Of Rights

            On March 22, 2011, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg spoke at a rally supporting government funding of Planned Parenthood. The debate over the funding is a side issue, which I will leave those focused on political commentary and debate, however, there was one statement that caught my attention and presents a great opportunity to look at the Constitution, the Founding of our Nation, and the source of our Rights. Senator Lautenberg was quoted:

The Republicans in Congress claim they’re concerned about the budget balance, but it’s a disguise! It’s not true! It’s a lie! That’s not what they want. They want — they want other people not to be able to have their own opinions. They don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution! But we’ll give it to them anyway.

            As we move forward in political debates, whether they be over funding of community service organizations, regulatory laws, or the Federal Budget, it is important that we pay attention, particularly to what our elected representatives are saying. Senator Lautenberg’s words present a troubling philosophical foundation. We have to ask the question: Who decides to give Republicans Constitutional Rights?

It is clear that Lautenberg’s definition of ‘rights’ is more along the line of privileges. What is the first thing you are told when you are taking driving classes? “Driving is a privilege, not a right.” When most of us look at rights, we see something that we all are inherently entitled to, the Right to Freedom of Speech, for example. A privilege is something that requires permission; you need a license in order to drive.

            It is important to note that distinction, for our Founders, Rights were everything. Today there is a silent debate that often is split by political lines, though not always, over the source of our rights. The Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The definition of unalienable is: ‘incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.’ Keep that in mind, because it is very important.

            The Founders believed in a doctrine known as Natural Rights. Whether or not one believes in a higher power, in God, Allah, or any of the other super-natural beings, the Laws of Nature guide us in possession of the “unalienable.” We have our rights through the very virtue of being human. All humans desire freedom from artificial restraint, it is inherent, it is natural. The philosophy of Natural Rights is pervasive in the writings and speeches of the American Revolutionary Era.

            If rights are natural, then they are inherently individual, which is why you hear people often discuss individual rights, as opposed to the abstract “natural.” From here, we revisit the definition of inalienable: “incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.” Rights are incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another. If we accept, as the Founders did that Rights are individual, than we all have them. My rights are the same as your rights, and extend so far as not to hinder your ability to exercise your rights, and vice versa.

            Non-transferable is an important concept. We all have individual rights, for example, the right to self-defense. We have that right; it can never be taken away or given away. We can, however, grant responsibilities of protection for those rights to others. When we formed a government, we granted them their primary duty, to protect our rights, whether from criminals or external forces. We didn’t lose our right to self-defense, we contracted, with the government to form a police force and military to protect us from bodily harm.

           

            Through the philosophy of Natural Law, we can only come to one conclusion: we grant responsibilities to the government.

            People such as Senator Lautenberg do not believe in Natural Law. They believe in a philosophy that is pervasive throughout much of history and the rest of the world today. Some call it Positivism. More-or-less, positivists believe that the source of rights is through power, that is whoever or whatever is in charge. Historically, rights came from “His Royal Highness, the King/Pharaoh/Emperor/Sultan/Tsar/Kaiser.” Positivists can sometimes use the will of the people, Democracy as their source of so-called rights.

            Remember though the definition of a right and the definition of a privilege. Under positivism there is no such thing as a right, only privileges. You are only allowed to do whatever the power tells you that you can do. Positivism will always lead to tyranny, it is inherent in its very core. You have no power over your destiny only external forces. Remember, whether or not you believe in God, Natural Law states that your rights are inherent simply by your being human.

            Benjamin Franklin best describes the inherent tyranny of positivist democracy: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

            The fact of the matter is that there are many forms of positivist government; there are very few forms of government devoted to Natural Law, and only one ever tried in history. Rights do not come by government fiat. Every word in the text of the United States Constitution is written in recognition of inalienable rights, not in creation of rights or privileges.

           

            Nobody, Republican or Democrat has the right to take away the natural rights of citizens. Members of both parties oppose Natural Rights Philosophies because they infringe on what they perceive to be their right to power over others. There is no such thing as a right over others, except through positivism, and in positivism comes tyranny, whether it be through a king, a pharaoh, or a dictator, or by the fifty percent majority plus one.