Natural and invented rights
Published Wed, Sep 3 2008 6:04 PM
One of the “great debates” of our time has to do with our rights. Despite the recent decision in the Heller case, there's still some debate and argument about our right to keep and bear arms — even though the second amendment to the Constitution expressly prohibits infringing it. The idea of “State's rights” is considered a quaint notion to many, despite the existence of the tenth amendment.
Just about all of us are aware of the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, described in the Declaration of Independence. Nobody in their right mind would declare that we don't have these particular unalienable rights, even though not one of them is mentioned in the United States Constitution or its amendments. Our unalienable rights, which come to us from our Creator are many, and not all of them have been enumerated. The ninth amendment to the Constitution recognizes that to be the case.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
We hear a lot about some of our unalienable, unenumerated rights. Among these are, allegedly, the right to “privacy”, the right to an abortion (euphemistically referred to as a “woman's right to ‘choose’”), the right to die (“death with dignity” and “assisted ‘suicide’”), and the universal right to health care.
I wonder about these sometimes. Some of our rights, unenumerated though they may be, are self-evident. The right to life seems obvious. Even before the existence of human governments, humans lived. Presumably humanity had a right to life even then. (OK, I take it back, some of the environmental extremists condemn the existence of humanity as an affront to nature — go figure. I guess some people that believe themselves to be in their right minds would declare that we don't have those unalienable rights I listed earlier.) Together with the right to life, I assume that there's a natural right to die, although I believe that it truly is a debt that we all must pay rather than a “right”.
But a few of these so-called “rights” don't seem to be unalienable natural rights to me. For example, the right to “privacy” created by the courts some time back doesn't seem to be a natural right to me. If you accept the Darwinist's premise that we evolved from apes in the African jungles, then where was our right to privacy then? We had a right to life to be sure, but a right to privacy? With no walls? If, on the other hand, you reject the Darwinist's premise and instead believe that we were created, where was our right to privacy then? We were created naked, and it was only after eating of the fruit that was forbidden that we even noticed our nakedness. The right to “privacy” isn't a natural right, it's an “invented” need resulting from the fear engendered by our own shame. Oh, to be sure, I enjoy my privacy, and wish to see it protected, but I don't believe it's an unalienable natural right allowing me to do anything I please.
How about the “universal” right to health care? This one's certainly not a natural right, and I don't believe it's an unalienable right either. Oh certainly, if a person is in need of care, compassion dictates that care be given. Christians are told to give aid to those in need (“go and do thou likewise”). But there's no “right” to health care. Go back, once more, to our origins whether you're a Darwinist or a Christian. In those days before civilization did health care even exist? Somehow I don't think so. Rather, I think that health care is the product of human compassion and learning. We may from time to time in our lives have a need for health care, but I don't know that we have a right to it.
No one has a right to demand compassion from another, although for our own soul's sakes we might have an obligation to be compassionate. But isn't that an individual obligation? It's certainly not the obligation of government.
Where our rights are truly unalienable and come from our Creator government has an obligation to protect them. When they're merely the invention of mankind, I think that that obligation is less clear, and in some cases non-existent. Assuming that government must protect a right to privacy, a right to abortion, and a right to the fruits of the labor of others (ala Social Security, and Universal Health Care) seems to me to doom government to failure.
Government's principal obligation is to protect our unalienable rights, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It can best do this by protecting us from our enemies, both foreign (as in States and non-governmental organizations like Al Qaeda that wish to do us harm) and domestic (as in the criminals and domestic terrorists that would do us and our liberties harm), and by staying out of the way as we enjoy our rights and pursue our happiness — which ultimately will prove to be for our own benefit. When government cannot protect us because of a concern for the enemy's “privacy” we are all likely to lose our lives or our liberties. When government cannot afford to give us “the best” health care it's likely to be rationed and we'll receive too little too late.
We really need to re-examine our concept of rights from time to time. We might find that there's a difference between what we see as natural rights and what we merely desire. We might find that some of our “invented” rights ought to be trumped by our “natural” rights as well. After all, shouldn't the right to life trump the right to choose? Perhaps what we really need to examine is the difference between “liberty” and “license”.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1236
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/9/3/1236.aspx
The Virtuous Republic trackbacked with "Constitutional Post of the Day"
Perri Nelson wrote a very thought provoking post about the difference between “natural rights” and “invented rights.”
What are our natural rights, those inalienable rights bestowed upon us by our creator versus, as Perri calls t...
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
David responded with:
 | Rights that are and "rights" that... ain't.
One right I'd like to see exercised more freely, more often by politicians is the inherent right of a man to commit suicide with the jawbone of an ass--his own. Unfortunately, the powers of the media and of the political class all too often prevent the happy political suicide of all too many political asses.
(Apologies to jackasses and hinny asses everywhere for the association with the political class.) |
Machiavelli responded with:
 | Very thought provoking post.
Being a subscriber to natural rights bestowed upon us by a benevolent creator of some sort or another, you raise some good questions.
Here's one for you. Travel, to me, is one of those unalienable rights. Road blocks, specifically DUI checkpoints, seem to me at least, to interfere with a free people's right to move from one place to another as they see fit without undue government interference. |
Perri Nelson responded with:
 | I would agree with you that travel is one of our unalienable rights. Road blocks don't truly infringe upon that right though. You can still travel, and you can always go around the road block by selecting a different route. Still, this is worth examining a little more closely. The means of travel you choose is not an unalienable right. We do not, for example, have an unalienable right to air travel or to travel upon the oceans in ships. Both of these means of travel require assistance in the form of technology developed by others and typically owned by others. Travel upon the public roads is a similar case, but one where government interference is implied (albeit very weakly) by the Constitution. After all, Congress has the power to establish the roads. The roads are therefore under its control. Driving a motor vehicle upon them is often called a privilege rather than a right. This is why drivers must be licensed after having demonstrated proficiency. Our unalienable rights are only protected insofar as our exercise of them does not infringe upon the unalienable rights of others. Driving under the influence of intoxicants is dangerous, because judgment is impaired as are reaction time and motor skills. An intoxicated driver is a threat to the unalienable right to Life of others. The State therefore has an interest in preventing the operation of motor vehicles upon its roads by intoxicated individuals. DUI checkpoints are a reasonable means for the State to employ in this interest. Arguing that this infringes upon a right to travel misses the point. The right to travel isn't what is infringed here, rather the right to Life is being protected. |