Natural Rights

     The concept of natural rights comes up often enough in political discourse that it's worthy of treatment. Perhaps the most iconic political mention of this idea comes from the Declaration of Independence, which reads so poetically: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
     This statement draws from a rich history of struggle against monarchs, who by virtue of ego and tradition, ascertained their natural right to be that of lordship over other men. Our national struggle against George III, culminating in the American revolution, predicated on a fresh understanding of "natural law," was not so much about violations of God-given rights as it was about economics, and the use of political speech and revolution to secure greater economic freedoms for some class, in that instance, the colonist-citizens. In the same, when today's politicians invoke natural rights, they do so to make a political point, motivated mostly by economics.
     Yet if natural rights do, in fact, exist and can be known, why do they appear to change? If, as our founders said, rights derive from the Creator, shouldn't they have the quality of immutability?
     Of course, rights don't change, according to the conservative, but we do on occasion mistake what is or is not a proper right, necessitating cautious and slow rectification. Fair enough.
     Assume for the sake of argument that natural, God-given rights exist. What then is society's obligation with regard to these rights? Naturally, we must enforce them. If we say slaves have a right to be free, then we must free them. If we say all humans have a right to govern themselves, then we must impose democracy. If we determine that women have a right to equal pay relative to men, then we must equalize wages. If it is true that all possess a right to life, then we must prevent the taking of life.
     Do you see a common thread among all rights? Rights require action. They demand some humans to act to the benefit of some others. Society incurs a moral obligation to each of its members to safeguard a right precisely when - in its conscience - it recognizes the existence of the right.
     Recognition implies obligation.
     And if God endows a right, He must also recognize the right. Therefore, any right God creates binds Him to enforce the right if He is so able, or to delegate this responsibility to a more competent agent. Since God is, by definition, the most competent agent, He must enforce all natural rights. That is, unless God is above doing the right thing.
     So the next time a politician asserts that taxes infringe on the right to property, remember that God never stopped any government from collecting taxes, even unfair and regressive ones, and also think of Jesus, who unequivocally commanded that taxes be paid! Don't let this "nonsense on stilts" about natural rights, to quote Bentham, blind us to the fact that if we want a right, we must get it from the government.

Interroga omnia.

 

Romney and Obama: Brothers in Stature

     Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are alike as moderates, burdened to accommodate extremist positions within their respective parties, and in Obama's case, perhaps also in the opposing party! For Romney, this manifests as "flip-flopping;" for our president, it simply cripples him. Where these great men substantively differ—and where Obama has the electoral advantage—is their path to greatness. Barack, for the most part, earned his status, earned his skills through hard work, earned every dime of his wealth. Mitt, in contrast, inherited much status, inherited skills and knowledge from his father, and inherited great wealth.
     Voters totally get these facts. And they know that the path taken matters as much as the end achieved in making a man. They know that Obama identifies with average Americans, especially minority Americans, because he's been one of us most of his life. He has emerged a powerful, principled man from circumstances that often produce teen fathers, convicts, dealers, and dead men, blossoming instead into a historical president.  

     And Romney is more the alien to most. 

     A "different" religion: check.  Privileged upbringing: check. Privileged education: check. Immaculate personal life: check. Tall, dark, and handsome: check.Yeah, he's not much like any citizen under the sun. Voters get that.

     It's well documented that elections are more about popularity and charisma than policy. Certainly candidates often ride waves of discontent into victory over unpopular incumbents, and many suspect that is what Romney will do. But when Obama is gaining in the polls and seemingly beating the GOP at Washington's Frame-the-Issue game, the elections will likely reduce to a contest over which candidate is more liked and more trusted.

     Republicans don't trust Mitt Romney, even though he's been courting them for years. If Romney can't put a wedding ring on Miss GOP, how can he woo moderates who know he's betrayed them? Uneasy liberals will flirt with Ron Paul before they so much as wink at Romney. 

     Obama will beat Romney if it comes to that. 

Interroga omnia.

First Post

I like to talk, especially about politics, religion and philosophy. Yet I've discovered the average person, friend, or family member doesn't enjoy those topics as much as I do. So I'm starting a blog to rant and rave and ramble. Anyone can read it or feel free to ignore me. If I push your buttons or make you uncomfortable, that was probably my goal from the start. I don't like being too comfortable with myself and my beliefs, and naturally, as a non-liberal, I'm not tolerant of people who are comfortable in their opinions. One must question everything. Interroga omnia!