What Are "Rights"?

The word “rights” is often confused with what it truly means. The word is thrown around and given to things the government grants but are not truly “rights”. And just as often, the word is misused to explain what some people in different parts of the world do not have the same “rights” to as their counterparts elsewhere. When an agreement of what the word actually means and how it can be applied to society is reached, only then can we begin to truly debate the correct issues. I will attempt to lay the groundwork for how I believe the word should be used. Every single individual is born with certain rights. What those rights are may be discussed later. For now I shall look at the fundamentals of rights.

First off, rights are not something that can be granted, for if you are naturally born with something, how can it be given? One example of this is the right of free speech. Every single individual is born with the right of free speech. Living in the United States all of my life, this is something that I, as well as others around me, tend to take for granted. Here in the USA, this right is unquestioned. Of course we have free speech. However, when we look at other parts of the world, we tend to think they do not have the same rights. An example of this can be found in China. It is well known that people in China do not have the right to free speech…

Ah, but therein lies the foundation of the problem. People in China DO have the right to free speech… But how can this be? In 1989 countless people were gunned down in the now infamous Tiananmen Square massacre by Chines troops. These people were gunned down because they were demonstrating their right of free speech. It could, of course, be argued that rights are of no value if you are shot dead while using them, and that may or may not be the case. But the simple fact remains, the people of China DO have the right to free speech, those rights are simply not RECOGNIZED.

Now that opens up another can of worms altogether. If everyone has certain rights but those rights are simply not recognized, then why do not more people stand up for those rights? That is indeed a question that haunts me to no end, for there is no greater power than the power of one person standing up for his or her self, taking responsibility for their actions, and recognizing the rights of others.

Back to China, and anywhere else the right of free speech is not recognized. The government that does not recognize the right of free speech in no way takes away those rights, for again, something cannot be taken away that was never given. Governments such as these are of course oppressive and in the end will come tumbling down as the movement will inevitably begin to have individual rights recognized. However, until that day comes, these governments will continue to oppress the right of free speech, but not take it away.

Another example of unrecognized rights can be found in the history of the United States. Before the U.S. Civil War, the rights of African Americans to hold dominion over their own lives were not recognized by the government of the United States. It was widely considered that these people had no rights. They were inferior and therefore their owners could use them in whatever way they pleased. This led to many caring white people, usually from the North, to work tirelessly along side the black leaders of their day to work toward an end to slavery and the right for African Americans to hold dominion over their own lives. When the Civil War ended the rights of the former slaves to hold this dominion were granted by the U.S. Government…

Now again I submit that the usage of the word “granted” is incorrect in this case, for how can you be granted, or given, something that you were naturally born with? It leads me to believe, therefore, that African Americans of the slavery days had these rights all along, they were simply not recognized. The correct terminology that should therefore be used for the post Civil War times is that the U.S. Government finally recognized, and not granted, the rights of this group to hold dominion over their own lives. This, in my opinion, changes things dramatically. As bad as we may now think of slavery and the United States’ endorsement of it, we must now hold it in an even darker, grimmer light.

If, during the time of slavery, African Americans did not actually have the right to hold dominion over their own lives, then we did them no injustice, for we were not taking anything away from them. However, when we view it from the point of view that the right of dominion over one’s own life is something that everyone is born with, the action of slavery becomes the single worst crime humanity has ever committed upon itself. The rights of African Americans were suppressed before the Civil War, not granted after it. This is significant.

My point? (I do tend to ramble…) Simple… “Rights” are something that every human being is born with. If free speech is truly a “right” of humanity, then everyone on the planet has it… it just isn’t recognized by many governments. If the idea of holding dominion over one’s own life is truly a “right”, then African Americans were never “granted” the freedom from slavery… that freedom was just finally “recognized” by our society. By this definition, these two rights discussed were there all along… just not recognized.

So, by this definition, what are our “rights” as individuals? That’s a whole ‘nother ball o’ wax for a whole ‘nother time…

Edwards' Campaign

I will not be voting for John Edwards for President for a couple of reasons. First, as a somewhat devout Libertarian, I need to first look at who gets on the ticket for my party and decide whether or not I like the guy (or gal), as the Libertarian candidate always gets my first right of refusal. Second, I think the guy is a pinko-commie. If elected President, he will make sure the government takes as much of your hard earned money and property as possible before giving 80% of it back to you in “services” and making it seem like he’s doing us a favor. (I will give him credit, though; as he is at least being honest and up front about the fact that he will be doing this, unlike the other major party candidates that want you to believe they can take less of your money while providing you more services.)

You may be waiting to hear the third reason I will not be voting for him, as he is a monster for deciding to continue his campaign despite recent news about his wife’s health. For some reason his wife’s health has sparked a lot of debate around the country as to whether or not he should continue his campaign. I don’t get it. I support his decision to continue to run. My support is based on two assumptions:

1. He had a frank and earnest discussion with his wife and family.

2. He truly believes he is the person to guide this country (and the free world).

The first assumption is vital. We must assume that Elizabeth Edwards is fully on board with this decision and is ready to face the challenges ahead of their family. We must assume that she and John have sat down, with their family, and fully discussed all of the ramifications of this decision. She has repeatedly said she does not want her sickness to be her legacy but rather her strength. It is not like they do not know what is ahead of them on the campaign trail. They have been there before. They know what running a presidential campaign consists of. In short, they know what they are getting into and, as a family, have decided to move forward.

The second assumption is just as important. John Edwards believes he is the man to lead this country. While I may disagree with the communist completely, he himself truly believes this. He sees a great calling for himself. I have heard people say he is acting selfishly in deciding to continue his campaign. I disagree. A case could be made that it would be selfish for him not to run. Of course family comes first… it must. And if his family fully and truly supports him (see first assumption), he has an obligation to the country to fulfill his promise to lead. There is, in his mind, a greater good to be considered.

If these two assumptions are correct, we must concede that John Edwards’ decision to continue running for the presidency despite his wife’s illness is not wrong, but is actually the only correct one. If his wife did not think she could handle it, then he must not run. If his ambitions were based upon greed and power, then he must not run. But if these two assumptions are correct, then he must… I just hope he doesn't win.

Ten Commandments From a Historical Perspective

Before I dive into today's topic, let me point out that I am adamantly opposed to any activity by the government which sponsors religion. Our Constitution is clear that government shall make no law establishing any state religion. When debating public policy, I do not believe we should bring God, Allah, Vishnu, or Buddha into the discussion. We should not, and cannot, legislate religion. That said...

I fully believe the Ten Commandments has a place on government property, especially in and around courthouses.

There has been, recently, a court case in (I think) Alabama where the government was being sued because the Ten Commandments were on display outside of a county courthouse. The argument against them being on display was that by doing so the government of Alabama was effectively sponsoring Christianity and trying to force it on the residents. I am not debating any of this. I do not doubt that was the intention of the display and further believe, as previously stated, it is not the job of government to sponsor a religion. In all of the debate I have heard on this subject, this is the only angle I have heard. On one side we have the religious right, claiming that America was founded on Christian values and should therefore continue to espouse these values. On the other, we have liberal secularists who claim religion has no place in public policy. If those were the only debatable points, I would fall on the secular side of the argument... however, it is not the only angle on this subject from which to debate. Let's talk history...

The Ten Commandments, from a historical perspective, have had a profound and lasting impact on our culture and legal system. For the last 4,000 years they have guided first the Jewish people and then Christians on questions of right and wrong. The very basis of Judeo-Christian law is, in fact, the Ten Commandments. Now, I just got done arguing that we should not base our nation's laws on religious ones, and that is very true. For the present and the future we should not. But there is the fact that in the past, church and state were not separated. For the last 1,700 years the common thread behind the legal systems of those nations who have had the greatest influence on that of our own has been Judeo-Christian. Judeo-Christian law is based upon the Ten Commandments.

The Ten Commandments are not the only religious symbols used to depict justice from a historical perspective. The following paragraph is taken directly from the US Supreme Court website (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/figuresofjustice.pdf):

"One of the most recognized legal symbols visible in the architecture of the Supreme Court Building is the female figure representing Justice, who is depicted in three sculptural groups. Portraying Justice as a female figure dates back to depictions of Themis and Justicia in ancient mythology. Themis, known for her clear-sightedness, was the Greek Goddess of Justice and Law. In Roman mythology, Justicia (Justice) was one of the four Virtues along with Prudence, Fortitude and Temperance."

No one would argue that Greek and Roman mythology is a current religion. So arguing that Justicia should not appear on our government buildings from a religious basis would be rather pointless, but... there was a time when Greek and Roman deities were worshipped. The goddess Themis was looked to in ancient Greece for questions of law and justice. A comparison could therefore be made between Themis dispensing law and justice and God dictating the Ten Commandments to Moses. While they both have religious origins, we should not and must not discount them from the historical context. Just as Themis and Justicia belong on our public buildings, so, too, do the Ten Commandments.

What Would the Founding Fathers Envision?

Why do we always want to deify the "founding fathers" of our country? We act as if they were all-knowing, all-wise, perfect beings. In any national policy debate there is invariably one side or the other (or both) citing what the "founding fathers envisioned". Newsflash for all y'all... our founding fathers were just a buncha blokes like you and me.

I know, I know... this is blasphemy. We have learned from day one of kindergarten that Washington chopped down the cherry tree and when faced with owning up to his actions he famously stated "I cannot tell a lie...". It is pounded into our heads from day one that these men (Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Adams, Madison, etc.) knew the way and could foresee any challenge our law-makers would face in the years to come, hence the "what did our founding fathers envision" argument. But there are a few things wrong with these assumptions...


But before I get into all that, let me point out that the work these guys did was, and continues to be, invaluable. They were intelligent and wise beyond their time. A great example of this was when the Articles of Confederation, as our first system of government, were floundering, Washington was asked by many to become the King of the United States. Recognizing that our young country had just fought a war to rid us of one king, he wisely declined the offer. He saw that only through a true democracy could our country flourish. Further, when the Articles finally failed beyond repair, the men who went to the Constitutional Convention in Philly in 1787 wisely crafted a document with the famed checks and balances that prohibits one branch of government from gaining too much power. This Constitution still guides our system of government today. And the omnipotence of these men ends there...

The Constitution is a living, breathing document that changes with time. This is not to say that we just change it at our whims and fancies. The procedure to change the Constitution through the amendment process was intentionally made to be quite prohibitive. This acts as a safeguard against, say, Congress making a willy-nilly law to restrict our freedom of speech or impede our freedom to privacy (although the Patriot Act does come to mind). Congress indeed has the constitutional power to make laws, provided they fall within the framework of the Constitution. And that Constitution does change, slowly, over time.

The best example of this is the slavery issue. The founding fathers were mostly wealthy men from Virginia, and most of those were slave owners. To actively be a slave owner meant that you could not "envision" the Constitution to disallow slavery. The United States, with the "more perfect union" the Constitution was intended to create, did indeed allow for slavery. Most in our time would agree that slavery is an abhorrent practice and its prohibition came far too late, and many of these people will also ask, on questions of public policy, "what would the founding fathers have envisioned?" These two thoughts actually contradict themselves as simply deferring to the founding fathers on this issue would mean the United States would still be a country that permits slavery. It is, after all, what the founding fathers envisioned.

So, if they were wrong about slavery, what else were they wrong about? The Constitution, as written in 1787, does not recognize the rights of women, or minorities, or those who do not own property, to vote. So did the founding fathers envision a country where a black woman who rents an apartment on the east-side could vote? Probably not.

The beauty of our Constitution is that it can change. When it became apparent just how wrong slavery is, the Constitution changed to reflect the updated values of a nation. And these updated values are at direct odds with the vision of the founding fathers.

Washington never actually chopped down that cherry tree... and even if he did and told the truth about it... what the heck was he doing chopping it down in the first place? He wasn't a god... just a really smart guy.

What's So Important About Now?

As a loyal third party voter (I have never voted for one of the two major parties for President... and very few for any other office), I am often asked how I could possibly waste my vote like I do. After all, don't I know that voting for a third party candidate is akin to giving a vote to the candidate from the two major parties that I like the least? In other words, wasn't voting for Michael Badnarik for president in 2004 the same thing as giving a vote to Kerry, since I saw Bush as the lesser of two evils? Badnarik, after all, had no chance of winning. I should vote for someone who actually does have a chance, otherwise I will just be wasting my vote... especially in this important time in our history when our nation is so divided. "It is more important now than it ever has been to make sure my vote is not wasted." I actually hear these words from otherwise intelligent people.

My response... at what point in our history has our vote not been important? Has there ever been a presidential election cycle where the nation wasn't divided, where the issues dividing the two major candidates weren't important enough to not "waste my vote"? The very first race between a Republican candidate and a Democratic one was in 1860. Were the issues facing Lincoln and Douglas any less important than they are today? Or what about when Roosevelt defeated Hoover in 1932... were those issues less important than today's? Or Kennedy v. Nixon in 1960? Johnson v. Goldwater in '64? Or how about after the Watergate scandal, when the nation had lost faith in its electoral system, was the '76 Carter v. Ford race any less important than any more recent one? And let's touch on that particular one for a minute...

After Watergate the nation's faith in our electoral system was in shambles. The power and prestige of the Presidency was at an all time low and the nation, more than anything, needed someone to step into the Oval Office and act as a healer... and we got Carter, one of the more forgettable presidents in our history. Not until Reagan took office four years later did the healing process truly begin. As "important" as the '76 election was, it didn't turn out to be that important.

My point is this... a vote for the person with whom your values most closely aligns is never a wasted one. There has never been, and will never be, an election that is so important so as to not vote your conscience simply to vote for the person you think has the best chance to win. Were that the case I would have voted for Bush in 2004 instead of Badnarik... now, with a couple years of hindsight, tell me that would not have been a wasted vote.