Getting ‘Rights’ Right

There’s a lot of talk about “rights” in the media these days. Unfortunately, political ambitions and ideological spin too often muddy the concept of “rights.”

Charles Haire/Shutterstock

Commentary

Bill of Rights Day is this Friday (Dec. 15). The Bill of Rights explicitly recognizes our rights to freedom of press, speech, and religion; the right to bear arms; to have a trial by jury; and for all government functions not enumerated in the Constitution to be reserved for the people and the states.

Our most fundamental rights, though, are those enshrined in the Fifth Amendment: our rights to our life, liberty, and property. All the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights are in furtherance of those three primary rights. (Why life, liberty, and property find themselves in the Fifth Amendment instead of the First is an intriguing question.)

It seems that few Americans pause on this occasion to at least momentarily acknowledge and appreciate our precious rights. The founding generation, who gave us our constitution and the Bill of Rights, risked all to secure those rights for us. They knew that when the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property are secure, social peace and economic progress are the norm.

To our country’s credit, many Americans over the course of our history have shed blood, sweat, and tears to bring us ever closer to fulfilling the hallowed principle that every American is endowed with those inalienable rights. Even today, when so many are apathetic, jaded, and/or cynical about our country, Americans generally push back vigorously when anyone trespasses on their rights. The emphatic conviction “It’s my right!” still beats strongly in the hearts of Americans.

There’s a lot of talk about “rights” in the media these days. Unfortunately, political ambitions and ideological spin too often muddy the concept of “rights” through careless—and sometimes demagogic and malicious—use of the word. With something as vitally important as “rights,” we must avoid Orwellian or utopian distortions and be crystal clear about what a right is and what it can’t be. Following are three flawed or fraudulent concepts of rights.

Invented ‘Rights’

Number one is invented “rights” that negate real rights (positive law supplanting natural law, for you philosophers out there).

One of the major turning points in American political history was the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. Following in Herbert Hoover’s misguided footsteps, FDR hugely expanded the scope, power, and economic burden of the federal government. He envisioned a government that would (supposedly) take care of everyone. Thus, in 1944, he announced a so-called Economic Bill of Rights. In it, he asserted that Americans had a “right to a useful and remunerative job,” “a decent home,” “adequate medical care,” “a good education,” etc.

Nobody opposes decent jobs, homes, health care, education, and so on, but these desirable goals can’t possibly be “rights.” That’s because if a person has a legal right to have a home but lacks the means to afford one, then other people must be compelled to provide that home. That would violate those citizens’ rights to their own liberty and property. Rights = no rights, a self-evident absurdity (and quite ironic, since it was FDR who instituted Bill of Rights Day in 1941).

Redundant ‘Rights’

Number two is creating redundant “rights.”

A recent headline asked, “Americans have a right to guns. How about to public peace?” As implied by this title, the article suggests that curbing Second Amendment rights may be justified in the quest for freeing our society from the horrors of mass murders committed with guns (and here we hear echoes of FDR willing to abridge existing rights in pursuit of an alleged new “right”).

There’s absolutely nothing objectionable about striving for public peace. Indeed, every American who isn’t a psychopath hopes and yearns for a cessation of such atrocities. But the notion that public peace—no more murders, no more cold-blooded attacks—can be achieved by passing more laws is fanciful.

But there’s an additional problem here invoking a “right” to public peace: It’s also redundant. A public peace necessarily means that all the individuals who compose “the public” have the right to life and, therefore, the right to not be assaulted, much less murdered. That is already the law of the land. Adding another layer of “rights” to the situation speaks to people’s deepest desires, but in practical terms, it adds nothing to the rights that we already acknowledge and seek to protect.

The call for a “right” to public peace may bring comfort or hope to people, but in practice, it can’t do anything beyond reaffirming our most cherished right.

‘Rights’ Stripped From a Human Context

Number three is stripping “rights” from a human context.

Six months ago, I opined that the provision in Montana’s state constitution asserting a “right” to “a clean environment” was misguided and untenable. Again, there’s nothing wrong with aspiring to live in a clean, safe environment; in fact, that’s the only sane, rational attitude to have. Having laws that curb environmental degradation is an intelligent, salutary goal.

That having been said, “a clean environment” can’t be anyone’s right. A “clean environment” is a promise that we humans can’t guarantee. For example, say a lightning strike ignites a forest fire during a dry season, charring vast swaths of territory, killing wildlife, and fouling the air. There’s no way to establish a “right” against such occurrences. What are you going to do—sue or arrest the sky on account of the devastating bolt of lightning? How absurd. Rights apply only to human beings and their interactions with each other. There can never be a “right” against natural disasters.

OK, so we can’t sue Mother Nature, but we can still sue humans if they alter the environment too much. The key, of course, is how one defines “too much.” Do you shut down human production completely, thereby violating the rights of others—namely, of the freedom to use their property to produce what others need (and so depriving consumers of useful items, too)? Again, we have the phenomenon of redundancy. There are already numerous laws designed to uphold people’s rights to life and property by banning actions that endanger those rights.

We need to find ways to balance the rights of all citizens and not conjure up some “right” to shut down human society in the name of environmental sanctity.

Confusing Aspirations With Rights

In each of the three previous sections of this article, we reviewed a tendency to try to elevate aspirations to the level of rights. We dream of an ideal world in which everyone has a comfortable lifestyle, lives in peace, and enjoys a clean, safe environment. Humans, being the imperfect creatures that we are, will never fully attain those lofty goals, just as we haven’t succeeded in fully protecting our fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property, even though we cherish those principles so highly.

The most recent example of over-exuberant idealism that I have encountered is a cover story in The Christian Science Monitor Weekly, the subtitle of which says: “Children pioneer a right to a secure future.” Oh, boy. As one who would love it if every child in the world could enjoy a “secure future” (however you choose to define that expansive term), I will risk sounding like a Grinch by asking: How could such a “right” possibly become a reality? This is utopian idealism, far beyond our present demonstration of goodness.

But at the same time, let us affirm that to the degree that we succeed in universally and impartially upholding the basic rights of life, liberty, and property for all humans, we will secure for our posterity the right for each person to have the opportunity to carve out their own unique happy future.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.