Two people, 200 people, 2 million people, even the world's populations combined do not have more rights than one person. by Brian Irving
(libertarian)
Monday, June 13, 2011
"If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind." - John Stuart Mill
By R. Lee Wrights
BURNET, Texas (June 12) - It is popular and expedient in politics to champion taxpayer rights, state's rights, patient rights, gay rights, people-with-disabilities rights, even animal rights. Name any group, or make one up, and undoubtedly someone will advocate for that group's "rights." The problem is - there is no such thing as "group rights." Group rights are an illusion conjured up by politicians and special interests to increase their influence and power.
The simple, basic truth is that all rights belong to the individual. You are born with your rights and no power on earth can take them away from you. You cannot give your rights away. They end only when you die, and not a split-second sooner. Individual rights cannot be divided or multiplied; and, individual rights are superior to any other claimed rights.
Individual rights mean you can adopt whatever culture you want and live any lifestyle you choose to live. We have the individual right to worship or not worship whatever god we want without interference from anyone else, so long as we do not interfere with the rights of other individuals to do the same. It is the fundamental and universal concept recognized by our nation's Founders. As a result of this recognition, the superiority of individual rights became the foundation of the United States government.
The view that our rights are granted to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is equally incorrect and dangerous. As important and eloquently written as these two documents are, they grant us nothing. America's founding documents merely recognized, and seek to guarantee the recognition, of the individual human rights shared by all of mankind. The Bill of Rights does not declare human rights are valid from a set date forward. The Bill of Rights is a proclamation to the world of something that has always been the sanctity, superiority and supremacy of individual human rights. The Constitution is to serve as a warrantee of those rights, not a grant of privilege that allows us to embrace and enjoy them.
Individual rights are the "self-evident truths" Thomas Jefferson wrote about when he penned the words in the Declaration of Independence 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." He was not expressing any new ideas or concepts. He was telling people something that had always been. Individuals have rights by birth that cannot be given or taken away.
Two people, 200 people, 2 million people, even the world's populations combined do not have more rights than one person. There are no such things as "state's rights," there are only human rights possessed by people individually from birth. A "state" may have more influence, more power, and theoretically, a greater ability to protect individual rights. There is certainly strength in numbers, as they say. Labor unions have proven that numbers mean power in politics. But no group of individuals has more rights than any one individual, nor do groups acquire special rights by being organized.
Power and rights are simply not the same thing. The individual right to freedom of association allows people to band together to protect their individual rights. Such associations can become agencies designed to control, limit, restrict or even abolish the individual rights of people who don't belong to that group. However, even if they are successful, any law that suppresses the rights of individuals can be nullified by the people.
As Jefferson wrote, "...law is often but the tyrant's will and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." It makes no difference if that tyrant is a single person or a group of people united under common cause. The rights of the many are never greater, can never be greater, than the rights of the few, or even the one. If we accept the illusion of group rights, we also accept the legitimacy of tyranny. That is why when it comes to human rights, no number is greater than one.
R. Lee Wrights, 53, a libertarian writer and political activist, is seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 must be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. To that end he has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states. Wrights is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and co-founder and editor of of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Born in Winston-Salem, N.C., he now lives and works in Texas.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Brian Irving only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Brian Irving is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Bentree
Date: June 17, 2011 06:10:15 AM
Brian,
Lip service is given to individual rights right up to the point when character demands acquiescence, at that point the species will through all manner of pseudo-intellectual gymnastics justify pulling the wings off the butterfly. It is the essence of our republic and the principal most often abrogated.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: June 17, 2011 01:28:55 PM
"Group rights" is another name for democracy. The authority of the majority to get a government that is not onerous to them. The consent to be governed.
I am appalled that someone would argue against democracy.
Afraid of the boogey-man "tyranny of the majority"? That's why we have a constitutional democracy, to prevent that from happening. Everyone gets basic defined rights that cannot be impinged, but outside of that - the majority deserves to have the government they want.
What happens when "group rights" is abolished is not some fairyland peace and tranquility and freedom and universal cooperation for the common good that Capital-L Libertarians continually bloviate upon. What happens when you obliterate "group rights" is that ... ever read Lord of the Flies?
You get that. The strongest will push others around to his benefit and amusement and will collect sycophants for the purpose of "legitimizing" the strong-arming; the sycophants collect as their own survival mechanism and exploitive power grab - better to be with the bully than against him. Eventually, the thuggery becomes entrenched and gets called a dictatorship or monarchy. And before you know it, we're starting all over again with tribalism at the bottom of the cultural evolutionary ladder.
Did I mention that I'm appalled that someone would argue against group rights?
Posted By: Bentree
Date: June 18, 2011 10:32:11 AM
rwilymz,
This is THE question isn't it and the answer will determine the future of this once great nation. Are we a Republic, a nation of laws with a realitively stable future or are we a democracy where the law is whatever the mob wish it to be at whatever point in time they deem it based upon expediency and greed.
On what do we base our future? A Republic with a bench marked set of rules? A Constitution and Bill of Rights? Or, mob rule? What has always amazed me is the inabiltiy of some too understand the difference. Maybe it is because were are a democratic republic, democracy being the method we use to decide who our representitives will be to craft the laws of the republic. That is the only systemic "democracy" in this nation. I know it is confusing to some, actually and apparently to many, but none the less we are a republic whose citizens democratically decide who will make the rules, "NOT" I repeat "NOT" to directly and democratically make the rules. A direct Democracy is and anathema to individual rights/liberty, that is why the founders crafted the Constitution the way they did. As an example is the Electoral College, without it, the natural progression of which would have been in the end, one large state doomed by the lawless greed and avarice of the mob turning inside out to consume itself. Hummmmm! The Bill of Rights is meant to guaranty individual and states rights. Does it always? Ask the kids in the lemonade stand. Not everyone benefits from that kind of publicity.
Aristotle.
"There are three parts to all systems of government for which a good law maker must try to find the best arrangement: deliberating about matters common to all, magistracies, and the judicial system. It is democracy when all the citizens can deliberate about everything, for the people seek this kind of equality. There are different ways of doing this. One way is by taking turns rather than all together. Another is to have all citizens meet together but only for the election of magistrates, law making, declarations of war and peace, and audits of magistrates, but to have all other matters decided by magistrates chosen from the entire citizen body either by election or by lot. Another is just like this, except the magistrates are chosen to the extent possible by election from those who are knowledgeable. A fourth way is when all citizens meet to deliberate on all matters, while the magistrates render only preliminary decisions, not final ones. The so-called final type of democracy [on which see under “Types of Democracy”], the type of democracy that is analogous to dynastic oligarchy and tyrannical monarchy and exists now [in Aristotle’s time], is arranged in this fourth way. "
The Founders called it a Republic. These geniuses codified a system that was designed to keep us from devouring ourselves. Individual rights are the foundation of this country. They are trump except as defined by the Constitution. Pretty simple.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: June 20, 2011 12:11:37 PM
Are we a Republic
Not completely.
The Founders called it a Republic.
But what they defined is different.
On what do we base our future? A Republic with a bench marked set of rules? A Constitution and Bill of Rights? Or, mob rule?
"Democracy" is not mob rule. If you need help discerning the difference I'm holding a seminar with a field trip to Somalia this fall; please attend.
What has always amazed me is the inabiltiy of some too understand the difference.
Add yourself to the list.
We are a Republic. But so is North Korea. So is mainland China. So is Iran, so is and was Iraq, so was the Soviet Union, and so are and were any number of places that I doubt you'd like to live.
Do you discern a difference yet?
And it's got less to do with having a Constitution than you seem willing to understand as well.
North Korea has a Constitution. In my [and your, no doubt] estimation, a thoroughly unworthy Constitution, but they nonetheless have one. And their Constitution is set up to protect their rights - as defined. It's just that not many are defined. But the ones that are? They got 'em!!
The right to venerate Li'l Kim. The right to be executed for refusing to venerate Li'l Kim.
Here's the thing: every government ever in the history of the human race has billed itself as the paragon of virtue and morality and champion of the masses' rights.
Every.
We're no different. The claims made by the US and the claims made by NK are the same.
What is the difference?
I think you know but don't want to admit to it...
It is democracy, the concept that you trivialize:
That is the only systemic "democracy" in this nation
A republic does not guarantee rights of anyone, let alone the "group". A Constitution doesn't, either.
You want rights of ANY kind? you need to gather the consent of the governed. The method by which the resulting power is used in the US is "republic". But underneath "republic", and the factor which separates our constitutional republic from the Soviet constitutional republic, is democracy.
Democracy which fails to enact the will of the majority is a dictatorship; a constitutional democracy which fails to protect the defined rights of the minority is as well.
Do not sniff at democracy. The majority is entitled to the government they want
Posted By: Bentree
Date: June 21, 2011 06:38:26 AM
rwilymz,
You are right, Your logic is irrefutable. I stand corrected. I will keep your response in my reference section to be referred to everytime I need a reference on republics, democracy and equivilencies of constitutions in governence of the various nation states.
Note: I understand that the seminar location has been move to the Arizona desert and the keynote address will be delivered by Timothy Leary with the invocation by Carlos Castanada. I will be unable to attend, a scheduling conflict has me participating in the annual one shot jackalope hunt in Douglas, Wyoming.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: June 21, 2011 07:04:20 AM
You are right
Yes, I frequently am.
And despite the unnecessarily sarcastic tone in which you conveyed it, I hope you have internalized some of the limitations involved in the political concepts you support. Nothing is perfect. Everything is subject to abuse for private gain. It is only by a balance of political concepts with their opposing strengths and weaknesses that any nation can hope to outlast the natural entropy that affects all governments sooner or later. Now while I believe that our "sooner/later" is currently coming due because we have strayed too far into the "republic" without retaining enough "democracy", there are certain social movements going that may forestall it.
Or, if not, we will eventually either become a dictatorship, or fracture into regional sub-states.
Good luck with the jackalopes. The summer herd is leaner and better for you. Pan fried with a little cracked pepper and horseradish. Good eatin'.
