Forum Post: Individual Rights, Their Source, The Nature of Government, and Its Purpose

I've hung around here for about a month now and there are some things that I've noticed. Everybody seems to have an idea of "what the solution is" and some people even have an idea of "what the problem is". The majority of these viewpoints, however, seem to have no understanding of the premises (and the nature of those premises) upon which they argue, and hence they lean towards a collectivist "solution", no matter what their initial position. I've engaged in several discussions which have lead to the same result-- the other person and I end up talking about two totally different things because we accept different premises as to the nature of individual rights and the role of government. So I intend to make it clear here exactly what I believe and why I believe these things must be adhered to if we are ever to create a society of human beings who are free to reach their highest potential.

First of all, I think it is important to explicitly state one's goals when discussing the methods by which those goals are to be achieved. My goal is as stated above: to define a society in which human beings will be free to achieve their highest potential.

I think the most important document in American history (perhaps in the history of civilization) is the Declaration of Independence. It offered to the world the reasons for the early colonists' desired separation from the rule of Great Britain. It was based on the principle of natural rights. It held "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."

Whether you believe in an omnipotent creator (God) or understand that phrase to refer to one's biological parents, the simple fact that human beings are entitled to rights by the fact that they exist is the logical conclusion. I understand that phrase to mean that human beings, by right of their existence, own their own lives. Ownership is the right to the use and disposal of a given thing. Given the specific nature of human life and of it's metaphysical (and psychological) requirements--most importantly, the requirement that each and every human use his or her mind in order to provide for his or her own survival-- and as a derivative of the right to life, the right to Liberty is recognized. Liberty, in this context, is not the freedom to do whatever one pleases. It is the Liberty to provide for one's own life, while recognizing that others have the same liberty. I feel it is important to mention that Rights are things which must be recognized as belonging to all people. Many people get hung up on the idea that if we have the right to liberty, can't we kill someone else and take what they have? The answer is no. To do so would be to act in ignorance of the concept of rights. The founding fathers were wise to use the phrase 'the pursuit of happiness', rather than 'happiness'. They recognized that no one has a right to happiness. What they have is a right to provide for their own happiness. Later political figures would declare that men have a right to "feel good" or that they have a "right" to a car, a house, a family, love, etc. Such an assertion demonstrates a clear ignorance of the concept of rights. No one can have a right to something that someone else must provide.

The Declaration of Independence also points out that " to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...". "to secure these rights" is the ONLY legitimate function of an American system of government. "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" does not mean that any power allocated to the government is a valid power if it was voted on by a majority. Such an idea contradicts the first. Thus, it can only mean that no government shall be considered legitimate which does not have the consent of those it governs. This is the idea from which "No taxation without representation" is derived.

Government is, by definition, the organized use of force and coercion. If men are to be free, there must be a principle which prevents others (including government) from initiating the use of force against them. This principle is the right to life. Under a system of government in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, rights are superior to government edict. Any law which permits the initiation of the use of force against any individual for any reason is contradictory to the principle of a legitimate American government. Under our constitution, there is language which grants the government powers which in no way protect individual rights and which lead to the violation of those rights when law is put into effect based on those powers. One such example (and perhaps the single most egregious threat to individual rights) is the commerce clause (and in conjunction, the power to regulate the value of money). The commerce clause grants to congress the power to regulate commerce. There is no limitation placed on this power. How can men be free to support their own lives when the government is granted absolute power to regulate the way in which they may do so? Another example is the supreme judicial authority granted to the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS has, throughout the history of this country, limited individual rights (which no legitimate American government has the power to do) and expanded the powers of congress. They have been able to do this because there is no requirement that they rely upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence. They are to rely only upon their own judgement. This creates, in effect, "A nation of men and not laws", which is the opposite of the goal of the founders.

I'd like to take a moment and specifically attack the Supreme Court's rulings on free speech, which is one of our most important rights and has all but been destroyed by a principle I will mention later. The Supreme Court has invented a category of speech known as "obscenity". It has ruled that items falling under this category of speech are not protected by the first amendment rights. It has ruled that even though there is no limitation on the freedom of speech and of the press in the language of the constitution, that amendment was created in order to protect political discourse, therefore the government reserves the right to censor (though it would never use this word) any other type of speech it wishes to for the common good. Consider the stance it has long held (and still does to a great extent) regarding pornography. If the right to freedom of speech and of the press exists (which it does, it is only up to government to choose whether to recognize it or not), then people are free to access and to proliferate any message they wish to. This brings up the question of how to deal with things like child pornography, rape, snuff porn, etc. The answer, which may be uncomfortable for most people, is that while the acts required in order to produce these types of pornography are violations of individual rights, to view that pornography is NOT. The violation of rights is not contained within the fact that the material is pornography. It is contained in the method by which the material is produced--by force. Just because someone may view a snuff film does not transfer onto them the responsibility of having created it. Though it may be vile to most to even consider such a thing, it is not a violation of anyone's rights to view it. If this does not seem correct, think about it this way. If a man is murdered and images of that murder are created, does it seem right to imprison those who view those images? If a man steals money or goods from another and takes pictures of himself in the act, does it makes sense to imprison those who view those images? It does not. The only difference between the last two examples and those of pornography is the element of human sexuality. Sexuality is one of the easiest targets when one wishes to eliminate individual rights. This is because there is a long history of "moral" codes which consider sex to be evil and sinful, and only to be performed in certain "culturally acceptable" situations. This history has allowed the Supreme Court to erode the first amendment. Few would dare to suggest that it should NOT be illegal to view child pornography or videos of rape. The principle which has prevented people from recognizing why viewing these things should not be illegal is this: Most people do not realize (or believe) that the only legitimate purpose of government (and therefore law) is the protection of individual rights. It is NOT the government's job to punish immorality, only to protect individual rights. The use of force for any other purpose is unacceptable. It often puts people in a very vulnerable social situation to suggest that the government should not use force against those who commit acts which most people view as immoral. However, if people allow their rights or the rights of others to be violated (especially by their own government), it is the concept of rights that they damn to oblivion.

Individual rights and legitimate government are not the solution to every problem which exists today. However, if those solutions are to be found, it is upon these principles that they must be based.