The Divinity of Individual Rights

* This posting replaces "The Rights of Man".

Having had a couple of the most engaging debates I’ve had in years, and not with a liberal mind you but instead, with a half dozen or so Conservatives and/or Republicans on the issue of why subscribing to the party while forsaking the principles which define it is a bad idea, as well as the issue of why, despite their insistence otherwise, a bar or restaurant free from smoke is not a right, I noticed that far too many of them seemed to be unable or unwilling to provide a clear definition of what constitutes or defines a right (despite being prodded numerous times). I also noticed that this last sentence probably was a major run on. Then of course, I am my own worst critic. Anyway…

In 1960, the Democratic Platform made a declaration that a Democratic Administration would "reaffirm the economic bill of rights which FDR wrote into our national conscience sixteen years ago."

Now, as I outline the rights declared in their platform from 1960, I ask you to bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of "rights".

1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

4. The right of every businessman, large or small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.

5. The right of every family member to a decent home.

6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents, and unemployment.

8. The right to a good education.

Now the question becomes, are these rights??? Why or why not? And, more importantly, what is a right and what defines a right?

If you hadn’t surmised, the aforementioned list are not rights, just as an individual’s want for affordable healthcare or to a smoke-free environment in a privately owned bar or restaurant is not a right. Bear with me as I’ll get to the heart of why in the ensuing paragraphs. But, first and foremost, it is important to remember that our individual rights are bestowed upon us, not by any government but rather they are bestowed upon us by our creator. Consider the inalienable rights (Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness). The only guaranty comes from the action and the freedom of such action. There can be no guaranty as to the quality of one’s life, nor can there be any guaranty that one will achieve what makes one happy. And, there can be no equality of outcome if we wish to remain a free society. It would be more apropos to have declared that the sole pursuit of those things declared in the platform of 1960 were guaranteed.

Surely you know, the smoking ban issue has been discussed ad-nauseam by the likes of myself and pretty much everyone else (And so, I do not wish to engage in the subject but instead, I use it for the sake of reference with respect to the subject of rights). However, in such discussions the crux of the issue is often times obfuscated by the individual seeking a smoke free environment with comments such as; “The servers shouldn’t be forced to work in a smoke filled environment” or “I have the right to go into a restaurant or bar without being forced to the subjection of the smell and harmful effects of second hand smoke” (as if to suggest one is being held or employed against their will). And, in fairness, the individual who partakes in the habit too makes an equal attempt to declare his or her right similarly as well. But, both parties to the argument fail time and time again to address or distinguish the quest for those perceived rights with the inalienable and individual rights of the said business owner.

Contrary to a seemingly widely held notion, a privately owned bar or restaurant is not public. While it may in fact serve the public, each and every customer that patronizes such an establishment has no financial obligation towards its operation. That is to say, it exists as an individual or private enterprise; first and foremost for the benefit of the owner and the pursuit of his happiness (be it capital or joy in providing a good, service or product). It is for this fact that the property then becomes the sole ownership of the individual(s) who contribute to its operation thus defining their right to dictate its use and its disposal. To view it otherwise is to defy the principle that “every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others.” And, it is nothing short of subscribing to a socialist view of the collectivization of private property.

Conversely though, a city library too serves the public. However, the distinction between it and the previous scenario is that while the bar/restaurant exists as an individual or private enterprise; a city library is purchased or built through collective taxation and as such serves as a collective or public enterprise. Whereas the business owner is the sole beneficiary of their enterprise, the beneficiaries of a public library are a collective group, i.e., the citizens of a community.

Probably the greatest distinction between actual rights and perceived rights is that actual rights are free from physical compulsion, coercion, and they do not interfere with the rights of another individual. For instance, the right to keep and bear arms is versed in the right to one’s life and protecting it. It is not compulsive or coercive, nor does it interfere with another’s right to life, liberty or their pursuit. And, it is the right to one’s life which is to be held in the highest regard. Because, it is the right to life which is at the heart of all rights. And, it is through the acquiring of property (i.e., wealth, food, shelter, etc.) that man is able to sustain his life. He must be able to own this effort. It is this fact which explains why no other rights can exist without property rights.

And, Government’s only role in such regard is to uphold them and to protect them from the physical compulsion, coercion, and interference of other men.