.” Today we seem to think that if the majority makes
a law that prohibits certain conduct, and if a minority of the
population does not like the restriction, then somehow we have
violated some sort of minority rights. Were that the case,
then absent unanimous consent, all democratically created laws
would violate somebody’s minority rights, and thus, appear to
be invalid since most people seem to think that “rights” should
always trump everything else. This is nonsense for by that
thinking, we could have no laws whatsoever.
Group Rights Breed Disrespect For The Law, And Disrespect Breeds
Disobedience
When we create “rights” that only apply to certain groups of
people but not to others, we violate a basic rule of law that
everybody intuitively senses to be a good and just principle
– equal protection and equal application of the law.
When the law treats people differently, the natural by-product
is disrespect for the law. Anybody who has ever been subjected
to the harsher side of a double standard has sensed the inherent
injustice of that treatment. In a free society such as ours,
we depend upon widespread voluntary compliance with the law
without any need for the application of external force. However,
it is unreasonable to expect people to act this way when they
see unequal application of the law. More likely, they will
develop a scofflaw attitude rather than a compliant one. Thus
we risk the long-term health of the legal system when we create
“group rights” which, as was discussed earlier, are not really
rights at all, but rather some form of selective entitlement
bestowed upon one group at the expense of all others.
As the law expands inappropriately and/or out of proportion
and consequently, my respect for it generally diminishes, I
find myself becoming more aggressive in liberally interpreting
particular laws in my favor -- even when I understand and agree
with the purposes behind those laws. My attitude tends to become
more of : “What do I want and how can I manipulate the law to
get my way?” (i.e. a scofflaw attitude) rather than “What does
the law require of me? Like everybody else, I need to comply
as a good citizen.” Consider the following personal experience.
Some states have agricultural inspection stations posted at
their borders to try to stop the inward migration of various
pests and diseases that might threaten those states’ agricultural
crops. Arizona has such an inspection station. While living
in Phoenix many years ago, my family and I drove to Utah to
attend a college football game one fall. While driving around
town, I passed a farmer’s house that had stacks of bushel boxes
of apples out front for sale. Loving apples, I bought a box
before heading back to Phoenix.
When I got to the inspection station in Arizona, the man asked
me if I had any fresh produce. I said that I did. He then
asked: “Did you buy it in a store?” Before answering him, the
following thoughts quickly raced through my mind: “If I say
‘no’ to that question, I will probably lose my box of apples.
I don’t want that to happen so how can I honestly say ‘yes’
to that question and keep my apples?” In my mind I then waxed
philosophic and asked myself: “What -- is a ‘store?’ “Well,”
I answered to myself, “a store is a physical location where
a seller sells and a buyer buys goods. Certainly my purchase
of apples fits within that liberal conceptualization of the
word ‘store.’” After going through that mental exercise of rationalization
in a split second’s time, I answered “yes” to his question.
He said: “Very well sir, have a good day.”
As I drove on down the road, the atmosphere in our car thickened.
After about ten miles of very loud silence from my wife, she
turned to me and said: “I can’t believe you did that!” I responded:
“You know what? Neither can I!” I was obviously in the midst
of a moral slide in behavior regarding my willingness to voluntarily
comply with the law. I maintain that when people lose their
respect for the law, they tend to rationalize like I did there,
and get very aggressive in their interpretation of the law as
it applies to them personally.
What type of attitude towards the law should people have?
Consider the following story I once heard. It seems that back
in the old days, a stage coach company was advertising to hire
a new stage coach driver. Three applicants had been selected
for interviews. Each was asked the same question: “How close
to the edge of a cliff can you drive and still be safe?” The
first man said: “I am such a good driver that I can drive within
one inch of the edge and still be safe.” Not to be outdone,
the second man answered: “I am such a good driver that I can
drive with half the wheel over the edge and the other half of
the wheel on the ground and still be safe.” The third man’s
answer differed radically from the other two. He simply said:
“I don’t know how close I can safely drive near the edge of
a cliff – I always stay as far away from the edge as possible.”
The third man got the job.
As an unintended side effect spawned by perverse incentives,
when our law veers away from its original philosophic moorings,
we inadvertently encourage people to be reckless like the first
two drivers and not respect the legal lines drawn by society.
In order to get their selfish ways – like I with my apples –
people constantly probe and test the outer boundaries of the
law rather than staying a safe and respectable distance away
from the edge like the third driver. For us to maintain our
freedoms, most people have to think and act like the third driver
but it is unreasonable to expect them to do so when we give
them cause to disrespect the law.
As Bastiat warned: “No society can exist unless the laws are
respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws
respected is to make them respectable.”
[5] Double standards creating legal privileges enjoyed
unequally throughout society, naturally tend to breed disrespect
for the law.
Perversion of language: “Freedom” and “Rights”
Freidrich A. Hayek observed that the meaning ascribed to the
word “freedom” has been changed in order to sell the greater
public on the supposed need for more confiscation and redistribution
of wealth:
“[T]he majority of people still believe that socialism
and freedom can be combined. [6] ... [They do not realize] that
democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations,
is not only unachievable but that to strive for it produces
something utterly different
[7] – the very destruction of freedom itself [8] ....The most effective way of
making people accept the validity of the values they are to
serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those
they have always held, but which were not properly understood
or recognized before....And the most efficient technique to
this end is to use the old words but change their meaning.
Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing
to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the
whole intellectual climate as this complete perversion of language. [9] ...to the great apostles of political freedom, the
word [“freedom”] meant freedom from coercion, freedom from the
arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left
the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior
to whom he was attached. The new freedom promised [by socialists],
however, was to be freedom from necessity, release from the
compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range
of choice of all of us....Freedom in this sense is, of course,
merely another name for power or wealth....The demand for the
new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for
an equal distribution of wealth. But the new name gave the
socialists another word in common with the liberals, and they
exploited it to the full.
[10] ...the promise of greater freedom has become one
of the most effective weapons of socialist propaganda...” [11] (emphasis added)
What Hayek says about the word “freedom” would also apply to
the word “rights.” When people only have a loose definition
of words like “rights,” “liberty,” “freedom,” “equality,” “justice,”
etc., it becomes relatively easy for a smooth talker to say
something like: “You believe in rights don’t you?” After agreeing,
he says: “Then you believe in such and such....” and he is able
to say anything he wants that is vaguely close to your notion
of that word. Then you think to yourself: “Well, I believe
in rights so I guess I believe in what he just told me.” But
this is sloppy thinking. Rather than fall for such a tactic,
you should give some serious consideration to what the word
really means.
In 1850 the French philosopher Bastiat criticized the socialists
of his day for using the word "rights" to describe
what, in short, amounted to mere political demands. [12] Bastiat would quickly accuse
us of suffering from the same propensity today.
People use words like “rights” to end all debate. When someone
says “I have a right to such and such....” it is hard to contest
the matter unless you can see that what he is talking about
is really just a political demand that does not meet the true
meaning of the word rights as discussed above.
Rights To, Versus Rights From Something
Sowell said:
"To say that someone has a 'right' to any kind
of housing is to say that others have an obligation to expend
[resources and] efforts on his behalf, without his being reciprocally
obligated to compensate them for it. Rights from government
interference...may be free, but rights to anything mean
that someone else has been yoked to your service involuntarily,
with no corresponding responsibility on your part to provide
for yourself, to compensate others, or even to behave decently
or responsibly. Here the language of equal rights is conscripted
for service in defense of differential privileges....Rights
have been aptly characterized as 'trumps' which override other
considerations, including other people's interests." [13]
Entitlements Are Not “Rights”
Wray Herbert commented:
"The perversion of rights is a controlling thesis
of many of the new cultural critiques. According to Elshtain
(Jean Bethke Elshtain, Democracy on Trial), rights were
once defined as immunities against harm. Today, she contends,
rights have come to mean Entitlements, often in the form of
state-sanctioned favors for groups of self-proclaimed victims.
A 'politics of displacement,' Elshtain says, hopelessly confused
private and public life, so that private identities -- 'me and
my fleeting angers, resentments, sentiments and impulses' --
become the stuff of public policy and lawmaking. This argument
has been elaborated by attorney Mary Ann Glendon, in Rights
Talk, in which she argues that America's obsession with
legalism and individual Entitlements leaves little room for
discourse about the right ordering of citizens' lives. The
result is a cavernous silence with respect to personal and civic
responsibilities.
"When citizens define themselves primarily as victims,
then the institutions of state and society tend to move away
from their traditional functions and to substitute various forms
of therapy. Indeed, according to Glendon, rights talk has converged
with the language of psychotherapy in contemporary American
society, encouraging the unfortunate human tendency to situate
the self at the center of the moral universe, which creates
ill effects in every corner of society.
"Schools, for example, have become social-service
agencies and self-esteem clinics and are so overburdened with
therapeutic tasks that they cannot perform their primary function
-- teaching -- very well. Nowhere is this preoccupation with
rights and feelings more clearly seen than in the teaching of
American history, which is increasingly guided by multi-culturalism,
political correctness, and the desire to assuage the feelings
of groups who would prefer that their history be different than
it in fact was.
"Similarly, the institutions of government spend
less time governing and more time attending to the bruised feelings
of various classes of victims...." [14]
As Group Rights Expand, The Government’s Ability To Govern
Diminish
Because we have created a plethora of what Balint Vazsonyi
called “group rights,”discussed earlier, we have inadvertently
moved away from representative democracy towards minority rule.
Government has lost the effective power to govern – it has ceded
its powers to individual and special interest groups who are
turned loose to stop or force anything they want through the
invocation of their so-called “rights.”
We have created what Professor Robert Kagan calls “adversarial
legalism” which, as Phillip K. Howard observed:
“has made it nearly impossible for government to act....You
can’t fight process, at least not with any confidence. It’s
too vague, and has no natural closure. Somebody can always
complain that the process isn’t fair to him....Environmental
review procedures were instituted with the intent of ensuring
responsible decision making. Instead, they have transferred
power...to private groups...who can stall anything on procedural
nit-picking....The process ends up empowering a lot of people.
They don’t have to win. No burden of proof at all. All they
need is a point. And they hold on to it for eighteen months
and the project is dead. Government doesn’t seem to mind that
process has taken away its authority.” [15]
For example, consider the issue of nuclear power. Now you
may personally despise this idea, but who should determine whether
or not our country uses nuclear power? Shouldn’t it be by democratic
majority rule? After all, isn’t energy self-sufficiency a matter
of national security? By allowing special interest groups to
bring seemingly endless litigation over environmental concerns,
we have effectively priced nuclear power out of the market place.
I believe that the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona
was the last one to be constructed – and that took place about
twenty years ago. Back then, I recall reading a news article
stating that through various environmental groups bringing seemingly
endless law suits, they effectively added about a billion dollars
to the cost of constructing that plant. Consequently, utility
companies stopped planning to build any more nuclear power plants
expecting the same perpetual and very costly legal hassles if
they were to ever try. In this context, the notion of legal
rights trumped democracy.
Another example here in Utah is the Legacy Highway designed
to relieve the bottleneck of traffic leading into Salt Lake
City from the north. Through the power of law suits, a small
minority has effectively halted construction of that project.
Perhaps someday that project will be finished but if and when
it is, it will cost the taxpayers a lot more money and their
enjoyment of it will be long delayed. We have effectively given
minority factions the power to influence and, in some cases
even control, major areas of public policy that should be determined
by majority rule.
The Contemporary Meaning Of Rights: Subsidies Paid For By Others
Howard continues:
“Rights are considered as American as apple pie....Rights
were synonymous with freedom, protection against being ordered
around by government or others. Rights have taken on a new
role in America. Whenever there is a perceived injustice, new
rights are created to help victims. These rights are different:
While the rights-bearers may see them as ‘protection,’ they
don’t protect so much as provide. These rights are intended
as a new, and often invisible, form of subsidy. They are provided
at everyone else’s expense, but the amount of the check is left
blank.” [16]
Modern Rights Create A Type Of Inverted Feudalism Accented
With An Air Of Moral Superiority–Who Can Argue Against A “Right?”
Regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Howard
said:
“The law passed with virtually no opposition. After
all, rights cost little or nothing out of the budget. It’s
only a matter of being fair. Or so we think. Rights, however,
leave no room for balance, or for looking at it from everybody’s
point of view as well. Rights, as the legal philosopher Ronald
Dworkin has noted, are a trump card. Rights give open-ended
power to one group, and it comes out of everybody else’s hide....Rights
cede control to those least likely to use them wisely....This
abdication has led to an inverted feudalism in which the rights-bearer,
by assertion of legal and moral superiority, lords it over everybody
else. Rights-bearers do warfare independent of the constraints
of democracy: GIVE US OUR RIGHTS. We cringe, lacking
even a vocabulary to respond.” [17]
“The Americans with Disabilities Act supposedly protects 43
million Americans. The overwhelming preponderance of the ADA
regulations, however, and virtually all cost and conflict, relate
to wheelchair users....not 2 percent of the disabled are in
wheelchairs, and many of those are confined to nursing homes.
Billions are being spent to make every nook and cranny of every
facility in America wheelchair accessible....when children die
of malnutrition and finish almost dead last in math. Zealots,
we learn time and again, always push their ‘right’ to its absolute
limit and beyond. They go as fast as they can, and the rest
of us be damned. ‘The law is the law’ [they say]....Their mission
becomes an obsession, their appetite never quelled. Faster
and faster. It’s their right. But we all live here together.
Society needs red lights as well as green lights. Government...must
continually perform the role of letting one group go so far
and then allowing others to go. Rights provide a perpetual
green light. That means everyone else is getting run over as
those with rights try to get to where they want. The injuries
are mounting, and Americans are building up a reservoir of hatred.” [18]
The ADA has become nothing more than a sophisticated shake-down
racket to some people. Consider the following letter circulated
by an attorney to various handicapped people:
“I am the attorney (age 48) who for the past three years
has had the privilege to represent a small action group of six
wonderful individuals who use wheelchairs age 37 to 66....Their
shopping at inaccessible stores in San Francisco and then filing
lawsuits as clients of mine against those inaccessible stores
nets them each an income which makes them financially independent.
For each of them, the lack of funds which used to limit them
to life’s bare necessities and which plagues so many disabled
individuals today has become only an unpleasant memory from
the past. As a reward for implementing the law and making stores
more accessible for other disabled shoppers, group members now
use their stream of income to eat out at good restaurants when
they want to, buy new clothes and computers and televisions
and gifts for family members, travel and take vacations wherever
and whenever they want to go, and live a lifestyle they could
only imagine prior to joining the group....The group has room
for a small number of additional members. Once that small number
of additional members has been selected, the group will again
close to new members.”
[19]
Modern Rights Weaken Lines Of Authority
Under the new concept of “rights” where they have become a
form of entitlements rather than protections from unwarranted
intrusions on our freedoms Howard observes:
“Rights have a beneficent ring, as if they ensure justice
without cost. But the cost becomes quickly apparent as rights
are asserted.....“Like termites eating their way through a home,
‘rights’ began weakening the lines of authority of our society.” [20]
Rights Tend To Be Viewed As Absolutes That Can Never Be Compromised
Howard said:
“The virtue of rights, at least to the advocates, is
that they are absolute. What’s a little inefficiency when there
is complete justice for me? Absolutes sound good, but generally
leave behind a landscape of paradoxes and bruised victims.
Rights for the disabled are particularly paradoxical, because
what benefits a person with one disability may harm someone
with another disability” [21]
“Anyone who wants something looks around to see if it
fits within the orbit of some right.”
[22]
Traditional Notion Of Rights: Rights Against Law–They
Were A Shield, Not A Sword
Howard continues:
“The rights that are the foundation of this country
are rights against law....Curbing power in the hands
of special interests...was another important goal of the republic....Rights
sound so righteous. But the new rights aren’t rights at all:
They are blunt powers masquerading under the name of rights.
They have nothing to do with rights. The rights our forefathers
died for are a shield – government can’t tell me what to do
or say – to preserve our freedom from others ordering us around.
The new rights are a sword. They are hailed under the flag
of freedom. But no one doing the saluting is looking at how
these rights impinge on what others consider to be their own
freedoms. The coinage of the new rights regime has a flip side;
it is called coercion....Rights are not...an instant method
for reform. They are the perfect formula for tearing society
apart.” [23]
Perhaps We Need To Build A “Statue Of Responsibility” In Order
To Keep Some Perspective
Another downside to the proliferation of “rights” is the diminution
of our sense of public duty. No society can long last where
the people are more concerned about their individual rights,
entitlements, and privileges than their individual duties.
As one person put it: “We have the Statue of Liberty
on the east coast. Maybe to gain the proper perspective we
should build a Statue of Responsibility on the west coast.”
We seem to have lost sight of one of President John F. Kennedy’s
most famous phrases: “Ask not what your country can do for you
– ask what you can do for your country.” [24] While the words we have been discussing in this
and prior articles – liberty, justice, equality, and rights
– are used quite regularly, they seem to mask a troubling character
trait of the affluent – selfishness. We tend to think that
we are entitled to all sorts of things. No matter how much
we have, no matter how much better off we are over prior generations,
when somebody has more than we, our natural response seems to
be that such “inequality” is “unjust” and consequently, we have
a “right” to expect more. It sounds so righteous and proper
when expressed in such terms, but aren’t those words many times
just euphemisms for selfishness, envy and greed? We are out
of balance when it comes to duty, honor, responsibility, generosity,
and sacrifice. We are a spoiled generation.
Over a hundred years ago, Alexander Tytler, a Scottish historian,
observed:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. It can only exist until the voters discover that
they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From
that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a
result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy
always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's
greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have
progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to Spiritual Faith
From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage
From Courage to Liberty
From Liberty to Abundance
From Abundance to Selfishness
From Selfishness to Complacency
From Complacency to Apathy
From Apathy to Dependency
From Dependency back into Bondage" [25]
Where are we in that cycle? Doesn’t our expanded notion of
word rights tend to encourage dependency? According to the
Tax Foundation, the most recent statistics from the IRS indicate
that the bottom half of all taxpayers pay less that
four percent of all the income tax revenues received by
the federal government. [26] So how far away from Tytler’s
tipping point are we? Is it possible to reverse course?
It is always difficult to sense danger amidst affluence and
abundance. But we must remember that such affluence and abundance
gradually grew out of principles put in place long before those
fruits were manifested. Similarly, as we depart from those
principles, our prosperity will probably not evaporate over
night but rather, gradually over a period of time. At least
we can hope that any such decline would just be gradual rather
than some sort of cataclysmic event like a major stock market
crash or a Great Depression, but only time will tell. In our
philosophically and morally weakened state, one can only wonder
what successful major terrorist operations against us in the
future might cause.
Conclusion
In their purest sense, “natural rights” are God-given, predate
government, and are universally and equally enjoyed by all.
As we enter society, we have to give up a portion of our natural
rights in order to gain other benefits. The extent of that
sacrifice should be minimal and driven by the dictates of necessity.
What remains after that trade are known as “civil rights,” but
these too must be universally and equally enjoyed by all members
of society if the word “rights” is to be properly applied.
Anything less than that should be called by other names, not
rights. “Minority rights” and “group rights” are misnomers
and should be called something else lest the true meaning of
the word rights be sullied and diminished.
As we move away from these basic principles, we breed disrespect
for the law and encourage self-serving legal interpretation
rather than a strong sense of civic duty which demands individual
compliance with the law for the greater good of all even when
compliance goes contrary to our immediate self-interests. Consequently,
we imperil our ability to perpetuate our liberties long-term
for we cannot be free unless we are all good self-governors.
As we hear highly respected words used in political debate,
we should ponder more deeply their true meanings before we are
sold a bill of goods through their invocation. Rights from
outside interference may be cost-free to others, but supposed
rights to things are usually very costly to other members
of society who have to foot the bill. That’s not liberty in
the traditional sense, but robbery and bondage instead.
As group rights expand, the ability of government to govern
effectively diminishes. The ability to sue under such “rights”
allows minority factions to effectively control significant
issues of public policy which should be determined democratically
by majority rule. True rights are defensive shields
against external abuse and force, not offensive weapons
to be used for personal advantage against others.
Our infatuation with our greatly expanded notions of liberty,
justice, equality and rights have tended to make us selfish
and spoiled – or perhaps the causal connection runs the other
direction. In any event, we are currently out of balance regarding
the proper relationship between civil rights and civic duties.
If we are not careful and cannot reverse course, we too might
follow the unhappy fates of previous civilizations throughout
history which allowed their basic founding principles and definitions
to become adulterated and debauched.
Religious Addendum
Speaking to the church in General Conference
(October 1931) in the midst of the Great Depression, Apostle
Melvin J. Ballard said:
"I believe that these experiences
through which we are now passing all have their lesson. What
is the lesson the Latter-day Saints should learn from the experiences
of today? But three or four years ago, in the midst of our
greatest prosperity, I was attracted by a question propounded
to Mr. C. W. Barron, who owned the Wall Street Journal...one
of the greatest financiers of our country. Some man had declared
that there would be a hundred years of uninterrupted prosperity
in the United States, and to that proposition Mr. Barron...shook
his head. 'Why not?' I expected him to show me a chart or
say something about the 'business cycle,' or 'economic fundamentals,'
or to use some of the other well-worn phrases. But to my relief
he took an entirely different approach.
"'There will not be a century
of uninterrupted good times, because the universe is not arranged
on that basis,' he said. 'What is taking place on this earth
is a great experiment in the development of human character.
The Creator is not interested in money or markets, but in more
enduring men.'”
So even if our systemic fundamentals were correct, we might
still experience some uncomfortable economic setbacks along
the way – but all the more likely when we depart from sound
fundamentals as we have been doing for quite some time. Enduring
men and women would do whatever they could to reestablish morality
and sound principles of law and government in hopes of minimizing
the possibility of such setbacks; and they would do what our
church leaders have consistently advised us to do to individually
prepare for extended “rainy-days.” The next and final article
in the series will address the issue of what can be done to
reverse course.
_______________________________________
[2] . Balint Vazsonyi, America’s 30 Years War – Who is Winning
(1998), p. 29.
[5] . Frederic Bastiat, The Law (1850), p.12.
[6] . Freidrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom,(1944), p.35.
[12] . Frederic Bastiat, The Law (1850), p. 64 under “The
Cause of the French Revolution.”
[13] . Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed, pp.99-100.
[14] .Wray Herbert,"Our Identity Crisis", U.S. News
and World Report, March 6, 1995, pp.83-4.
[15] . Phillip K. Howard, The Death of Common Sense, Random
House, (1994), p. 101.
[19] . Walter K. Olson, “The ADA Shakedown Racket,” published in
The City Journal, Winter 2004 accessible over the web
through manhattan-institute.org.
[20] . Phillip K. Howard, The Death of Common Sense, Random
House, (1994), pp.123 & 125.
[24] . John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1961.
Click
here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2004 Meridian
Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
|
