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
« Previous1Next »