Rights Matter

I would not surprise anyone by saying that human rights are fundamental. Not just because they provide a guide for ethical behaviour (and political theory), but that fundamentally they tell us the circumstances of when it is acceptable to kill someone.

Not to say that someone breaking a right is considered fair game, but that rights can and should be defended with all force necessary, including deadly force. This concept is not valid just for libertarians, but for every ideology.

We can place this idea in a more general context. Anything that is considered to be a right must be defended ultimately with a threat of death. We will use this as a general context, without arguing for the validity of the rights themselves.

I also make less of a distinction between positive and negative rights.

Let’s take a generally accepted idea of what human rights are: the UN Declaration. Not exactly your libertarian’s guide, but significant.

From wikipedia:

There are a total of thirty articles outlining people’s human rights, but the most important principles declared are considered to be the following:

• The right to life, liberty, property and security of person.

• The right to an education.

• The right to employment, paid holidays, protection against unemployment, and social security.

• The right to participate fully in cultural life.

• Freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment.

• Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

• Freedom of expression and opinion.

Without picking on the criticism, let’s take them one by one:

The right to life, liberty, property and security of person.

This implies, obviously, that one has a right to defend his life and liberty (and implicitly, secure himself). This right would not have much meaning if one would not be allowed to pursue that aim to the limit of his abilities (including authorizing others to act on his behalf). And if the aggressor is not deterred by the increasing use of force, there is only one course of action: deadly force. Otherwise, it would be like saying: “If the aggressor is willing to take sufficient risks (not including the risk of getting himself killed), then his actions are not condemnable.”

The right to an education.

This wording is unclear, so I will appeal to the original text:

Article 26.

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

A shorter wording would be: “everyone has a right to receive education (…)”. Education must be something to be actively provided. This also happens with all other rights mentioned here.

The right to employment, paid holidays, protection against unemployment, and social security.

Now we’re getting there. What does this mean, so far?

If, for instance, social security is considered a “right” then it is right for the person in need of such a service to seek it, under action or threats thereof, including by delegating that authority to someone else (such as government).

But delegation is not the key word here. If it’s a right, the needer is perfectly entitled to go to someone who can provide him with services or money to make him “socially secure.” That provider has no right to refuse. The needer is effectively entitled to kill him if his wishes are not followed. If a provider can decline, or oppose sufficient force (short of deadly force), then the needer’s claim of “right” would be without substance. It would read: “if the provider opposes sufficient resistance, he is free from obligation.”

So we see why rights are of the utmost importance. If we are to make an argument based on ethical grounds, we must have a basic understanding of what a right is. Hopefully, I shed some light on this topic.

Coming soon: Consistency as it relates to the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

The Philosophy of Freedom

Here’s a nice excerpt from Ken Schoolland’s “The Adventures of Johathan Gullible“:

“My philosophy is based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life. To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you have. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life nor do you own the lives of others.
“You exist in time: future, present, and past. This is manifest in life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty. The exercise of choices over life and liberty is your prosperity. To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose the portion of your past that produced it.
“A product of your life and liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your labor, the product of your time, energy, and talents. It is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use. And it is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn’t do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves.
“At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without willful, voluntary consent. Normally, the initiation of force to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against a few, or even by officials with fine hats and titles.
“You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help protect you. But you do not have a right to initiate force against the life, liberty, or property of others. Thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf.
“You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but you have no right to impose rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behavior or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.
“Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice. You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow. Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice.
“This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action, it is also the most ethical.
“Problems that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for people of the world to stop asking officials to initiate force on their behalf. Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner, good people have empowered evil throughout history.
“Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving the free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act—especially when it is easier to do nothing.”

Be sure to listen to some of the media content on that site as well:

http://www.jonathangullible.com/media.htm 

Scroll down to “Radio Spots” and enjoy!