Tag: rights

Frying a Red Herring

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I wonder if our country would be in better shape if we spent more energy in a war on bad arguments rather than a war on terror (or poverty, or drugs, . . . or prosperity). Just a thought.

As an example, we see the often repeated argument by abortion advocates that it is hypocritical to claim to be pro-life and simultaneously support capital punishment. This is a very nice red herring for them because there is a lot of overlap between those who oppose abortion and those who support capital punishment. The problem is that holding those positions simultaneously does not amount to hypocrisy. For those who care, here is a long, well-written explanation of how the two are perfectly compatible. For those who are in a hurry or in the middle of a debate where this argument is trotted out, here’s my short proof.

The founders recognized life, liberty, and (private) property, as human rights to be protected. It’s not really necessary, but for the sake of clarity let’s view these as a hierarchy of primary individual rights – life being the most important of the three and property as the least important of these inalienable rights. “Inalienable” means that they are “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred .”

Now, if we cannot surrender or transfer our right to property I would ask if property can ever be legitimately taken from our control? The answer is clearly “yes.” Taxes, fines, and restitution for wrongs committed by a person are all examples. If we cannot surrender or transfer our right to liberty, can liberty ever be legitimately taken from us? Once again, the answer is “yes.” Saunter on down to the nearest jail or prison and see that it has been taken from some. Note also that even in cases where a person is later proven innocent the state at times has a legitimate right to suspend liberty while determining the question of guilt. Finally, if we cannot surrender or transfer our right to life, can life ever be legitimately forfeit based on our actions (according to the best evidence available at the time)? I will stop short of answering in the affirmative because I recognize a lack of complete consensus on the question but I submit that the affirmative answers on both preceding questions is ample evidence of what I set out to prove – that simultaneously being pro-life and supporting capital punishment is insufficient evidence to convict someone of the sin of hypocrisy.

Case closed – pass the fish.

Tags death penalty, issues, pro-life, rights

General

Constitutional Amendment VI

Post author By David
Post date May 21, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment VI

In our information age sometimes the right to a public trial guaranteed by Amendment VI interferes with the opportunity for an impartial jury also guaranteed there (especially in the district wherein the crime was committed).

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

The principles are sound though that a person deserves to be confronted with the accusations against them and those making the accusations, and that they should have the power to present a defense against the charges.

Tags Bill of Rights, Constitution, crime, documents, history, rights

National

Looking Back

It was interesting to read what Glen Warchol relates today about the first anniverarly of the Texas FLDS raid. Glen gives us the statistics one year later and it is almost identical to what what known weeks before any of the children were returned to their homes. I hope we don’t see such a massive injustice being carried out by the police again – but we probably will even if the FLDS are not the target.

Tags FLDS, government, history, rights, Texas, unconstitutional

culture life

Human Rights

A post at the Utah Amicus this morning shared a short video based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The video and the overall message is good, but starting at 2:51 in the video the message departs from the reality of human rights and enters the Utopia of idealism. I think it is important to recognize the difference between the real and the ideal if we are to have any hope of establishing true liberty. Of all the categories which this declaration lists as distinctions which cannot alter basic human rights there is one category which they fail to list which tears some of their "rights" to shreds – placement in history. We have no rights today that were not also the rights applicable to our great grandparents. I do not mean to say that those rights have never been infringed upon, but if we call something a right today which could not have been delivered in all ages of civilization then it is not actually a right.

Those who subscribe to the Conservative/Libertarian philosophy would rightly point out that there is no such thing as gay rights, womens rights, or minority rights of any kind – there are only individual rights. In other words, membership in any group, majority or minority does nto grant any rights that are not equally applicable to those outside the group. The same holds true of responsibilities. Society, nor any group in society, has no responsibilities. Only individuals have responsibilities.

So, while it is nice to say that society has a responsibility to help you develop the truth is that for better or worse society does help you develop. It is the moral responsibility of every individual to encourage those they interact with to develop in a positive way according to their individual capacities. In other words, a teacher can help a child to learn and a police officer can encourage a child to respect the law. The teacher and the police officer may have some influence outside those spheres, but we cannot expect one to fill the role of the other. The real truth is that we cannot expect society to take on any responsibility – we can only expect ourselves to take on any necessary or desirable responsibility (and we can encourage others to do the same).

There is no right to employment – only the right to receive the fruits of your labor. It is the responsibility of others to treat you fairly, but that does not entitle you to a any given job nor does it mean that employers must make work for you. I can appreciate the idea of a right to a fair salary, but I am confident that the meaning of those promoting this Universal Declaration of Human Rights mean a social guarantee of some minimum salary – which is not a right and cannot be enforced without taking away true liberty.

The happy sentiment that each workday should not be too long is completely meaningless. First we must define "too long" and second we must find a way to enforce it. A standard definition of "too long might be 8, 10, or 12 hours per day. Tell that to those who produced their own food on a family farm when an 18-hour workday was little better than subsistence. We no longer live in that age, but it goes to prove that needs, resources, and capacities are outside the control of society and thus the "too long" workday cannot be artificially defined or equitably enforced. The same argument holds true wtih the reference to "a decent standard of living."

The right to go to school was not available in any for for long ages of many societies and that lack had nothing to do with oppression – it had to do with subsistence. I have the right to be treated fairly regarldess of my economic curcumstance, but I do not have the right to go to school when school is not avaliable or when I do not have the capacity to go to school and still meet my real human needs. The same holds true for participation in the arts and sciences of my community.

While it is nice to think about an education that promotes peace and understanding among all people the reality is, again, that this tries to place on society a responsibility that every individual has to treat (and teach others to treat) all people with respect and dignity. Education (meaning public or formal educaiton) should focus on academic disciplines and teach/promote respect and understanding by example more than indoctrination.

In short, there are no group rights or responsibilities. We must each shoulder our responsibilities – which include protecting and respecting the rights of others. Second, real rights are rights regardless of historic reference point. Any right which could not be enforced (as distinct from simply "was not enforced") at all points in history is not a right, no matter how noble or desireable it is.

Tags liberty, reactions, rights

culture

What Do You Expect?

What started as a post about Equality Before the Law grew into a discussion about the role of government in helping our fellow men. That eventually spun of into a discussion about how we can or should mix religion and politics at The Life I am Choosing. Later I ran across Connor’s post about the truth concerning charity in a capitalist system. That related post had a comment that seemed to capture the difference in the expectations between the two sides of the debate.

These and similar accusations . . . stem from a mistrust of capitalism and a lack of faith in man’s innate desire to help others.

Man’s innate desire to help others is what drives most of those who argue both sides of this issue. There are those capitalists who are not thinking of how to benefit others, and yet what they do almost always does help others. There are those communalists who are not really interested in helping others and they are very happy to be useing the force of government to negate the property rights of others. Despite those two groups, the majority of people approach this discussion with an honest desire to help others. Some believing that government can provide the best coverage in helping others while others believe that individuals can tackle the major problem areas as well as filling the cracks that would be missed by government.

Tags connections, government, liberty, rights

General

Rights and Liberty

This is 8 minutes well spent if you have any question about what constitutes a right and why rights are more than simply good things that deserve legal protection or assistance. (Hat tip: The Anti-PC Infidel)

Tags connections, liberty, rights

State

Justice In Texas

The Texas Supreme Court has just shown what justice looks like:

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the removal of FLDS children from the YFZ Ranch was unwarranted — and the decision to take them was an abuse of judicial discretion. . . .

In its ruling, the high court said that state law gave the lower court broad authority to protect children “short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care,” including removing alleged perpetrators from a child’s home and preventing the removal of a child from the jurisdiction of the investigating agency. (emphasis added)

One of the hard things in opposing the actions of CPS is trying to illuminate the distinction between protecting the children and ignoring the rule of law. Unfortunately it is all to easy for an agency like CPS to abuse the power that is placed in their hands and in many cases where that happens it is also very easy for the courts to side with the professional and well organized government agency while discounting the plea’s of the distraught and disorganized parents. Naturally in a case as large as this the parents were not so disorganized as they often are when it is a single family – or even a single parent – trying to challenge the government agency.

The important thing right now is that the Texas Supreme Court got it right in saying that CPS overstepped their bounds but that they are still allowed to investigate allegations of abuse and take less drastic steps to protect the children.

Tags courts, FLDS, government, rights, Texas

National State

A Reasonable Proposition

I think Tim Lynch has outlined a good idea for moving forward from the FLDS Texas Nightmare. This is what the Texas CPS would do if they were serious about upholding the law and pursuing justice.

- Send the 300 children under age 4 home since there has been no evidence of abuse and they are a decade from being forced into underage marriage.
- Send the boys over the age of 4 home because there is no evidence of abuse toward them.
- Allow the police one more week (since it’s already been three) to present evidence of abuse. Absent that evidence they should send the rest of the girls home as well.

Tim suggests that the investigations can continue past the next week, and prosecutions can come whenever there is evidence for a trial, but holding innocent children in detention, away from their parents for three weeks, without being able to present any evidence of abuse is a slap in the face of justice.

Tags Constitution, FLDS, government, rights, Texas

General

Defining “Rights”

I liked this very succinct argument about why health care is not a right.

With one exception, the right to representation in court and a trial by jury, {the rights safeguarded in our Constitution} require nothing of any other citizen but that they recognize your rights and not interfere with them.

Your “right to health care” would require some other person to give up a portion of their life or their property to either treat you or to provide you with drugs or medical implements. The Constitution does not provide for another individual to be indentured to you in this manner.

Therefore, you have no “right” to health care.

What I really like is that this argument provides a plausible framework for distinguishing between fundamental rights and the manufactured “rights” that make for such good campaign promises. Does anyone else have any perspective on this argument (in general or specific to health care)?

Tags Constitution, health care, rights

culture National

Unalienable Rights

On the issues of gay rights, abortion rights, or womens rights I think that Ron Paul captures the truth with his repeated assertion that there is only one kind of rights – individual rights. These are the rights that were called unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. When individual rights are properly protected many of the issues related to gay rights, womens rights, or minority rights fall away so that the central issues can be approached from their proper perspective.

For example, if individual rights are fairly enforced we do not need hate-crimes legislation because hate crimes are, first and foremost, crimes against individuals which should be dealt with in a manner to protect and defend the rights of those individuals. No amount of legislation will make a racist like a minority against which they hold a prejudice. If individual rights are properly enforced that will serve as a deterrent against racially inspired crimes as any hate-crimes law (this is not to imply that it will stop the crimes completely, but an admission that hate-crimes laws won’t either).

On issues such as abortion we can stop asking about whether a woman has “a right to control her own body” and focus the discussion on defining where individual rights begin – in other words, if the pre-born infant is an individual then the woman cannot blithely infringe upon the rights of that individual, but appropriate decisions can be made when the well-being of the mother and the well-being of the child are at odds.

The more I think about this the more I am convinced that it is difficult to help people understand individual rights when we have ceded responsibility to the government to ensure that nobody is hungry, sick, uneducated, or poor and we have allowed the government to own everything although it generously allows us to keep part of the money we earn through our economic contributions.

Tags economics, government, issues, rights