Liberty Once Lost: An Essay on Rights and Legitimate Government

 

We exist. We exist in a world where life is in constant flux. In this world, the purpose of life can be reduced to one basic principle: survival. Since there is no immortal life in this world, we must perpetuate our existence by either adapting to or creating conditions that makes survival possible and then pass on our knowledge to our offspring. Those species that have mastered survival will continue to exist. Those that have not, will not.

What does this have to do with rights? In one word: everything.

As living beings, we carry with us – as a consequence of our nature on this planet – both the purpose of survival and the ability to learn how to survive and continue our existence. In order to achieve that goal, we must be able to perform functions necessary to that end. We must be able to recognize what those functions are and how to perfect them.

As sentient beings, we also have the ability to reason, feel emotions, pass on accumulated knowledge, utilize and reshape the products of nature to our advantage, and seek short and long-term goals of personal enjoyment, which all lead to further mastery of our existence. To achieve such mastery, we must be able to discover and understand the basic principles of nature and humanity. But in order to improve our condition and make survival easier and enjoyable, we must be able to recognize what is good and avoid what is evil – what will contribute to our advancement and what will detract from it, or possibly destroy us.

One of the most logical arguments that brings us from here to the concept of individual rights was impressively laid out by Ayn Rand in her philosophy, Objectivism. Rand’s philosophy explains in great detail the notion of individual rights, but specifically, their origins. Her rational conclusions and systematic repudiation of various past and (unfortunately) present philosophies have provided us with perhaps the most compelling arguments for individuality, the fundamental rules for co-existence, and legitimate government. Rand’s philosophy is based on what she argued was moral, or ethical, “a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions – the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.” (Rand, Ethics in Our Time, February 9, 1961)

It is upon the Objectivist philosophy, as well as the principles of our founding generation, that will provide the context of the present discussion on rights.

What is a right?

What does it mean to have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”?

Six years before Thomas Jefferson penned the famous words of the Declaration of Independence, he wrote a legal memorandum for a case involving a child that had been born into servitude. Jefferson disagreed with the argument for servitude and wrote these words:

“Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.” – Memorandum, Howell v. Netherland

Jefferson did not invent this notion of individual rights and liberty. It was an understanding of nature that had been passed down through many centuries of philosophers, culminating in an articulate theory referred to as natural law. Even the words of the very document that made him famous were not uniquely his. On June 12, 1776, George Mason wrote this for the State of Virginia:

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” – Virginia’s Declaration of Rights

To be fair, Mason was also borrowing concepts from philosophers that had preceded his generation. The point here is not to imply that these were not brilliant men who put their lives on the line in order to create a government befitting a free and independent people. They were exactly that, and so much more. The point is to demonstrate that at the time of our founding, these truths were understood to be essential to humanity and to the future progression of it. Without recognizing and protecting our inherent rights and liberties, we would have never been exceptional and never could be.

They understood that rights and liberties existed for the individual. They also understood that these rights were derived from nature – that they were a natural consequence of the human condition in the world in which we live. It was also acknowledged that these rights could not be given up, especially the rights of future generations.

But what exactly are rights?

“‘Rights’ are a moral concept – the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others – the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context – the link between the moral code of man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” – Ayn Rand, Man’s Rights, April 1963

Generally speaking, rights are not only inherent to each individual, but they are superior to any whims or laws of any society. A society must be subordinate to our rights. Any action we take as individuals, or that a society takes as a group of individuals, must conform to the concept that each one of us is free to act for our own benefit. Rand later explains, specifically, what a right is:

“A ‘right’ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action – which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

“The concept of a ‘right’ pertains only to action – specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

“Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive – of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.” – Man’s Rights

We have a right, not only to live, but to perform the actions necessary to sustain our life – and to enjoy it. This includes the right to not be interfered with as long as we are not violating the rights of another person to live in a similar manner. From here, all of our other rights follow, including property rights.

“The right to life is the source of all rights – and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

“Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.” – Man’s Rights

There are certain truths resulting from these principles. All of them have to do with how we voluntarily interact in society and the limitations on us as a consequence of that voluntary interaction. Our rights are not relinquished when we enter into society and form a government – they are to be protected. This protection defines our limits without violating our fundamental rights. We still have the right to do what is necessary for our survival and enjoyment, but only so far as we do not infringe on the equal rights of others.

We have the right to live, but we do not have the right to demand others to provide us with the means of survival – to sustain our life for us.

We have the right to learn, but we do not have the right to demand others to educate us.

We have the right to acquire and use property, but we do not have the right to demand others to give it to us.

We have the right to work and be productive, but we do not have the right to demand others to offer us a job.

We have the right to speak freely, but we do not have the right to demand others to provide us with the means to communicate or to demand that others listen to what we say.

We have the right to procreate, but we do not have the right to demand others to engage in sexual intercourse with us and provide us with a child.

Our rights merely provide us the ability to achieve whatever goals we choose for ourselves. We can choose to do what makes us happy. That is our right. Our rights end when our goals require forcing others to sacrifice something against their will in order for us to achieve them. At that point, such rights no longer exist and our goals are no longer moral or justified.

Notice the similarities in the following statements:

“I desire to have children, so you must have sex with me.”

“I desire an education, so you must teach me.”

“I desire to be in good health, so you must provide me with any and all available medical testing and treatments.”

If we can agree that rape is wrong because it forces someone to give up something against their will – it is perpetrated through compulsion – then how is it justified to demand that a doctor or professor provide us with their time and property if they are not willing to give it freely or to trade it for compensation? Who becomes the arbiter of what is to be demanded “justly” and what is not? And how would we prevent such an arbiter from taking away all of our rights if they chose to do so? After all, if it can be justified based on the “needs” of someone, somewhere, and that justification has already been used and accepted by society as a means to deprive the rights of other individuals, then what argument can be legitimately made to the contrary?

Today, these questions go unanswered as our politicians debate the merits of health care legislation. They seem to ignore the fact that those who practice medicine are simply professionals in their respective industry. However, their rights are not to be treated differently because their profession is primarily focused on the well-being of others. Health care practitioners have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just like any other individual. They are not to be turned into slaves merely because they chose an industry from which everyone may request services at some point in their lives.

Our rights end where the rights of health care providers begin.

Furthermore, we cannot claim a right to health care because without the intellectual and physical property of those who study and practice medicine, there would be no health care profession. If doctors and nurses – and the system that has been created and maintained because of their studies and labor – did not exist, how could anyone legitimately claim a right to their services? Without them, there is no health care; therefore, there can be no “right” to health care.

The same basic argument can be applied to any other product, service, or “social benefit.” There is no “right” to a college education. There is no “right” to a specific wage from employers. There is no “right” to compensation for not working. There is no “right” to be given life’s “necessities.” All of these new “rights” would involve either depriving someone else of their property or forcing them to act against their will. We must earn these material values only as a result of our own voluntary actions.

The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights.

“To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two – by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.” – Rand, Man’s Rights

The natural – or inherent – rights of individuals can neither be granted nor denied by any person or government. They exist independently of any group, society, or governing body. We, as humans, have and maintain these rights no matter where or when we live. They are as necessary to our survival, and consequently our happiness, as air, food, and water. Without our natural rights we are nothing more than slaves to another power.

We cannot knock on our neighbor’s door and demand property from them with the threat of force if they do not comply. That is a criminal act called robbery. If it is a criminal act for individuals to rob their neighbors, then we cannot ask the government to do the same, since our government is merely a body of individuals representing the will of their constituents. We cannot demand that our government representatives deprive another individual of their rights. That would still be a criminal act.

If we have no right as individuals to demand a sacrifice from someone not willing to make one, then the government certainly has no authority to do so – especially since it is the purpose of government to protect each one of us against that exact type of coercion.

Throughout most of human history, there had never been such an explicit recognition of natural rights and there certainly had never been a government designed to both identify and protect them before the establishment of the United States and our Constitution. Ayn Rand aptly pointed this out.

“The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system – as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.

“All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.” – Man’s Rights

This is perhaps the most fundamental acknowledgement of liberty and the need for government.

We are free to live in order to achieve our own ends. We are to live free from coercion – we cannot be forced to do something against our will. Likewise, we cannot force anyone else to do something against their will. Liberty depends on each individual’s recognition that force is the antithesis to societal co-existence and accord. The only limitations that there can be on liberty is to prevent us from committing acts that deprive the rights of others. As a result of such recognition, one of the only legitimate purposes of government is to protect our liberties – to keep us free from unjust force.

When we ask that our government deprive the rights of others, we are asking our government to use force against another person in order to deprive them in a manner which we cannot legally do ourselves. There must be a moral justification to do so – a reason that properly invokes the government’s legitimate monopoly on force. If we are using the government’s authority for our own benefit, or to take from one person and give to another (redistribution), then we are simply using the power of government to rob another individual. No legitimate government can create and enforce a law that will sanction such an abuse of power.

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac Tiffany, April 4, 1819

Guarding against tyranny does not only involve preventing amassed power in an individual or members of a governing body. Is there a difference between tyranny from a head of state and tyranny perpetrated by a majority of the People? Whether a law is created by politicians against the will of the People or demanded by their constituency, if it violates the natural rights of anyone, it is despotic in nature. Giving it the name of “law” does not justify it.

It is up to us as individuals to refrain from demanding that our governments use their authority to deny rights or steal the property of one person for the benefit of another. Since we live in a country whose governments are based on delimitation and the representation of the citizenry, the abuse of government powers is most likely to extend from the citizens themselves.

“Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents.” – James Madison, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788

This excerpt from Madison’s letter explains precisely what has been happening in the United States for well over a century. The problem has been greatly exacerbated by government programs such as Medicare, Social Security, and various other types of welfare. All of these programs require the government to confiscate the property of some individuals – through taxation – and pay out benefits, usually to others who have sometimes either not paid or have paid substantially less. This has created constituencies that invoke the powers of their representatives in Congress in order to acquire the property earned by their neighbors and fellow citizens. These constituencies then claim that such redistribution is indeed a right, not only belonging to them as individuals, but a right of the government to create and enforce laws to achieve their redistributive ends.

These actions represent a mentality that has been a disease to the human condition perhaps since the dawn of civilization. It is the notion that we deserve that which we have not earned – that we can force others to give us what we want or need, because we want or need it. Essentially, it is a rationalization for theft. It is also the same line of thought that convinces us that we can enslave others for our benefit or for the benefit of everyone – for the “common good.” If it’s good for a majority of us, then it’s good for all of us. Never mind those who have been robbed and enslaved.

The name of this disease is “collectivism.”

When our Founding generation decided to create a federal government, it was exactly this type of mentality that they wanted to prevent. It was true democracy that they feared; that a simple majority of citizens would be able to deprive any other group of their natural rights. The purpose for creating a government based on the philosophies of natural law theorists and republicanism was to ensure that the rights of every individual were protected. The reason for establishing a constitution that limited and enumerated the powers of that government was to ensure that the government could not violate the inherent rights of the People, either by the volition of our representatives themselves or by their constituents through them.

We are losing the battle for our rights.

Over 220 years after the creation and adoption of our Constitution, we find ourselves still debating the merits of denying the natural rights of individuals. Even as we have properly extended civil rights to minorities and women, we seem to have simultaneously ignored the fundamental rights of everyone. It’s hard to imagine that the contemporary debates over civil rights occurred while the natural and constitutional rights of practically every individual in our society were being increasingly violated. While we debated whether or not our government had the authority or responsibility to liberate other civilizations from oppression, we allowed our government to almost unilaterally strengthen its powers over our own citizenry.

Our rights are natural to our existence – but most importantly, they are necessary for our advancement – and for the first time in history, they were protected by a society of laws known as the United States of America. We have come a long way since then.

We are being slowly dragged back into the pitfalls of failed philosophies and political theories of the past. If we fail to recognize and advocate for our rights as individuals and allow ourselves to be browbeaten into adopting or supporting philosophies or government policies that are destructive to liberty, then we have no hope of surviving as a nation or as a species. We must be able to stop the cycle of civilizations from bondage to freedom, and then back to bondage again.

Since we have the right to live and to be free, it necessarily follows (as demonstrated) that we also have the right to pursue our individual goals – our happiness. If we cannot achieve our own ends, then we do not have liberty. Consequently, our lives would be nothing more than tools for accomplishing the goals of others. We would be slaves.

The negative aspects of slavery – and thus, immorality – whether imposed by societal thugs or oppressive governments, have destroyed the world’s most prosperous civilizations. We already had to correct that wrong in our nation’s history, at a great cost of lives and fortunes, but so far, we have survived. We ought not to have to correct it again in the future.

It cannot be stressed enough how important our rights are and how vital it is to prevent them from ever being infringed upon or denied. As hard as it is to be a constant, watchful eye on our expansive government, it is much easier to retain our rights than to have to fight to restore them. 

“I mention this last Particular, being sure they would reckon the Loss of their Privileges a greater Calamity, than if their Houses were all in Flames at once. Nor can they be justly blam’d, the one being a reparable Evil, but the other irreparable. Burnt Houses may rise again out of the Ashes, and even more Beautiful than before, but ’tis to be fear’d that Liberty once lost, is lost for ever.” – Jeremiah Dummer, A Defense of the New England Charters, 1721

 

Copyright © 2010 by RationalLiberty.com

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means without written permission by the author.

_________________________________________________________________________________