About Me

Name: Jack Fisher
Email: slickboy44@fastmail.fm Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Objective Religions Studies
Debunking Creationisms

The True Source of Rights

It is popular for Americans and people in general to cherish their rights. It's only natural. Rights are an important part of every society, free or otherwise. The abundance or lack of rights lie at the very core of any community large and small. However, at times the source of these rights becomes exaggerated. A peoples' rights take on an almost divine aura. Many will claim human rights are a gift from a god or some divine force. It's a comforting notion, but ignores reality. Rights are a complicated concept because their so abstract, but without a firm understanding of what rights are and where they come from the people are ill-equipped to defend them.

First and foremost, rights don't come from god or anything supernatural. They never have. They are and always have been an abstract concept of society. Their main source is law. Without law there is no order and without order there are no rights. Now law is a far more complicated concept than rights. There are so many different legal traditions across history, cultures, and countries that to explain one and apply it to all would be utterly meaningless in any argument as to the source of rights. But rights as most people understand them do have a basis in certain aspects of law, namely those meant to protect individuals and communities and ensure order.

Now it's impossible to talk about the source of rights without the source of the law. Throughout history law has come from many places. Ancient Egypt and the vast empires of history had rulers who dictated what the law was. Kingdoms and city-states had oligarchs, councils, or community proceedings that brought forth the law. It wasn't always logical. If a ruler was mentally ill, then the laws would not be very reasonable. Men like Calligula of Ancient Rome, Ivan the Terrible or Medieval Russia, and Pol Pot of Cambodia all had clear symptoms of serious mental illness. Yet being the rulers of their country, they were the law and that law was what the people had to live under. Needless to say, the people didn't have very clear or logical rights.

The problem with law and rights as always been that people were constantly debating the laws and bending them to their whims. That's where some of these irrational traditions come from. That's where barbaric systems like the Spanish Inquisition, Stalin's secret police, or Adolph Hitlers SS come from. It is only when those educated in reason and humanities come together that the source of natural rights take shape. The logic follows that all human beings, being of the same flesh and blood as anyone else, have an intrinsic worth. It is a concept that spans all religions and cultures to some extent, even those with ridged hierarchies. Thus, the law must protect each individual worth from the whims of other individuals and the only way to do this is through law.

This presents another problem. Law is not always forged in peace. As such, rights are not always forged from peace. When dealing with oligarchs and tyranical rulers, it often takes force to obtain the legal framework for these rights. That's why there had to be an American Revolution. That's why there had to be uprisings amongst populations in Europe and other Western countries to reshape the power structure in favor of defending rights rather than debating them. It also helps when the population becomes more educated and aware of their state. It was difficult in pre-modern times because there were so few connections between communities. Now with advanced understandings in law and reason, rights can take shape.

This is where limited government comes in. Starting with concepts like the Magna Carta, the state's role in rights shifted from being a giver of rights to a defender of rights. This was the reasoning behind the republic, which has it's roots back in Ancient Greece and Rome. Here, it is a fixed body of laws that limit the power of the state to maintain it's role as a protector of rights. This was what the founding fathers followed as they understood that rights could only be protected if the government was limited by law. So when people start assuming their rights are coming from somewhere else besides law, they ignore when the law is usurped and thus their rights are usurped.

The belief that rights come from some holy, god-given source has distracted people from the real problem with rights. They need to have a basis in law and at times there needs to be force behind it. Here's the situation. Government has grown a great deal in the last 100 years, expanding it's power and intruding on the rights of the citizens, sometimes overtly and sometimes covertly and sometimes completely unintentionally. Yet these violations aren't confronted because the people don't understand the government's role. They think their rights were with them when they were born or they come from some invisible deity. So if that's the source, why bother with the law?

It is dangerous and flawed thinking. It's the kind of thinking that causes complacency in a population. It gives people an excuse to sit around while their government continues to ignore the law and strip at their rights. It is only when the people demand through force that the government respect the law and the rights they protect that the free society prevails. At the moment, however, not enough force is being applied and too many people are not willing to step up.

For more reading on the source of rights, please consult the following academic paper by Brian Tierney:

The Idea of Natural Rights
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It's a phrase that has been echoed by philosophers and casual observers alike. Whether in latin or any modern lanugage, the meaning is the same and it remains every bit as pertinent across the board.
 
Who watches the watchmen?
 
Who guards the guardians?
 
Who will protect us from the protectors?
 
For as long as there have been people in power, there have been abuses in power. It permeates government, religion, and economic institutions on many levels. The United States, despite being one of the most dominant nations in history, is not immune to this. Over the course of the past century, big government has taken over and ideologues in religion and business have each moved in to stake their claim. Abuses in power was one of the key reasons why the colonies first rose up against their British overlords. In time our own abuses of power have become just as (if not more so) egregeous.
 
Such abuses are nothing new. In ancient times the strongest armies pilliaged and raped freely when there was no one to oppose them. Kings and emperors embarked on lavish personal endeavors, forcibly enslaving their people if necessary. Religious leaders have condemned countless innocents with decrees, fatwas, inquisitions, and moral panics. Ruthless businessmen and women buy off people in government and law enforcement to act on their own accord, robbing others of their resources for their own personal profits. The story is the same. They were the watchmen and nobody was watching them. They didn't have to answer to anybody and the people were defenseless to resist. It's an unfortunate product of human nature. When there is a chance to abuse power, people take it.
 
The United States was founded on principles directly opposed to abuses of powers. But today it is possible for the president of the United States to wage a war on his own accord without the approval of congress. It is possible for the NSA and FBI to illegally tap phones and communication networks without warrents or oversight. It is possible for the CIA to create secret prisons where they can torture people without any accountability. It is possible for judges to ignore the constitution and impose the state's will on the populous. There are no more checks and balances. There is only competition as to who can abuse their power first and most efficiently.
 
In areas where such abuses are more difficult, it brings out the better sides of human nature. Take the free market as an example. In this institution, there are many watchmen watching over one another. This is because business is not allowed to use force. It must use persuasion to convince people to exchange their goods for the ones they have to offer. If one does not produce quality goods, they are overtaken by those that do. It helps drive people to be better with each other. A business that treats people well will get more business and the customers who wish to take part in this system that treats the businesses well will get the better service. It's competition and the freedom to choose how to conduct themselves that makes the free market more prosperous and efficent than big government or overzealous religion.
 
Another area where power is hard to abuse is when the power is established at the community level. When order comes from the bottom up instead of the top down, people are free to coordinate and commune with whoever they wish. When government and churches focus their efforts at the local level, they are held accountable by the very people they see and interact with. When abuses do emerge, they don't go unnoticed because in a community people are more affected. It's why limited government works so much better on a local level. It's also why communities with smaller, community centered churches are less deviant and more orderly. When it grows to a level where the power can be directed impersonally to people that power brokers never even meet, the chances for abuse grows.
 
Big government has always been clumsy with power. Even in countries where corruption is low, these large bodies of power create effects of complacancy and dependance. History shows that when people are not free they become hopeless and destitute, bringing down their society and their culture. Religion has had share of abuses as well. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic church wielded great authority over state and personal matters. It led to church leaders starting wars, ordering executions, and fostering intolerance and prejudice. In modern times the mullahs of Islam have fallen into the same pattern, insighting their own brand of war, violence, and prejudice to serve their own ends. They may claim they're being held accountable by god or some supernatural deity. But whatever deity that may be, it does little to stem such barbaric behavior.
 
So in the end who really is watching the watchmen? People continue to see these abuses in many cases, but they are powerless to stop them or unwilling. The founding fathers of America believed that by empowering the people, the excesses of government should be stemmed. The people must be on some level be able to respond to the force of government with force of their own, be it by arms or legal rights. That's why they championed the rights of the individual and used the philosophy of a republic to restrict the power of the state. In addition to a separation between church and state, the institutions that most abuse power could be held in check.
 
It is only when people forsake these freedoms that abuse of power grows and propogates. And once it gets going, it is hard to stop. That's why whenever any individual or institution exercises power in any way, the people must remember that old latin saying:
 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
 
It may mean the difference between freedom and tyranny.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Debate Over a Christian Notion

Much has been made since President Barack Obama made the statement that "America is not a Christian nation." Various opinion writers and columnists have expressed their criticism and at times outrage. This issue comes on the heels of a recent article in Newsweek ominously entitled "The Decline and Fall of Christian America." Many have had plenty to say on this issue as well including Town Hall's own Brent Bozell, Star Parker, Terry Paulson, and the ever rediculous Doug Giles.
 
 
Terry Paulson: Put Your Bet On God Over Newsweek
 
 
There is a lot to be said over this issue. Ideologues and zealots cling to the notion of a Christian nation the same way they cling to their invisibile deity. It's no secret that the Christian Right has been a major political force. They have worked tirelessly to try and impose their values and worldview on the rest of the nation, completely disregarding the unavoidable fact that such a goal completely conflicts with every notion of a free society. And they'll use any excuse to justify their tyranny, including twisting the facts of history.
 
The issue of America being a Christian nation should have been dispelled in 1797 when the 5th congress unanimously ratified the Treaty of Tripoli. In this historic document it says outright in article 11:
 
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
 
And this is a time when many founding fathers were still alive. Now some would debate this is bogus because many of the founding fathers were still devout Christians. This is true, but they still saw the need to dispell any notion that America is a Christian nation just as many nations of Europe were considered Christian nations at the time. It goes along with the constitution which says in the first amendment that no official religion will be established and none will be endorsed over the other, even if it is practiced by the majority of the population.
 
But many ignore this and will go to great lengths quote mining the founding fathers, espousing their religious convictions. But as with all quote mining, it proves nothing. The personal views of the founding fathers were irrelevant to the concept of America being a Christian nation. At no point did they thrust their views into the constitution. To say this nation is Christian just because the founding fathers were Christians is a misnomer. All the founding fathers were also white and had English roots. But nobody says America is an English nation even though it was based largely on English legal traditions. Nobody says it's a white nation either (although some racist groups still do). Just because the population was Christian doesn't make America a Christian nation.
 
It's also worth noting that the government of the United States was not founded on any Christian traditions. America was founded as a constitutional republic and the very idea of a republic was first espoused by the Ancient Greek philosopher, Solon. And the first real republic was set up by the Ancient Romans and many of the ideas they built upon found their way into the constitution. But nobody says this is a Roman or Greek nation.
 
Others will say the concept of natural rights that include life, liberty, and property are somehow inspired by divine laws. But this is inaccurate as well. The ideas of natural rights came from philosophers like Voltaire and John Locke, who were products of the enlightenment. And one of the key facets of the enlightenment was moving away from religious dogma and favoring more secular views to govern society. Many of these thinkers were also Christians, but their faith was secondary to their ideas. Their faith was personal, not something to be subsidized and imposed by state forces.
 
The notion of America being a Christian nation is as absurd now as it was back in 1797. But the Christian Right will continue to contend this in order to maintain whatever credibility they can so they can further their agenda. They easily forget that no matter what America was founded upon or what the beliefs were of the founders, the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness remain true for every citizen. It is the right of every man, woman, and child in this country and no one group deserves to take credit for it. For Christians like Brent Bozell, Star Parker, Terry Paulson, and Doug Giles to maintain that is not only wrong, it's hopelessly arrogant.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stem Cells and Science

As an atheist, many assume I am for Obama's recent lift on bans surrounding stem cell research. It seems every major media outlet is cheering the lift proclaiming it a victory for science. But I don't believe that. Because lifting the stem cell research ban is a victory for bureaucrats and politicians, not the scientists and doctors who actually deal with this issue. You can throw out all the religious and moral arguments you want on stem cells, but the issue comes down to one fundemental question. Does the government have a right to use taxpayer money to fund science research on its own accord? On paper it sounds like a good idea, but like so many big government advocates they miss the point.
 
Whenever government money is thrown into anything it fundementally changes how it functions. Unlike the private sector, there's no incentive to be thrifty or pragmatic with the money. Because it's coming from the government as a handout. Why should they care? That means they'll negate focusing on certain aspects of research that would lead to real commercial products like drugs and treatments that people could actually benefit from. Because when it's not their money, why should they care if anything pragmatic comes out of it? The truth is they don't have to.
 
If history has shown us anything it's that capitalism and free markets are the best means for which research and scientific advancement lead to real and practical applications for people. When the government gets involved, reserach loses focus and advances that may have come about through further experiments never come to pass. And the media never reports an experiment that never happens.
 
Real constitutionally sound politicians draw a simple line. Taxpayer money should not go to things which are not laid out in the constitution. The money the government is gushing out at the seems would be much better spent by the private sector. In regards to stem cells, for now it's just a political tool for politicians to use to show that they champion science and technology. They never stop and think that maybe they're doing more harm than good.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »