And when the night is cold and dark
You can see, you can see light
'Cause no one take away your right
To fight and to never surrender
--Corey Hart
Each night at the end of his show, Judge N presents a 3-4 minute 'closing argument.' Saw this one the other night and thought it excellent. The show producers did not subsequently post it, but fortunately someone captured it on YouTube (hope it stays up there).
The judge makes a cogent argument for natural rights, and for government's proper role in preserving them.
Natural rights are the rights that we are born with--i.e., they 'naturally' belong to us. Generally speaking, these rights involve the freedom to pursue our individual destinies without unwanted intrusion by others. When operationalized in our daily lives they include freedom of speech, religion, association, self-defense, and property ownership--among others.
Where do these rights come from? As the judge notes, if you believe in God, then you likely believe that these rights were granted by The Creator. If you do not believe in God, then these rights come from our humanity, like the features that comprise our physical being.
The concept of natural rights is part of the founding history of the United States. Evidence suggests that, prior to the Revolution, the natural rights concept (as expressed by the work of Locke et al) had been circulating among the Colonies for the better part of 100 years. Jefferson famously expressed the role of natural rights in inspiring (and justifying) the founding actions of the country:
"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."
As noted by Jefferson, natural rights are unalienable, meaning that they can not be separated from us. Government cannot take natural rights away by law since government does not grant them in the first place.
Yet, government constantly seeks to trample on our natural rights. It often does so in the name of security, in the name of trying to keep us safe.
But, as the judge saliently observes, safety is not a natural right. It is a good that should be privately purchased and provided. No one is born with the right, for example, to flight safety. You might need it to survive, but it is not a right that you were born with. Whereas the Fourth Amendment protects the right to be secure in person and property against arbitrary search and seizure--a right with which each of us is born with.
Government officials from both sides of the aisle often say that their first job is to keep us safe, whether that safety pertains to physical security or social security. They are wrong. The role of government officials is to uphold the Constitution (which they take an oath to do), which means their job is to keep us free--not safe.
If, on the other hand, the actions of government officials keep as safe at the expense of freedom, then they are not doing their job.
As the judge notes, freedom is our birthright, and the only legitimate role of government in our society is to defend this freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
20 comments:
Don't know why I'm weighing in here...
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are really, really general terms that mean different things to different people. What you may consider to be the pursuit of happiness might not be mine.
For example, let's say my insurance company drops my health insurance coverage because of my cancer history and I can no longer seek medical care. Has someone/something interfered with my unalienable rights?
And I could be wrong about this, but the 4th amendment doesn't say illegal search and seizure in an unalienable right, does it? It says that those who qualify for it have that right. Prisoners, for example, don't have that right.
The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property.
~John Locke
You can still seek medical care. But you cannot force someone else to treat you or to subsidize your care, as that infringes on their natural rights.
Healthcare is not a right that we are born with.
So what does life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness really mean then?
Doesn't it depend on who's defining it?
It means that you have the right to pursue your interests (whatever that means to you) without unwanted interference by others.
It also means that you cannot intrude on others as they pursue their interests, or force them to advance your pursuits.
But Matt, the devil is definitely in the details here.
For example, what do you think of the repeal of DADT?
No, the devil is in people's tendency to forcefully intrude on the interests of others. When govt facilitates this, then we get what we have today: SIG city, baby.
Don't Ask Don't Tell seems unconstitutional on multiple fronts: speech (1st amendment, privacy (4th), due process (5th, 14th), equal protection (14th).
So you are saying that Congress was right to repeal it?
Invariably, your definition of "pursuit of happiness" and "unwanted interference" will be different from someone else's.
For example, with the DADT repeal, military chaplains will now be obligated to counsel openly gay soldiers despite any opposition they may have to homosexuality. They could argue that the government has exercised unwanted interference in their lives now. I bet some of them argue that they are being forced to accept "the homosexual agenda." The military has made it clear that not wanting to serve with homosexuals is not an acceptable reason to break a contract between a soldier and the military.
And on your airline example... let's say that you believe that airport scans violate your fourth amendment rights. Let's say I believe that those scans are just fine because they are part of the common defense of our country.
Who is to say who is right? And we both can't get our way on this one. Either everyone is subject to scans or no one is. So one group's will eventually is imposed over the other group's will.
It's the nature of power (imposing will) and I have no idea how you'd ever get away from that.
And I would imagine that some chaplains would argue that this violates their right to freedom of religion.
The intent of the Constitution is to limit the imposition of power. Safety/security is not a right; freedom is.
People can only lose their rights when they surrender them. Rights can be surrendered by volunatary contract or by breaking the law (violating other people's rights).
You can couch it in freedom talk...
Your freedom to walk onto an airplane carrying a bag full of machine guns versus my right to walk onto an airplane and be reasonably sure that I'm not going to get shot.
The constitution also allows congress the power to "repel invasions."
My main point is that if you're vision of what "freedom" means wins out, then you would be imposing your will on mine. That's simply the nature of power.
No. Person A can not forcefully interfere in B's interests (e.g., right to privacy, self-defense) just because A wants to feel safe.
Once again, safety is not an inherent right from birth.
If violating B's rights in the name of safety is ok, then why isn't any preemptive forceful action toward a person or group valide when done in the name of 'common defense' or 'repelling invasions'?
Have we not seen escalation of precisely this sort of preemptive action (Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act, TSA, 1000 worldwide military installations, etc) over the past decade?
The intent of the Constitution was to limit, not expand, govt power in such situations.
I am not advocating for Person A or B. I am simply pointing out that all power structures impose their will.
The government under your vision would do the same - impose what you believe to be the correct interpretation of the constitution on those who disagree with you. That may enhance your pursuit of happiness but diminish someone else's.
I've said this before, but I don't believe that we need to rule today based on what we believe to be the "intent" of the FFs. When they said that men had unalienable rights, they meant that literally. Men. Not women. Also not men or women of color.
I don't understand how a person can say that the founding fathers meant x and y but not z.
What you see as expanding the power of Government I bet others might see as exercising the powers that were already there.
To be sure, confirmation bias has people seeing what they want to see.
But the Creator gave us power to reason so that we can progress toward the Truth.
You have yet to demonstrate how, in a free society where natural rights are upheld, people can 'impose their will' on others by force.
Because everyone has their own opinion of what a "free society" means. Whoever is able to convince the most people that his/her opinions are the best will impose his/her vision on everyone else.
Interesting. Can you demonstrate how that process of imposition unfolded when the country was founded? Who imposed his/her vision on everyone else?
Definitely not a "her" in those days.
The "great compromise" that lead to the House and the Senate formation. What some people wanted was subjugated for the greater good of creating a Constitution.
And the ordinary non-founding fathers certainly weren't of one mind. And the non-founding mothers didn't have a say at all. So yeah, I think it's safe to say that the final version of the Constitution didn't represent every voice.
In fact, you could use your ideas about SIGs when you read the story of the Constitutional Convention.
You make a valid point, I think, that at a high level, any formal system of govt can be viewed as imposed (defined as ‘established by force’) on people that operate inside it. Even one designed for limited government.
I too used to think the Constitution was a product of 55 guys in a room trading special interests. That view has softened considerably the more I learn about the subsequent ratification process among the states, which was arduous (4 yrs counting amendments) and spawned major debate even among the streetfolk. The number of ‘voices’ heard in that process may be larger than you suspect.
Evidence suggests that, by far, the largest concern circulating among the ‘non framers’ was that too much power would go to the central govt. Few voices suggested the opposite—that the central govt as specified in the Constitution needed to be more expansive.
Thus the strict enumeration of central govt power and the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, ratification was unlikely given the mindset of people in the states.
There is certainly reason (and evidence) to believe that some SIGs gained from the process.
But is it not readily apparent that the Constitutional process generated a framework aimed at protecting individuals from SIG imposition?
I do agree that the main point is the protect individual freedom. In our modern world though, I see threats to our unalienable rights coming from non-governmental sources.
In any case, good discussion and Happy Christmas Eve!
Agree. Many if not most threats to liberty are non govt sources. But those non govt sources need to recruit govt as their strong armed agent in order to get their way.
CU soon.
Post a Comment