Natural vs. Class Rights
Published Mon, Feb 27 2012 9:26 PM
I’ve been having a few discussions lately about rights, and it seems to me that there’s either confusion or downright dishonesty about what they are. I’ve heard and read statements from people that claim to believe in “natural rights” that seem to indicate that these people believe more in “class rights”. Somehow that just doesn’t ring true to me. I think the two notions are diametrically opposed.
To put it simply, I believe that “natural rights” are those rights that are a part of our very nature. They are inherent in our being. They can neither be given to us by others, nor taken away by others. We cannot even legitimately surrender them up. Oh yes, they can be violated but they can never be taken, nor surrendered. They are a part of our being.
By their very nature, “natural rights” are also individual rights. To say that society or some class of people has rights superior to the natural rights of the individual is, to me, ludicrous. Society did not, and indeed could not exist before the individual. Societies are formed by the mutual agreement of individuals for their mutual benefit and gain. Individuals on the other hand must have existed independent of society, although that existence must have been somewhat impoverished. When individuals band together to form a society, their individual rights, their natural rights cannot be sacrificed in order to form that society – and therefore natural, individual rights must be superior to and take precedence over any so-called rights of society.
What then tempers our ability to exercise our natural rights in a society? Only the recognition that we are all of us equal – all sharing and having the same natural rights. My exercise of my natural right to pursue happiness cannot legitimately deprive you of your right to life, nor can it infringe upon your right to liberty. If in my exercise of my rights I violate yours, then being equal creatures with equal natural rights your exercise of your rights might well violate mine also. Neither of us recognizing and honoring the rights of the other can then expect to exercise our rights in such a way as to violate those of another.
Thomas Jefferson, who despite having penned it was not the sole author of the Declaration of Independence, after recognizing duty and obligation began by enumerating three natural rights. These were Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Our constitution recognizes even more of our natural rights (I say recognizes, not grants) including the right to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, the right to keep and bear arms, and more. Our natural rights are recognized by our constitution, but they are not granted by it – and the list of those natural rights explicitly recognized and protected by our constitution is only a partial enumeration of those that we have. Recognizing this the constitution includes the statement that simply by enumerating certain of our natural rights no disparagement of others that were not enumerated is implied.
If our natural rights are more numerous than those listed in the Declaration of Independence and enumerated in the constitution, how then are we to recognize them? Must we rely upon some Judge to find them in shadows of meaning and emanations of modern societal whims? I should think not! Instead, let us apply a little reasoning of our own to help us to identify our natural rights.
First, and again, we must recognize that our natural rights are inherent in our very being. They do not come to us from society or government. As such, they cannot rely upon society or government in their definition. Second we must recall that we are all equal – if any of us has a natural right therefore, we all have that same natural right. These facts lead us to another conclusion about our natural rights – they can place no demands upon others – else others may place those same demands upon us (Those that would assert that the right to keep and bear arms cannot therefore be a natural right since it is seemingly dependent upon technology and therefore upon society forget that even a simple sharpened stick or sharp edged stone qualifies as a weapon. The right to keep and bear arms is the right to keep and bear weapons, especially and including those you make for yourself – not the right to require that someone provide those weapons for you.). In fact, examine those individual rights that are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and in the constitution. You will see that each and every one of them involves our very life, our liberty, and our right to protect that life and liberty from others.
Now let’s turn to the notion of “class rights”. Class rights are quite obviously those rights held by a certain class of people as opposed to the rights of the individual. When we speak of gay rights or women’s rights, we are not talking about individual, natural rights. Nor, when we speak of “the rights of man” are we talking about individual, natural rights – but rather of the rights of society. In fact, all “class rights” are merely societal constructs. They are not natural rights. They do not inhere in our being – but rather upon our membership in one or another preferred class of society.
Class rights therefore are subject to the whims of society. They can be granted or revoked based upon current mores or the whim of the government. They are then not even truly rights, but rather mere privileges. Considering this then, the fight for women’s rights, or gay rights, or workers rights isn’t truly the fight for rights at all – whether those engaged in it perceive that to be the case or not. Instead these are each and all of them a fight for special privileges which may be granted or revoked by society. No matter how high-sounding the rhetoric, no matter how well-meaning the advocates then this is an unworthy struggle when compared to ensuring that the rights of the individual – the true rights of the individual – are preserved.
In this context then, let’s quickly examine a few of the more controversial rights people are asserting these days.
Let us first take up “the right to marry”. Is this a natural right? Of course it isn’t. Marriage is a social and religious institution. True, it has been around since antiquity – but it is still a societal construct. As natural rights are inherent in our being and precede society they cannot be dependent upon societal constructs – no matter how time honored and ingrained into our society those constructs may be, therefore the right to marry cannot be a natural right.
Central to the current fight over the right to marry is the struggle over the definition of marriage. For millennia marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman. For the Christian church marriage is more than merely the union of a man and a woman though – it is symbolic of the relationship between the church and Christ. For society in general marriage between a man and a woman has cemented relationships between men and women and provided a stable home for the raising of the next generation. Society therefore, in addition to religion, has an interest in the traditional definition of marriage.
The gay rights movement wants to change that. They want marriage redefined so that marriage can be between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Quite naturally many religious organizations are opposed to this – on moral, and theological grounds. Even setting aside the religious arguments there are secular reasons to oppose it as well, primarily the role that marriage has in procreation and the stability of the home for raising the next generation.
Arguments that some who marry choose not to have children do not invalidate this as a primary reason for retaining the existing institution of marriage. Neither do arguments that point to infidelity in marriage, the fact that heterosexuals get divorced or any number of arguments based upon the failure of people to live up to the ideals of marriage.
Now, as far as I’m concerned I think that homosexual behavior is sinful and aberrant. That does not mean that I advocate violence against people that engage in it, nor does it mean that I want to interfere with their right to pursue their happiness in that way – whether I agree with it or not. I do oppose “gay marriage” however.
No, I don’t feel that my marriage is threatened by Chuck and Larry deciding to become husband and husband. But I do believe that forcing us to accept “gay marriage” does violate the natural right to the free exercise of religion. To force churches to both honor and participate in gay marriage is to force them to suborn their religious doctrine to the desire for a class privilege.
When gay marriage advocates talk of the right to marry and assert that those who do not support their right to marry are trying to take away their rights they are completely wrong as a matter of fact and logic. In fact, they’ve got the situation turned on its head 180°. They are instead attempting to violate the right to the free exercise of religion in favor of a mere societal privilege.
I am also unable to accept the conflation of the gay rights struggle for “marriage equality” with the civil rights movement of the 1960s. There’s a vast world of difference between the two. The civil rights movement was a struggle to have the basic equality of individuals be recognized regardless of racial origin. Recall that we are all equal – and that we all share the same natural rights – inherent in our very being. The civil rights movement was a struggle to re-assert that basic truth and to end the violation of the natural rights of the individual that had been perpetrated on one class of people by another. The “marriage equality” movement seeks to violate the natural rights of some members of society in order to gain a privilege for a chosen class. Once again, twisting meaning on its head to befuddle the unwary.
Now let's look at another controversial right, the right to “health care”. Is this a natural right? Most certainly it is not! While we all will at one time or another in our life find ourselves in need of health care it’s important to remember that health care is a service provided by highly trained professionals. No natural right can make any kind of demand upon another person – not even for service. If it did so it would violate the other person’s natural right to liberty.
There are those that classify health care as a basic human right though. To them, I say that if they do not go to college and medical school at personal expense and then enter into the health care profession and offer their services to humanity for nothing that they are hypocrites. For if health care is a basic human right, they are taking away that right from others by refusing to provide the service known as health care. And let’s face it, if no one offers the service then health care as such ceases to exist. And, if it can cease to exist because people choose not to provide the service how then can it be a right?
There are those that see health care as an extension of the right to life (a time worn and tired argument used to justify oh so many expansions of class privilege, but I digress). How I ask, can something that is inherent within us place a demand upon the resources of another? Surely health care is a privilege, and one that must be paid for.
“Health care” advocates, particularly in government argue that we have a right to the services of another – but some recognize that that is an infringement on the liberty of the service provider (some care, and some do not) – and so typically health care laws take the form of insurance, whether paid for though taxes, fees, or more recently governmental mandates that the individual purchase a policy conforming to government requirements.
This provides no one with any rights whatsoever – but rather with government guaranteed entitlements. Worse, it does so through the violation of multiple natural rights.
In support of the first assertion all we need do is look at how health care is parceled out. Government decides what health care services must be provided. Government decides how those services must be provided and how the providers may receive compensation. If government is doing this then health care is obviously not a natural right – and instead is a privilege that the government can, and eventually will take away. Most likely this revocation of the “right” to health care will come as cost cutting measures or ways to sustain the system.
In support of my second assertion, that government controlled “health care” is established through the violation of multiple natural rights let’s look in more detail. Let’s start with the individual mandate to purchase health insurance that conforms to government requirements. Isn’t it obvious to you that when government can require you to take a particular action that government has taken away your liberty with regards to that choice? So through the individual mandate our right to liberty is violated. If government can require you to purchase anything, then it can require you to purchase anything at all – even toxic wastes which you must keep in your basement which must then be available for government inspection at any time to ensure that you comply with the mandate.
But the violation of our natural rights doesn’t end there. Employers are also required by law to provide health care insurance that conforms to government requirements to their workers. All employers (except those that somehow manage to receive an exemption – which must surely be a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment) must do so. Among this “all employers” class are religious institutions and their subsidiaries. And when the mandated policy must include coverage for contraceptives whether the employer wishes to pay for that coverage or not then the right to the free exercise of religion is violated.
Now let’s not get started on the whole “reproductive rights” thing. If we must, we can go there in the comments, but that’s yet another set of class privileges – and not natural rights. For now, just remember that no natural right can place demands upon others – and that a person’s reproductive rights (if for the moment we allow the argument that they might be natural rights) therefore cannot require someone else to provide their contraception for them. If you want to assert reproductive rights then take the responsibility for doing so yourself – don’t make it your employer’s or the church’s job.
Next we come to the argument that the government has backed off on requiring churches to pay for the coverage of contraceptives, as if this somehow negates the violation of right to the free exercise of religion. Surely if the churches don’t have to pay for contraceptive coverage the issue is resolved right? Not really. This supposedly principled compromise merely shifts the violation of rights to yet another party. For now the insurance provider is required to provide contraceptive coverage for free – another violation of the right to liberty. In this case, the government is mandating that the insurance provider give away something that they would normally charge a premium for.
That’s like telling a baker that he must, by law give away a loaf of bread to each person coming into the store. Or telling a bartender that he must provide peanuts with every beer sold. Or telling a shoe salesman that he has to give away a box of donuts with every pair of tennis shoes. If you think that’s absurd – well that’s the point. If the government can tell you what you must sell, and that you must give certain things away then the government has violated your right to liberty and your right to hold property. All in the name of a “basic human right” which is really nothing more than a privilege – granted and taken away at the whim of government and bureaucrats.
That’s two. I could go on. We could address the “basic human right” of broadband access to the Internet. Or we could spend some time examining reproductive rights, the right to pornography, the right to burn the flag, the right to not be offended, or many others. We could address the right to a free public education, or the right to the redistributed wealth of others.
It shouldn’t be necessary. Ultimately these so-called “rights” are nothing more than special class privileges or entitlements that people want to assert over the natural rights of the individual. As such they’re not rights at all.
Remember, our natural rights are inherent in our very being. We all share them equally, and they take precedence over any of the so-called rights of society. This does not say that we are free from obligation to our fellow man. At the very least we must honor and respect one another’s rights. Whether we agree with the choices that others make or not does not change the fact that they have the right to pursue their own happiness in the manner that they see fit – providing that it does not violate the rights of others to do so.
The purpose of government is to defend our natural rights. Government doesn’t grant them to us. Nor should it be going about the business of granting privileges to a select class at the expense of our natural rights. And we should never support any effort to have it do so – regardless of whose natural rights are being violated or how “worthy” the cause may seem.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1501
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2012/2/27/1501.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
T.F. Stern responded with:
 | Here's a link to an article I wrote several years ago; as I was learning the skills of writing. I was new to the blogging thing; even so, the information is similar to what you have written here.
http://tfsternsrantings.blogspot.com/2005/05/author-of-liberty.html |
Perri Nelson responded with: From whom do we inherit?
 | And as you note there... “God is the author of inherent rights, to argue otherwise is folly.” I won't argue otherwise. However, there are those that will. Rather than go that route, I recognize that our natural rights are a part of our very being. We have the right to life - else we would not have live in the first place. We have the right to liberty. We were not slaves before society attempted to make us so. – and onward. I've attempted to keep this a mostly secular argument regarding the difference between natural rights and societal privilege - primarily for those that would reject a spiritual argument out of hand. That does not mean that I don't agree that our rights come from God our creator - or that we are created equal. I see it as Jefferson and others did to be a self-evident truth. "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...” One of the problems with many that want to assert class rights such as some that are discussed here is that they refuse to recognize the possibility of a divine authority - or any moral authority other than their own sense of social justice. This is why, in my opinion, they find it so easy to dismiss the right to the free exercise of religion for example... or to denigrate the motives of religious people when they disagree with their pet cause. A recent example comes to mind - regarding the contraception mandate. I can't remember the exact wording now, but as I recall they said something to the effect that a woman's reproductive rights trumped the religious freedom of the Catholic church - and that the church had better get in line. Clearly their opinions and privileges mattered more to them than the church's doctrine - which the church believes to have been handed down from God Himself. In other words, their opinion carried more weight than that old fuddy-duddy God, and He'd better catch up with the times. How's that for presumption and hubris? |
David responded with:
 | "The purpose of government is to defend our natural rights. Government doesn’t grant them to us. Nor should it be going about the business of granting privileges to a select class at the expense of our natural rights."
In fact, that's exactly what the constitutional prohibition against "titles of nobility" is about. Granting special privileges to any person or groups of persons not enjoyed by the citizenship at large is the creation of a privileged class, and whether or not one calls it "nobility" such special privileges create such classes.
In fact, the Framers were so firm in their rejection of the legal creation (or even acceptance) of such privileged classes, that the prohibition was laid not only on the federal government (I:9) but also on the States(I:10). (I can only hope I got the references correct. Still, they're there under "title of nobility" *heh*) |
Stanford Matthews responded with:
 | As has always has been the case Perri, I acknowledge your proper assessment and analysis of an issue. No, this is not mere 'crony' approval. While we agree on most things we have had our differences. Your commentary on 'natural rights' and the current debate in public afffairs is spot on. For now I only offer the comment that special interests always attempt to redefine the argument. Your post adequately rebuts that notion.
Additionally I will use this comment to thank you for your comment on my blog even though my current method for approving comments is less than accomodating. It is not on my top ten list but I will correct it in the future.
Once again, thank you for your informed appraisal on this topic and do it more often. Contrary to the views of liberals people like you and me are read by those who matter in terms of power brokers. It works.
That is why I continue to do this blog thing even though I am a little guy. I share the sentiment of those who choose not to respond. |