Thursday, March 2, 2017

The Rights of Man, Properly Undestood

There are two articles at the American Thinker today that are of interest to readers here.  The first I shall expand upon is entitled Human Rights Correctly Defined by Paul Pauker. Today when we have Leftists running around proclaiming rights that  truly are not, it is good to have an actual definition of what are the actual rights of man. The second article is entitled A Bad Case of Christophobia by John Steinreich. While I won't do anything more than mention it here, you should go and read the whole thing. I think I will make use in the future of his idea of "Christophobia."

Mr. Pauker notes that the rights of man, meaning here every human being that walks the planet, are the right to life, liberty, and property.  While these rights are those granted by God to all people, they are also called Natural Rights because they flow from the natural order of things:

Natural rights have four main features:

  •  They are universal (they apply to everyone, everywhere);

  • They are unchanging (they stay the same, from generation to generation);

  • They are unalienable (they cannot be taken away by a government);

  • They are negative (they are the right to not be killed, the right to not be physically restrained, the right to not be robbed, and so on).
While natural rights are universal and therefore apply in every nation, the government holding power in one nation does not have a duty to secure the natural rights of people from another nation. For example, Mexico has the duty to secure the natural rights of the Mexican people; Syria, the Syrian people; et cetera. However, when a nation has permitted a foreigner to legally enter the nation, such a duty exists for as long as the foreigner is legally present in the nation. Nevertheless, there is no duty to permit a foreigner entry into a nation in the first place, and there is no duty to secure the natural rights of anyone present in a nation illegally. Consequently, the United States does not have a duty to permit either immigrants or refugees into the nation, and it does not have a duty to secure the natural rights of illegal immigrants (from Mexico or any other nation).
And it is precisely on these points that so many get their virtue signalling crossed up. In the rush to show that they are more compassionate and caring than we knuckle dragging conservatives, they often run roughshod over the natural rights outline in the Declaration of Independence.  We conservatives recognize that people everywhere enjoy these rights, but it is not the duty of the United States to either protect those rights when foreigners are here illegally, nor is it the duty of the United States to protect those rights for foreign people outside of the United States.

As to other so called "rights" such as the right to decent housing, the right to health care, and so on and on and on.  You have the right to such housing as you can afford.  If anyone but you pays for any part of your housing, that is an act of charity, and you should be thankful.  The same goes for healthcare.  Note that no actual "right" exists for you to call on the services of another. "Rights" that call upon another to perform some duty such as health care of housing, are known as positive rights.  But positive rights do not exist in reality.  If you could command the services of another by "right," that person would then be your slave, something which is illegal in this country.  That is why conservatives object to positive rights, and unlimited government.  When government grants positive rights, it necessarily commands others to do the bidding of those subsidized by those rights.  In essence, those supplying the rights become the slaves of those receiving them.

The Bill of Rights of the Constitution outlines a number of rights that are corollary to life, liberty, and property.  For example, the Second Amendment provides that I may bear arms.  I have this right as a corollary to the right to life.  If I have no means to defend my life, then the right is somewhat hollow.  On the other hand, the government can not command that a gun maker must provide me with a gun to defend my life.  But if a gun maker has suitable weapons, and I freely contract with him to provide me with one, then I have the right to purchase and bear it.  .00000

No comments:

Post a Comment