Independence Day Thoughts

If engaged in a political debate, how I assess my "opponent" might well include his or her view of citizen “rights.” And frankly, I have a hard time taking too seriously anyone who declares we have a "right" to things like healthcare, or housing, or even food.

Now I’m not saying that as a society — or better yet, as individuals —we shouldn’t be concerned that our fellow human beings have the basic (or even some of the not-so-basic) necessities of life. But one person’s moral imperative to share is another person’s waste of effort (or money). And the simple and unassailable fact is that no one has a right to anything that another person has to provide.

There is a reason why Thomas Jefferson said we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights,” or why we speak of the “Natural Rights of Man.” We make our way in this world with life (a heartbeat), liberty (an ability to choose between options) and a desire for happiness (as we individually define it). You don’t have to ask anyone else for these things. Others (usually the government) can take them away from us — liberals are very keen on curbing that “pursuit of happiness” thing — but absent outside interference, an Inalienable Right is the normal state of affairs from the moment of our birth.

Or think of it this way: If you lived on an unchartered island all by yourself, you would most assuredly have your Inalienable Rights. By contrast, anything else you want on that island, you’re going to have to acquire all by your little lonesome.

But I must admit that there is also a question as to why any rights at all should be respected. After all, why should the government (whether a monarch or the people collectively) be constrained from preventing us from exercising our Natural Rights. What if they have a good reason? I can only (and perhaps lamely) say it is my preference to only render unto Caesar what came from Caesar, and consult with the Provider as to what I do with everything else. But accept that rationale or not, we are left with either very few rights or none at all. And “none at all,” definitely rules out a such occasionally suggested “rights” as paid vacations or bilingual education.

Putting aside the sillier claims, I am especially pleased that our Constitution didn’t stop with protecting the few inalienable rights Jefferson cited in the Declaration of Independence. The law of the land says that government can’t deprive us of property without compensation, it isn’t allowed to keep us from worshiping as we see fit, or forbid us from hanging out with people of our own choosing … to name a few additional protections from tyranny. Yet notice, once again, that those Constitutional Rights are not what someone must give us, but rather are existing abilities and freedoms that shall not be taken from us.

Some people are bothered by the limits on what government may rip away — leading them to say that our governing document is full of “negative liberties.”Of course, what those people see as a negative (government shall not, or Congress shall make no law … etc.), I see as a positive (yes, I may!).

We can debate about what is fair or not fair, what will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number, or what Jesus would do. But as for what constitutes a Right — unless you were born with it — you shouldn’t expect anyone to give it you. And if it is your birthright (perhaps your only birthright), you might want to be careful not to let anyone take it away without a fight.

Happy 4th of July!