Man-Made Rights are No Rights at All

I took a brief swing through Left Blogistan the other day. I don't get over there too much anymore; just not enough hours in the day.

As usual, the lack of diversity in blog post topics really stood out. The buzz seemed to be about how government requires people working together for the collective or else all will descend into anarchy, selfish individualism, chaos...  As if we're not on the cusp of that now, two years into the Era of Obama. Such banalities pass for good blogging over there.

Some alpha liberal like Rachel Madow or some guy at HuffPo normal people have never heard of probably wrote a big blather piece on "social contracts" or some such, and everybody else had to comply with the daily marching orders. Lefties are such lemmings.

A liberal blogger said a very ignorant thing:

There is no such thing as "God given rights" because if we returned to the original state of nature, or that which was "God given" we would find ourselves bound only by our own personal power, our conscience, and or by forces superior to our own.

The rights that we enjoy today are man made rights; and as such are not "natural rights" nor are they permanently fixed.

The first sentence is incoherent, and the second absurd. They cannot be defended. The first sentence is either nonsensical or it contradicts the author's thesis. It is so poorly written that a sane person cannot tell what was intended.

The second sentence is absurd. We get our rights from man? OK. So if "man" decides to enslave all bloggers then it's OK? If man grants rights, he can take them away. This explains liberals' infatuation with strongmen like Mussolini, as well as uber-liberal Tom Friedman's current love affair with the Red Chinese politburo.  It also explains how 20th century statism was able to kill over 100 million people.

The writer didn’t even cite a philosophical work to defend his unsubstantiated claim. I know why. No credible thinker could defend this. Even if there were someone loony enough to try to defend such a preposterous supposition, it would be written in incomprehensible Cornell West psychobabble.

American liberalism is a hopeless, self-contradictory tangle, an intellectual cul-de-sac.  In contrast, our Natural Rights, as enunciated by our founding fathers, are axiomatic:

"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." (Declaration of Independence)

Yes, we have a social contract called the US Constitution, but our rights do not emanate from that document.  They are natural rights that preexist and supersede man-made institutions. 

Natural Law -- Our Foundation

Natural Law is a philosophy, a theory.  As such, it is open to debate and question, as is Christianity and global warming.  Natural Law is the philosophical foundation of our constitutional republic, and today it stands in stark contrast to the central economic planning and social tinkering of progressives.

Jonathan  Dolhenty explains:

What do we mean by "natural law"? In its simplest definition, natural law is that "unwritten law" that is more or less the same for everyone everywhere. 

To be more exact, natural law is the concept of a body of moral principles that is common to all humankind and, as generally posited, is recognizable by human reason alone. Natural law is therefore distinguished from -- and provides a standard for -- positive law, the formal legal enactments of a particular society.

To sum it up, then, we can say that the natural law:

• is not made by human beings;
• is based on the structure of reality itself;
• is the same for all human beings and at all times;
• is an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover;
• is the naturally knowable moral law
• is a means by which human beings can rationally guide themselves to their good.  

(Source:  Radical Academy)

The Rights of the Colonists, written in 1772, shows how natural rights were understood at our nation's founding.  It is a short document that describes man's natural rights and his entering into voluntary civil society with others for the mutual protection of those rights.  It logically follows that such a society's positive  laws ...

   "should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity." 


Simply put, a society needs man-made laws to protect the natural laws of those who voluntarily participate.

"The natural liberty of Men by entering into society is abridg’d or restrained so far only as is necessary for the Great end of Society the best good of the whole"

It's a balancing act, and progressives have turned us upside-down.  To get a better understanding, take five minutes to read the document at Vindicating the Founding Fathers.

Further Reading:
Locke's Second Treatise Of Civil Government

The Principles of Natural and Politic Law

From Locke to Stalin

Actor Joseph C. Phillips is not just another pretty face. He is the rare Hollywood star who can think cogently and express himself well in print. I highly recommend his article, Who is John Locke?

Phillips asks...

Is totalitarianism the natural end of all forms of government, or are men capable of ruling themselves? Without the foundation of Locke, do American children have the philosophical foundation necessary to understand what is truly evil about Stalin and Marx and conversely, what is good and unique about America?

Many libertarian thinkers, and historical evidence, point to a definitive conclusion that, yes, totalitarianism is the natural end of all forms of government. Good governance that protects liberty requires a constant struggle between the government and the governed. There is no stasis. It is a constant tug of war.

One Evil Leads to Another
As Hayek and others have observed, if we merely say Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were evil and leave it at that, we learn nothing. For Hitler, Stalin and Mao were particularly evil not because of their totalitarianism, but because of the over 100 million human beings they murdered.

But what drove them to it?
They had a plan, like all central-planning statists do, and they needed for everyone to follow it. When all else fails, try brutality.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
-- H.L Menckin

Obama is not a murderous Stalin, and the Democrats are not the Chinese Poltburo purging society for a great leap forward. They and do-gooders like them are not cruel or genocidal. They want to improve society, remake it in their image, and that is their sin: No man has a right to remake another in his image. No person or group has the right to forcefully impose their narrow vision on others, no matter how wonderful or well-meaning it may be.

Questions for Obama and the Democrats
You want everyone to cooperate with your plans. What will you do if incentives and bribery fail to sway the citizenry? Will you throw the carrots away and reach for the stick of legislative coercion?

If we still fail to comply, then what? This is where things get ugly.

Further, what empirical evidence can these statist busybodies point to showing that a collectivist, centrally-planned society is superior to one of free people where each determines his or her own future?

Our Right Come From Nature
Our rights must come from God (or nature if you prefer), a source that transcends mankind. The alternative is too horrible to bear.

Rights do not come from a ruling body or a document. We possess certain natural rights by virtue of our humanness. To believe otherwise is the ultimate human rights abuse. If our rights come from a document, then whatever that document says is valid: Slavery, rape, genocide... Whatever the drafters have written, shall be done.

No, you say? Then to what authority do you appeal with your objections to the ruling document? Another human being? What if she reaffirms what the document says, then what?

For this reason, our human rights of life, liberty and property must be an untouchable bedrock, inviolable.

The Founders knew it and they enshrined this ideal in the Declaration of Independence, but more importantly, in The US Constitution.

Prudence

A lack of prudence, combined with an erosion of our natural rights, is killing our culture and our nation

Prudence:  [...]  2. caution with regard to practical matters; discretion. 3. regard for one's own interests. 4.provident care in the management of resources; economy; frugality. (Dictionary.com)

Anyone who's ever had an arm in a cast knows what happens to the muscles in that arm:  They atrophy from disuse.

Prudence has suffered a similar fate due to the progressive cast our government has encased our lives with.   A dense encrustation of laws that legislate our every activity down to the last iota leave us no discretion to reason things out for ourselves.  Safety nets that turn into hammocks, bailouts, and lawsuits that reward stupidity have practically eliminated the need for prudence.

We careen about with no care for the consequences because lawyers can justify our behaviors based on fairness and special pleading for special categories, we can escape credit card debt, and serial impregnators inspired by pop culture get off Scott free while taxpayers foot the bill for their prolific breeding.  Predators are coddled by the state while victims get the shaft.


A Gross Injustice
82 year old Robert Wallace shot a thief in the head as the robber and an accomplice were absconding with his lowboy trailer in the dark of night.  The Wheatridge, Colorado man is now up on multiple felony charges to include attempted murder.

The natural right to property includes the right to defend it, even with deadly force.  To say otherwise renders the right invalid.  "Let the cops handle it," some say.  OK.  If they fail to retrieve your property, can you sue them?  No.  So when the state takes away your right to shoot a scumbag who is making off with your property, the state also violates your God-given right to property.

What about the case of an honest mistake?
"What if the thieves were really just two guys picking up a trailer someone offer to loan them, and they got the address wrong?" 

Good question.  Now I have one for you.   Would you just hook up a trailer in the dead of night or in broad daylight without checking with the people in the house first?  As President Bush 41 would say, Wouldn't be prudent.  You make damned sure everything is square before you haul off somebody elses property.

What if it were a prank?  How would you feel if you shot a prankster?  I'd feel pretty bad, but I'd also tell any survivors that stealing other people's property is not a prank, it's a crime.

If federal, state and local governments respected our rights to defend our property, there would be an increase in prudence among honest people, and tragic mistakes would be rare, as would larceny.


We are no longer serious about serious things
We argue over trivialities of pop culture and sports, while we take our eye off the ball when it comes to safeguarding our fundamental rights.  If you cannot defend your life, your liberty and your property, you are not a free man.  You are a slave of the state, and you are subject to the whims of marauding malefactors who respect nothing.

A state that allows failures to pay for their own losses...  A state that recognizes the rights of free people to defend their lives and property...  That is a state that will eventually produce a prudent people.  Darwinism we can believe in.

For an excellent essay on the subject, read Ralph Waldo Emerson's Prudence.

Gun Rights are Natural Rights

Self-Defense: An Inalienable Right

Statesmen from ancient Rome to the American Revolution laid the foundation in law for the right of self-defense. America's founders were influenced by these classic philosophic teachings and the European tradition derived from them.

"Civilized people are taught by logic, barbarians by necessity, communities by tradition; and the lesson is inculcated even in wild beasts by nature itself," wrote the great Roman orator Marcus Tullius Cicero.

"They learn that they have to defend their own bodies and persons and lives from violence of any and every kind by all the means within their power." (Claremont Institute)

 

Do you have a right to life?

The right to self-defense is the first and most fundamental right contained in Natural Law.  Without life, nothing else matters.

Think we should surrender that right to government so the state can protect us?  

OK, then riddle me this:  Does the family of a murder victim have a legal right to sue the state for failing to use its police powers to prevent the murder?

American courts have ruled again and again that police have no duty to protect individuals from deadly assault. The only alternatives for a person in such danger are to rely on the mercy of criminals or to carry a gun illegally. No one should be forced to break the law to exercise a basic right. (Claremont Institute)

Your only recourse is to your natural right of self-defense.  Take that away (violate it) and you have deprived a free person of the fundamental right to life.  Welcome to progressivism!

For an interesting and understandable legal discussion, see Volokh - Jim Lindgren

* - Cross Posted at Rational Nation

Natural Rights

When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.  (Source:  Vindicatingthefounders.com)

Surprisingly (or not) I am finding that may in Left Blogistan are embarrassingly ignorant of Natural Law or Natural Rights.

Usually, these are the same people who can recite the entire "America is Evil" catechism, from slavery and womens rights, to treatment of native American and stealing land from Mexico.

(Question.  Under which government would the current residents of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern Colorado and California rather live?  I propose a vote, with the losers sent to Mexico and thereafter eternally vowing to STFU on this tired subject.)

Natural Law -- Our Foundation

Natural Law is a philosophy, a theory.  As such, it is open to debate and question, as is Christianity and global warming.  Natural Law is the philosophical foundation of our constitutional republic, and today it stands in stark contrast to the central economic planning and social tinkering of progressives.

Jonathan  Dolhenty explains:

What do we mean by "natural law"? In its simplest definition, natural law is that "unwritten law" that is more or less the same for everyone everywhere. 

To be more exact, natural law is the concept of a body of moral principles that is common to all humankind and, as generally posited, is recognizable by human reason alone. Natural law is therefore distinguished from -- and provides a standard for -- positive law, the formal legal enactments of a particular society.


To sum it up, then, we can say that the natural law:

• is not made by human beings;
• is based on the structure of reality itself;
• is the same for all human beings and at all times;
• is an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover;
• is the naturally knowable moral law
• is a means by which human beings can rationally guide themselves to their good.  

(Source:  Radical Academy)

The Rights of the Colonists, written in 1772, shows how natural rights were understood at our nation's founding.  It is a short document that describes man's natural rights and his entering into voluntary civil society with others for the mutual protection of those rights.  It logically follows that such a society's positive  laws "should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity." 


Simply put, a society needs man-made laws to protect the natural laws of those who voluntarily participate. 

"The natural liberty of Men by entering into society is abridg’d or restrained so far only as is necessary for the Great end of Society the best good of the whole"

It's a balancing act, and progressives have almost turned us upside-down.  To get a better understanding, take five minutes to read the document at Vindicating the Founding Fathers.

Further Reading:
Locke's Second Treatise Of Civil Government

The Principles of Natural and Politic Law