There is a constant philosophical battle being waged among conservatives and civil libertarians about individual rights versus collective securing of rights. The reality is - that upon exploring this debate, a more fundamental question of where rights originate is revealed.
In the most recent GOP debate in Iowa, front-runner Rudy Giuliani weighed in on the security side:
I mean, we had all kinds of civil rights, but nobody could exercise them, because they were too darn afraid to go out, too darn afraid to go to the movies or go buy groceries at the grocery store. First, you have to have a certain quality of life that allows you to be comfortable (inaudible) going to exist, your children are going to go to school, you’re going to be able to have a job, and your rights are going to be respected.
Giuliani’s position dictates that while there may be such a thing as inalienable rights, these are meaningless without an avenue of articulation. Rights to life, liberty and property are not given by God or found in nature, but come into existence upon their exercise under a secure and stable infrastructure.
Even many libertarians have this view, which philosophically is the underpinning of positive rights: namely, that since rights do not have meaning without articulation, force must be used to “create” rights. This view limits the idea of “pure” or “inherent” rights. If property rights, for example, must have a government to secure them, then it is justified and consistent to take some property initially through taxation in order to create a secure environment to exercise property rights. In fact, the property that was initially taken as taxes wasn’t property at all! It was collateral or even seed money to bring what was left over into existence as property.
However, take Jefferson’s contrasting view in the Declaration of Independence:
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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
Jefferson argues that individuals have their rights by God, being endowed with them as part of their very definition. In other words, rights are defined in man himself - not by any further articulation or infrastructure. However, men, to secure the rights they already have inherently, are wise to secure them through governments. These derive power only from consent of the source of rights - men.
Jefferson did not live in a time when knowledge about DNA was widespread - that every human has in them, even at conception (before all the organs and articulations of life have come into existence) a complete map of their physical body. Despite the fact that these potentials may never come into existence or my be extinguished prematurely, they still exist metaphysically.
Rights exist in the same way. People have them in their natural state, without any need for other men to either sacrifice or be forced into providing security. Security is not the right of man, but it wisdom if man wants to get the most out of his rights in the material world. The question is, does a positive “right” of security actually infringe on the original, natural rights it proposes to protect?
Interesting discussion. You assume that when Jefferson writes ‘creator’ he means God in the Judeo/Christian sense not in the Deist sense (or ‘creator’ could also apply as in the ‘forces of evolution’ that created man- not necessarily meaning an intercessor deity).
The basis of rights is Man’s Nature. As a rational being, certain conditions are necessary for man to proper. His Life must belong to him, he must have Liberty to act on his own judgement, he must have the moral sanction to Pursue his Happiness (rational self-interest), and he must own and be able to dispose of the products of his own effort (property rights).
The only way these rights can be violated is by use of force or fraud. A proper Government is therefore instituted to have the legal monopoly on force- and is restrained constitutionally to use force only in the defense of rights.
I would say both your arguments are incorrect- rights are neither man-made nor god-given. They are the requirements for human life, given by man’s nature as a rational being, identified by logic, and instituted by voluntary agreement between enlightened men.
“The basis of rights is Man’s Nature.”
That’s just a way of rephrasing Jefferson’s claim that rights are endowed by a Creator. The nature of that Creator–Judeo-Christian, Deist, or evolutionary–is not important. The claim is that whoever or whatever created Man, created Man in such a way as to give Man rights. Thus those rights are inherent in Man’s very nature.
Also, my recollection is that Jefferson was a deist.
Richard,
I think the argument on whether rights come from “God” in the Judeo-Christian sense is really not important. Regardless of how man came into being, he is, and that is really what I am trying to deal with - the question of origin is a side-discussion (albeit, worthy in its own right).
While I agree that conditions of security are essential for man’s prosperity, I do not agree that those conditions are the genesis of his rights. This is a common battle ground between natural rights philosophy and objectivist philosophy. A secure society like the one you cite is really the best that man can accomplish for full use of his rights - however, as I mentioned, use of rights is not their rational beginning and end.
“Giuliani’s position dictates that while there may be such a thing as inalienable rights, these are meaningless without an avenue of articulation. Rights to life, liberty and property are not given by God or found in nature, but come into existence upon their exercise under a secure and stable infrastructure.”
Does Giuliani really say that our rights come into existence only when they are exercised? I somehow doubt he would agree that he meant that. His issue is that “sure, we have rights, but what good are they if we can’t exercise them safely? That is almost the same as not having them at all, making us sub-human. That’s why security is so important.”
In a very practical way I tend to want more security over more freedoms, but on the other hand, I can hypothesize as to how too much “security” could eventually lead to dictatorship. I even think that living in a benevolent dictatorship might not be so bad–trouble is, benevolent dictators don’t exists as they become obsessed with their own power.
Where do rights come from? A common sense answer is that whoever owns the thing is the one who has the rights. (For example, if I own a Van Gogh painting I am free to use it for kindling in my fireplace.) Using that starting point, who owns people? Does a deist God own us because he made us, as Jefferson said, gave us certain rights, and leaves us to figure out what to do with them? Or, do we own ourselves because evolution made us so it is just up to ourselves to make up the rules? Or did an “intercessor deity” (Richard’s term) make us, and it is up to him what rights we have?
The mistake I hear is talk of ‘rights’ as if they were something extra, something added to an individual above and beyond his skin, bones, flesh, mind etc.. You can’t talk of rights as if they are something tacked on - the way people speak of the mystical soul- something special that people are granted ‘by something’ like nature or God.
Rights are merely concepts that identify politically the requirements of rational life. A turtle needs humidity and lettuce- that’s a requirement of its animal nature. A human being needs water and food as well but is not JUST an animal- a human being posesses conceptual consciousness- so the requirements of particularly human life include liberty from force so we can think, produce and live.
When men come together in society, we recognize conceptually the necessity of liberty of individuals. We codify the political rules of how men should deal with each other if living a rational life is their motive. These are individual rights.
Governments are instituted among men to SECURE rights. We write down rationally justifiable rules to govern how government force is used, against whom and for whom. We give weapons to people and charge them with the job of protecting us from each other and from outside invaders. We create the courts so we can settle disputes.
These are the only proper functions of a moral government. Everything else we can work out on our own- through trade, persuasion and voluntary cooperation.
Just to clarify, I think Giuliani is right when he says we can have all the inalienable rights in the world and not be able to exercise them if the government does not do its job. Wasn’t that why we fought the Revolution? We recognized that we had rights no king or mob or deity could take away and so we fought to put up a government that would defend those rights not abuse them?
The sad thing is that we are abused constantly every day in more vile ways than any tax on tea- and the concept and foundation of rights is forgotten. We’re manufacturing new ‘rights’ every year- right to a house (which someone else has to build for you) right to education (which someone else has to provide) right to health care (paid for by your healthy neighbor) rights of animals (who have no concept of rights), group rights (as if new perogatives came into being when more than one person is involved). It’s insane. We’re violating everybody’s rights in the name of rights.
The mistake I hear is talk of ‘rights’ as if they were something extra, something added to an individual above and beyond his skin, bones, flesh, mind etc..
I don’t think anyone is saying that (unless you are referencing something outside of the conversation here). In fact, I am declaring that security itself is a positive right - something not inherent in individual man - which is thus ultimately at odds with his rights. Security is possible, even wise, but it must be done without violating man himself - in his mind or property.
We’re violating everybody’s rights in the name of rights.
That is precisely what I am articulating. Look at Giuliani’s statement: he states that man requires public schools, jobs and “comfort” before he can have rights. This is backwards. Those are positive rights which only come at the expense of other’s property and lives (basic natural rights).