The busybodies are at it again.
The Food and Drug Administration's Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee released a statement Friday concluding that removing menthol cigarettes from the market would benefit public health. The panel was quick to point out that it was not actually recommending the legal removal of menthol cigarettes from the market, but why else release such a statement? Did that really require a year-long study? Is there anyone who does not already know that not smoking would improve health, public or otherwise? This is nothing more than floating a trial balloon to determine what the public reaction might be to such a ban.
The FDA knows that they are on shaky ground with this. The logic is abysmal. Menthol cigarettes account for only about 30% of smokers in America and there is no evidence that the availability of menthol cigarettes increases the likelihood of youth smoking (that favorite bogeyman that is used to justify so much regulation). From a logical standpoint, there is no justification for banning only a particular type of cigarette, which accounts for such a small percentage of overall smokers. This is how it works, though. You start with the small groups who have less defenders. Once you remove their freedoms, it becomes easier to move on to the next group and, as you progress, more and more people have lost freedoms and they did not even realize they were at risk.
Full disclosure: I smoke, and it just so happens that I smoke menthol cigarettes. I know that this is a bad decision, but it is my decision to make. Your decision is whether or not you smoke.
"But I have a right to clean air!" No, you don't. If you do, explain to me those factories, automobiles, processing plants, and so many other commonplace components of modern life that each have a much greater impact on your air quality than cigarette smoke. Unless you are standing in a smoker's hip pocket, or are in an enclosed space with many smokers, cigarette smoke has no measurable impact on your air quality. If every smoker on the planet stepped outside and lit up at once, the overall air quality would not even notice. Contrary to the claims of the Whiny Police, cigarette smoke just does not have that great an impact.
"But I have to pay for your additional health care." Generally speaking, the people who make this claim are the same idiots who insist that we all have to pay for everyone else's health care in the first place. You created the problem. Live with it. Otherwise, I have to pay for your extra health care every time one of you Back to Nature panzies gets hurt on a hike because you don't actually know anything about nature, so we're going to ban wilderness hiking. I have to pay for your additional health care every time one of your "good for the environment" toy cars gets turned into modern art on the highway, so we're going to ban subcompact cars. Stop and consider how the logic can be applied before you attempt to apply it. It doesn't just ban things you don't like.
"But it's bad for you and smoking kills." So? Skydiving is not exactly the best way to improve your life expectancy, but it is still legal. Drinking alcohol leads to far more deaths every year than cigarette smoking, and we all know how well Prohibition worked out.
That, of course, is the point. Prohibition was an abject failure that turned a common past time into a criminal enterprise and created such memorable characters as Al Capone. The so called War on Drugs has done no better (though politicians of the early 20th Century were apparently better able to admit their mistakes). The outright banning of a commonly used product that has otherwise been legal forever has never had positive results, and the Powers That Be have possibly figured that out. So, instead of an outright ban, they want to sneak their way through incremental bans, get the frog used to the hot water before it boils so that the silly creature doesn't just jump out of the pot.
The idea, however, is not logically tenable. If smoking is legal, which it is, then you have no business using the government bully stick to encourage people to quit. If smoking is legal, which it is, then you have no business targeting one aspect of that industry, which is no more dangerous and no closer to illegal than any other. Logically, you have two choices: ban smoking outright (and create yet another criminal era of prohibition) or butt out and mind your own business.
You people who support such a ban, who can't seem to figure out that the same power can be used against you once one of your habits is deemed sufficiently unpopular, are definitely a big part of the problem in modern America. If we all stick together and defend all of our freedoms then we cannot be defeated. Allow this divide and conquer idea to continue, however, and you will eventually achieve the America you deserve.
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Universal Bill of Rights
I repost this one every few years in the (so far vain) hope that we will begin to move in the right direction and I will not feel the need to repost again in a few years. So far, no such luck, so I continue to try.
The Universal Bill of Rights
1. Every person has the right to be the sole authority over his or her own life unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
2. Every person has the right to defend himself or herself against force from any other person. Every person has the right to prepare for this defense unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
3. Every person has the right to be secure in his or her own possessions and to be the sole authority over those possessions unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another. At no time and for no reason shall this right be violated without provable cause, due process, and just compensation.
4. Every person has the right to speak, write, or print anything or to express themselves in any other manner unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
5. Every person has the right to be secure in his or her own belief and all the practices of that belief unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
6. Every person has the right to freely associate or not associate with any other person or persons and to use any legally owned property for this purpose unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
7. Every person has the right to equal protection under the law, where he or she is judged only by facts relevant to the present situation and no distinction is made for non-relevant facts, opinions, or beliefs.
8. Every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial where innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven. Every such person has the right to full and fair representation where all relevant evidence is reviewed and only relevant evidence is considered. All such people have the right to abstain from self-incrimination.
9. Every parent, because they are responsible for their children, has the right to limit the rights of those children toward the process of teaching responsibility for those rights. Every person has the right to expect parents to be responsible for their children. Every child has the right to expect their parents to provide protection, support, and education. Every child also has the right to expect their parents to only limit the child's rights in direct proportion to the child's understanding of and ability to be responsible for those rights.
10. Every person has the right to expect their government to perform those limited functions required of government to the best of its ability and using only such means as are actually required to perform these functions. Every person has the right to expect their government to make no attempt to perform extra functions which would limit the freedom of the people. The people have the right to demand or force the removal of any government which violates this right.
The Universal Bill of Non-Rights
11. Any person unwilling or unable to afford any other person or persons any of the preceding rights shall have his or her rights curtailed in direct proportion.
12. No government has a right to govern but does so only by the will of the people. No government has the right to perform any functions which would limit the freedom of the people and which the people can do without governmental interference.
13. No agency, business, or any other collective group has any rights or privileges as a group. All such groups are made up of people and it is these people who possess rights and privileges.
14. No person has the right to anything that was not earned, freely given, or acquired through legal contract.
15. No person has the right to succeed. No person has the right to wealth. No person has the right to expect anything more than to try. Everything beyond trying shall be seen as a bonus and not a right.
The Universal Bill of Rights
1. Every person has the right to be the sole authority over his or her own life unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
2. Every person has the right to defend himself or herself against force from any other person. Every person has the right to prepare for this defense unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
3. Every person has the right to be secure in his or her own possessions and to be the sole authority over those possessions unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another. At no time and for no reason shall this right be violated without provable cause, due process, and just compensation.
4. Every person has the right to speak, write, or print anything or to express themselves in any other manner unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
5. Every person has the right to be secure in his or her own belief and all the practices of that belief unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
6. Every person has the right to freely associate or not associate with any other person or persons and to use any legally owned property for this purpose unless the exercise of this right would initiate force, fraud, or coercion to directly infringe on the freedom of another.
7. Every person has the right to equal protection under the law, where he or she is judged only by facts relevant to the present situation and no distinction is made for non-relevant facts, opinions, or beliefs.
8. Every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial where innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven. Every such person has the right to full and fair representation where all relevant evidence is reviewed and only relevant evidence is considered. All such people have the right to abstain from self-incrimination.
9. Every parent, because they are responsible for their children, has the right to limit the rights of those children toward the process of teaching responsibility for those rights. Every person has the right to expect parents to be responsible for their children. Every child has the right to expect their parents to provide protection, support, and education. Every child also has the right to expect their parents to only limit the child's rights in direct proportion to the child's understanding of and ability to be responsible for those rights.
10. Every person has the right to expect their government to perform those limited functions required of government to the best of its ability and using only such means as are actually required to perform these functions. Every person has the right to expect their government to make no attempt to perform extra functions which would limit the freedom of the people. The people have the right to demand or force the removal of any government which violates this right.
The Universal Bill of Non-Rights
11. Any person unwilling or unable to afford any other person or persons any of the preceding rights shall have his or her rights curtailed in direct proportion.
12. No government has a right to govern but does so only by the will of the people. No government has the right to perform any functions which would limit the freedom of the people and which the people can do without governmental interference.
13. No agency, business, or any other collective group has any rights or privileges as a group. All such groups are made up of people and it is these people who possess rights and privileges.
14. No person has the right to anything that was not earned, freely given, or acquired through legal contract.
15. No person has the right to succeed. No person has the right to wealth. No person has the right to expect anything more than to try. Everything beyond trying shall be seen as a bonus and not a right.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Getting Rights Right
While I am getting back up to speed here, I will sometimes go back through my files and republish older writings which seem oddly relevant now. Annoyingly, I apparently failed to put a date on this one, but I know for a fact it was before 2003 and probably after 2000. Not too bad a window, I suppose. At any rate, it was written somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 years ago and I have changed nothing in it (though I may have corrected some punctuation last night - I was half asleep, so don't quote me on that).
Getting Rights Right
Do People Have a Right to Services?
Here lately, I’ve lost track of how often I hear people talking about rights. Every time I turn around, someone is screaming about his right to this or her right to that. Frankly, it’s gotten to the point where I cringe every time I hear it, which is pretty sad considering how ardent a supporter of rights I am. My apprehension with this, however, is understandable when considered in the proper light. It is virtually impossible to defend rights to the fullest when people can’t even agree on how to define them.
One of the most visible examples of this in the current public discussion is the so-called Single Payer Health Plan. This plan, under various modified forms and differing names, is basically modeled after the socialized medical systems that can be found in such countries as Canada and England (though it is interesting to note that both of these countries have actually been moving or considering moving away from this system and toward more privatization in recent years). The central point of any such plan is tax-subsidized medical services that allow all people to have at least basic access without payment rendered at the time of service or due at a later date. I won’t just say “without payment” because, unless one doesn’t pay taxes, the service has actually been paid for, only before the fact. In this way, it is similar to an insurance plan, though usually without a deductible or co-pay. The only significant differences are that the payments are controlled by the government through taxes and that no one is allowed to opt out, neither the patient choosing to not use this form of insurance nor the doctor choosing to not accept this form of payment.
Also central is the justification for the control issue that is necessary for the plan: everyone has a right to medical services.
This is difficult to argue against without sounding like an ogre. Whenever we see someone who is sick or in pain, most of us want that person to have the necessary help. We don’t tend to think past that point. With Step One right in front of us, we often don’t think we have time to worry about Step Two and we’ll just deal with that when we get there. While wanting to fix the immediate problem is a natural human desire, refusing to look past the immediate problem frequently gets us into more trouble than it’s worth.
What if the solution we demand in Step One creates a problem in Step Two? In this case, we haven’t really solved anything; we’ve only postponed the problem. Postponing the problem is exactly what we’re doing when we confuse the issue and assign the value of “this is a right” where it does not belong.
In the example of Single Payer Health Plans, if everyone has a right to medical services, someone MUST provide those services. In Step One the patient has received service, but in Step Two the provider has been forced to render service, regardless of personal choice. Can it really be a right if it forces the violation of another person's rights? A carpenter has a right to not build a house. A farmer has a right to not grow crops. Does a doctor not have the equivalent right to not provide medical services? Why can I force a doctor to operate on me when I can’t force a farmer to feed me? Has the very act of graduating from medical school somehow changed the doctor’s rights and, if so, why aren’t students warned of this before they enroll?
While some may argue that it is issues of health or “quality of life” that alter this situation, I believe that my choice of counter examples demonstrates at least the inequality of this philosophy. Surely we all agree that food and shelter are equally health and quality of life issues. Yet even when we do step into these areas, we do not insist that every provider must play within the same government mandated game. We interfere only on a case-by-case basis where we actually deem it necessary and leave everyone else to play their own game. Why the insistence that health care be given its own all-encompassing set of rules?
Furthermore, if health care is a right, what happens when no one can provide it? If we can force doctors to render service, can we not also force eligible students to enter medical school so that we maintain the necessary amount of providers? If those who believe that health care is a right cannot embrace the logic of this idea, perhaps there is a flaw in their understanding of rights. Why is it appropriate to force one class of people but not appropriate to force another class toward the same purpose? It is an inconsistency that cannot be answered.
The reason for this is a faulty definition of rights. When properly defined, one right cannot cancel out another. I have the right to write this essay and you have the right to not read it. My right to write cannot force you to read and your right to not read cannot force me to not write. That’s the way it works, or at least that’s the way it should work.
By this definition, the only way I have a right to medical care is if I can provide it to myself. A right to health care otherwise would cancel out the provider’s right to free association and remove his right to govern his own labor. In any other situation, we would quite rightly call this slavery.
No one has the right to inflict slavery on another person, regardless of the situation. While it would certainly be nice to help people have access to medical services, we should be careful to not falsely define this generosity as a right. Courtesy isn’t a right, no matter how much better it might make the world.
If one wishes to defend rights, start by defining them correctly and consistently. If one wishes to promote access to health care, start by remembering that there are people with real rights on both sides of the issue. Both of these can be done at the same time, but they cannot be done as the same thing. Doing so is actually a promotion of slavery, and slaves don’t have rights.
Besides, who would you rather have cutting you open: the provider by choice or the provider by force?
Getting Rights Right
Do People Have a Right to Services?
Here lately, I’ve lost track of how often I hear people talking about rights. Every time I turn around, someone is screaming about his right to this or her right to that. Frankly, it’s gotten to the point where I cringe every time I hear it, which is pretty sad considering how ardent a supporter of rights I am. My apprehension with this, however, is understandable when considered in the proper light. It is virtually impossible to defend rights to the fullest when people can’t even agree on how to define them.
One of the most visible examples of this in the current public discussion is the so-called Single Payer Health Plan. This plan, under various modified forms and differing names, is basically modeled after the socialized medical systems that can be found in such countries as Canada and England (though it is interesting to note that both of these countries have actually been moving or considering moving away from this system and toward more privatization in recent years). The central point of any such plan is tax-subsidized medical services that allow all people to have at least basic access without payment rendered at the time of service or due at a later date. I won’t just say “without payment” because, unless one doesn’t pay taxes, the service has actually been paid for, only before the fact. In this way, it is similar to an insurance plan, though usually without a deductible or co-pay. The only significant differences are that the payments are controlled by the government through taxes and that no one is allowed to opt out, neither the patient choosing to not use this form of insurance nor the doctor choosing to not accept this form of payment.
Also central is the justification for the control issue that is necessary for the plan: everyone has a right to medical services.
This is difficult to argue against without sounding like an ogre. Whenever we see someone who is sick or in pain, most of us want that person to have the necessary help. We don’t tend to think past that point. With Step One right in front of us, we often don’t think we have time to worry about Step Two and we’ll just deal with that when we get there. While wanting to fix the immediate problem is a natural human desire, refusing to look past the immediate problem frequently gets us into more trouble than it’s worth.
What if the solution we demand in Step One creates a problem in Step Two? In this case, we haven’t really solved anything; we’ve only postponed the problem. Postponing the problem is exactly what we’re doing when we confuse the issue and assign the value of “this is a right” where it does not belong.
In the example of Single Payer Health Plans, if everyone has a right to medical services, someone MUST provide those services. In Step One the patient has received service, but in Step Two the provider has been forced to render service, regardless of personal choice. Can it really be a right if it forces the violation of another person's rights? A carpenter has a right to not build a house. A farmer has a right to not grow crops. Does a doctor not have the equivalent right to not provide medical services? Why can I force a doctor to operate on me when I can’t force a farmer to feed me? Has the very act of graduating from medical school somehow changed the doctor’s rights and, if so, why aren’t students warned of this before they enroll?
While some may argue that it is issues of health or “quality of life” that alter this situation, I believe that my choice of counter examples demonstrates at least the inequality of this philosophy. Surely we all agree that food and shelter are equally health and quality of life issues. Yet even when we do step into these areas, we do not insist that every provider must play within the same government mandated game. We interfere only on a case-by-case basis where we actually deem it necessary and leave everyone else to play their own game. Why the insistence that health care be given its own all-encompassing set of rules?
Furthermore, if health care is a right, what happens when no one can provide it? If we can force doctors to render service, can we not also force eligible students to enter medical school so that we maintain the necessary amount of providers? If those who believe that health care is a right cannot embrace the logic of this idea, perhaps there is a flaw in their understanding of rights. Why is it appropriate to force one class of people but not appropriate to force another class toward the same purpose? It is an inconsistency that cannot be answered.
The reason for this is a faulty definition of rights. When properly defined, one right cannot cancel out another. I have the right to write this essay and you have the right to not read it. My right to write cannot force you to read and your right to not read cannot force me to not write. That’s the way it works, or at least that’s the way it should work.
By this definition, the only way I have a right to medical care is if I can provide it to myself. A right to health care otherwise would cancel out the provider’s right to free association and remove his right to govern his own labor. In any other situation, we would quite rightly call this slavery.
No one has the right to inflict slavery on another person, regardless of the situation. While it would certainly be nice to help people have access to medical services, we should be careful to not falsely define this generosity as a right. Courtesy isn’t a right, no matter how much better it might make the world.
If one wishes to defend rights, start by defining them correctly and consistently. If one wishes to promote access to health care, start by remembering that there are people with real rights on both sides of the issue. Both of these can be done at the same time, but they cannot be done as the same thing. Doing so is actually a promotion of slavery, and slaves don’t have rights.
Besides, who would you rather have cutting you open: the provider by choice or the provider by force?
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Basic Principles
Politically speaking, I run my life by two basic principles, which can be expressed by the acronyms TANSTAAFL and MYODB.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
and
Mind Your Own Damn Business
Those may seem like simple rules, but they cover a wide range of behavior and circumstances. Odds are that any new law proposed, any stump speech, any referendum - in short, anything that comes from or pertains to government - can be measured by at least one of these rules (being able to be measured by both is actually quite common) and, if a decision cannot be made based solely on that measurement, such a measurement will at least provide a better understanding, rendering the decision-making process much simpler.
TANSTAAFL
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Nothing is free. This cannot be stated more simply or more accurately. If some Talking Head is promising freebies, look at the other hand. Look up the sleeve. Look under the rabbit. Look anywhere and everywhere except where said Talking Head is directing your attention. The only thing you are really being offered is a Bait-and-Switch. There is a cost and if you can't see it, that just means it is more securely hidden than most.
The most common example of this Bait-and-Switch tactic is where the freebie really is free to you (financially speaking, at least - there are still too many other strings to count), but only because someone else is being forced to pick up the tab. You may think this is a great deal, right up until the time the cards are shuffled and it becomes your turn to pay the bill. It always works that way. Agreeing that someone has the authority to force someone else to buy something for you is the exact same thing as agreeing that someone has the authority to force you to buy something for someone else. There is no getting around this truth and your turn to pay will come around.
Any time someone starts talking about freebies, that is the time to start suspecting the worst. That person is either too stupid to know the real costs or is intentionally lying to you. Does either answer really describe someone you want to be in charge of anything?
MYODB
Mind your own damn business. I cannot express clearly enough how disgusted I am that society as a whole has forgotten this rule even exists. There was a time when this was among the most basic and common education for children. That time was not even that long ago. Although it was already fading from popularity then, it was including in my upbringing, and I have not yet hit forty. Little more than a blink, in cultural terms.
Granted, even when this rule was commonly taught, most people did not live by it. This is one of the great hypocrisies ignored by those who want a return to "the good old days". There were no good old days. They have never existed. There were things that were done better then and there are things that are done better now. For the most part, the trade-off has been almost exactly even, with a net gain of zero.
Are you trying to get a law passed over something that has nothing to do with you and cannot impact your life? Shut up and mind your own damn business. Are you trying to force people to live your way when their way isn't affecting anything more than your precious sensitivities? Shut up and mind your own damn business. Are you offended because someone else took his or her life in a different direction than you took yours? Shut up and mind your own damn business.
Let me be absolutely clear. There is nothing in this rule that precludes civil discussion when we disagree, but there is a world of difference between civil discussion and legal action. You have every right to try to change someone's mind. You have no right to try to force that change when it is none of your damn business.
Whenever someone is proposing a law that you know does not pertain to him and you know does not pertain to you, stop and ask yourself: "What's the point?" Is there really a problem here that needs to be addressed or is there some unpopular group that someone wants to smash? Remember the corollary rule from TANSTAAFL: If you agree that someone has the authority to smash Unpopular Group X then you also agree that someone has the authority to smash Unpopular Group Y. Guess what. You are in Unpopular Group Y. I don't care who you are, I can promise you that there is something important to you that falls into an unpopular minority. Do you really want someone to have the authority to smash unpopular groups just because they are unpopular?
The backside of both of these rules boils down to people's tendency to forget that there is a backside to everything. Whatever you approve of in one direction will eventually be used against you in another direction. I have always said that the best way to protect my rights is to protect all rights. If I don't hand over that hammer, it can't be used against me.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in attempting to sum up the philosophy of Voltaire, said "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." (This quotation is commonly misattributed to Voltaire himself because of how Hall worded the paragraph in her book The Friends of Voltaire, where it first appeared.) While this quote deals specifically with speech, the basic principle is almost universal. Defend all that is not outright indefensible, or have no defense yourself.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
and
Mind Your Own Damn Business
Those may seem like simple rules, but they cover a wide range of behavior and circumstances. Odds are that any new law proposed, any stump speech, any referendum - in short, anything that comes from or pertains to government - can be measured by at least one of these rules (being able to be measured by both is actually quite common) and, if a decision cannot be made based solely on that measurement, such a measurement will at least provide a better understanding, rendering the decision-making process much simpler.
TANSTAAFL
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Nothing is free. This cannot be stated more simply or more accurately. If some Talking Head is promising freebies, look at the other hand. Look up the sleeve. Look under the rabbit. Look anywhere and everywhere except where said Talking Head is directing your attention. The only thing you are really being offered is a Bait-and-Switch. There is a cost and if you can't see it, that just means it is more securely hidden than most.
The most common example of this Bait-and-Switch tactic is where the freebie really is free to you (financially speaking, at least - there are still too many other strings to count), but only because someone else is being forced to pick up the tab. You may think this is a great deal, right up until the time the cards are shuffled and it becomes your turn to pay the bill. It always works that way. Agreeing that someone has the authority to force someone else to buy something for you is the exact same thing as agreeing that someone has the authority to force you to buy something for someone else. There is no getting around this truth and your turn to pay will come around.
Any time someone starts talking about freebies, that is the time to start suspecting the worst. That person is either too stupid to know the real costs or is intentionally lying to you. Does either answer really describe someone you want to be in charge of anything?
MYODB
Mind your own damn business. I cannot express clearly enough how disgusted I am that society as a whole has forgotten this rule even exists. There was a time when this was among the most basic and common education for children. That time was not even that long ago. Although it was already fading from popularity then, it was including in my upbringing, and I have not yet hit forty. Little more than a blink, in cultural terms.
Granted, even when this rule was commonly taught, most people did not live by it. This is one of the great hypocrisies ignored by those who want a return to "the good old days". There were no good old days. They have never existed. There were things that were done better then and there are things that are done better now. For the most part, the trade-off has been almost exactly even, with a net gain of zero.
Are you trying to get a law passed over something that has nothing to do with you and cannot impact your life? Shut up and mind your own damn business. Are you trying to force people to live your way when their way isn't affecting anything more than your precious sensitivities? Shut up and mind your own damn business. Are you offended because someone else took his or her life in a different direction than you took yours? Shut up and mind your own damn business.
Let me be absolutely clear. There is nothing in this rule that precludes civil discussion when we disagree, but there is a world of difference between civil discussion and legal action. You have every right to try to change someone's mind. You have no right to try to force that change when it is none of your damn business.
Whenever someone is proposing a law that you know does not pertain to him and you know does not pertain to you, stop and ask yourself: "What's the point?" Is there really a problem here that needs to be addressed or is there some unpopular group that someone wants to smash? Remember the corollary rule from TANSTAAFL: If you agree that someone has the authority to smash Unpopular Group X then you also agree that someone has the authority to smash Unpopular Group Y. Guess what. You are in Unpopular Group Y. I don't care who you are, I can promise you that there is something important to you that falls into an unpopular minority. Do you really want someone to have the authority to smash unpopular groups just because they are unpopular?
The backside of both of these rules boils down to people's tendency to forget that there is a backside to everything. Whatever you approve of in one direction will eventually be used against you in another direction. I have always said that the best way to protect my rights is to protect all rights. If I don't hand over that hammer, it can't be used against me.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in attempting to sum up the philosophy of Voltaire, said "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." (This quotation is commonly misattributed to Voltaire himself because of how Hall worded the paragraph in her book The Friends of Voltaire, where it first appeared.) While this quote deals specifically with speech, the basic principle is almost universal. Defend all that is not outright indefensible, or have no defense yourself.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
What's So Hard To Understand About Rights?
I was reading a review this morning on Michael Moore's new film Capitalism: A Love Story. (I won't go there. I've never seen a Moore film and probably never will, so I am not qualified to comment.) What interested me was the fact that the reviewer was a self-professed Republican and was not, as might be expected, simply bashing the movie. It was a balanced review with many points the author liked and many others he did not like. At one point in the review, the author stated that he did not believe, as Moore apparently does, that FDR's proposed "second bill of rights" was the solution to our problems and this statement resulted in the comment which resulted in what I am writing now. The commenter asked why the author disagreed with this concept, which the commenter referred to as an "economical bill of rights", and then quoted the following as a demonstration of said bill:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad
The right of every family to a decent home
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment
The right to a good education"
I freely admit that I only got as far as the second line before convulsive shuddering made me stop and then have to go back and read more slowly and cautiously so as not to blow a gasket.
In a nutshell, the right of everyone to a good job where he or she makes a good living and, thus, can live a good life. Sounds great, right? Who could be opposed? How about anyone with a rational understanding of the concept of rights and/or freedom?
The fatal flaw in just about this entire list is that none of these so-called rights can exist without someone being forced to give them to you. How can you have a right to a job unless someone is required to hire you? How can you have a right to a certain renumeration unless someone is required to fulfill that renumeration? How can you have a right to sell your products at a certain rate unless someone is first required to buy them and is then required to buy them at that rate?
Let's take it a step further, shall we? What right do you have to a job if you are not qualified to perform that job? What right do you have to a particular level of renumeration if you do not perform work that someone paying believes to be worthy of that renumeration? What right do you have to sell a product that no one wants?
Do you begin to see a problem with this idea? It's a nice dream. Yes, wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone were happily employed and could afford a quality life without having to make do or settle or cut corners? I think it would be wonderful if everyone could fly to any point in the world to visit any loved one you choose at any time you like, but that doesn't make it my right to get on a plane and zip off to Texas every other week unless I can somehow come up with a way to afford that airfare. Just because something is a nice idea doesn't make it a right and erroneously labeling it a right doesn't improve your position.
No right can be in conflict with another and no right can require the active participation or contribution of someone else. This is a very simple, easy to use formula to help determine whether or not that nice idea you are considering is actually a right. The fact that your idea meets this criteria does not automatically make it a right, but you'd be amazed how many "nice ideas" can't even get past this starting gate.
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad
The right of every family to a decent home
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment
The right to a good education"
I freely admit that I only got as far as the second line before convulsive shuddering made me stop and then have to go back and read more slowly and cautiously so as not to blow a gasket.
In a nutshell, the right of everyone to a good job where he or she makes a good living and, thus, can live a good life. Sounds great, right? Who could be opposed? How about anyone with a rational understanding of the concept of rights and/or freedom?
The fatal flaw in just about this entire list is that none of these so-called rights can exist without someone being forced to give them to you. How can you have a right to a job unless someone is required to hire you? How can you have a right to a certain renumeration unless someone is required to fulfill that renumeration? How can you have a right to sell your products at a certain rate unless someone is first required to buy them and is then required to buy them at that rate?
Let's take it a step further, shall we? What right do you have to a job if you are not qualified to perform that job? What right do you have to a particular level of renumeration if you do not perform work that someone paying believes to be worthy of that renumeration? What right do you have to sell a product that no one wants?
Do you begin to see a problem with this idea? It's a nice dream. Yes, wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone were happily employed and could afford a quality life without having to make do or settle or cut corners? I think it would be wonderful if everyone could fly to any point in the world to visit any loved one you choose at any time you like, but that doesn't make it my right to get on a plane and zip off to Texas every other week unless I can somehow come up with a way to afford that airfare. Just because something is a nice idea doesn't make it a right and erroneously labeling it a right doesn't improve your position.
No right can be in conflict with another and no right can require the active participation or contribution of someone else. This is a very simple, easy to use formula to help determine whether or not that nice idea you are considering is actually a right. The fact that your idea meets this criteria does not automatically make it a right, but you'd be amazed how many "nice ideas" can't even get past this starting gate.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Health Care Is Not A Right
The debate on health care reform is being grossly distorted by those who insist on calling health care a "basic human right" because, of course, if you call it a right then you can simply dismiss as evil anyone who disagrees with you. This is utterly ridiculous, but it is about par for the course. Is the average American education really this lacking in the basic use of logic? If health care is a right then every impoverished nation that blatantly and obviously cannot afford health care is depriving its citizens of a basic human right based on nothing more than affordability. What a ludicrous idea. This notion of health care as a right could only be argued through the arrogance of the wealthy and, make no mistake America, we are wealthy. Take your delusions about false rights to a country where most people can't afford shoes and see if you don't get laughed at.
This is the natural consequence of the growing belief that "whatever I want is a right", with no comprehension of what "right" actually means. There has never, until now, in the history of the philosophy of rights been a belief that a right could compel someone else to do something. Rights require someone else to not do something. There is a small but critical difference.
My right requires you to not interfere with my free speech, but it does not require you to listen nor does it require you to give me a stage. My right requires you to not take away my gun, but it does not require you to give me a gun nor does it require you to own a gun. My right requires you to not interfere with my free exercise of religion, but it does not require you to agree with my religion nor does it require you to give me a church. Do you see where this is going?
Your so-called right to health care requires someone else to give you health care. Your right makes someone else a slave. That is a contradiction that a true right cannot be. You can compel me to not strike you but you cannot compel me to assist you.
Is it a good idea to assist someone in need? Of course it is, and I don't know of too many people who are arguing otherwise. Despite the rhetoric of the left - calling those who oppose this "health care right" such wonderful names as "selfish", "greedy", and even "evil" - most of those on the No side of this debate are the very people who often donate to relief charities, volunteer at hospitals and homeless shelters, and otherwise give of both their time and money to help those who need help. This is not a debate over whether or not it is good to help people and characterising it as such is nothing more than deceit and character assassination to stifle debate.
What is being argued is whether or not it is acceptable to force people to help and who has the final authority on how to help.
Our health care system is an expensive, blundering mess, but that doesn't mean that replacing it with another expensive, blundering mess would be an improvement. There are things that need to be reformed - fraud and incompetence are rampant - but lying about the debate will not fix the problem. Dismissing the other side through some juvenile ranting about rights will not fix the problem. If you can't be bothered to even try to understand the nature of rights then just go text your buddies about how unfair it all is and leave the debate for the grownups.
This is the natural consequence of the growing belief that "whatever I want is a right", with no comprehension of what "right" actually means. There has never, until now, in the history of the philosophy of rights been a belief that a right could compel someone else to do something. Rights require someone else to not do something. There is a small but critical difference.
My right requires you to not interfere with my free speech, but it does not require you to listen nor does it require you to give me a stage. My right requires you to not take away my gun, but it does not require you to give me a gun nor does it require you to own a gun. My right requires you to not interfere with my free exercise of religion, but it does not require you to agree with my religion nor does it require you to give me a church. Do you see where this is going?
Your so-called right to health care requires someone else to give you health care. Your right makes someone else a slave. That is a contradiction that a true right cannot be. You can compel me to not strike you but you cannot compel me to assist you.
Is it a good idea to assist someone in need? Of course it is, and I don't know of too many people who are arguing otherwise. Despite the rhetoric of the left - calling those who oppose this "health care right" such wonderful names as "selfish", "greedy", and even "evil" - most of those on the No side of this debate are the very people who often donate to relief charities, volunteer at hospitals and homeless shelters, and otherwise give of both their time and money to help those who need help. This is not a debate over whether or not it is good to help people and characterising it as such is nothing more than deceit and character assassination to stifle debate.
What is being argued is whether or not it is acceptable to force people to help and who has the final authority on how to help.
Our health care system is an expensive, blundering mess, but that doesn't mean that replacing it with another expensive, blundering mess would be an improvement. There are things that need to be reformed - fraud and incompetence are rampant - but lying about the debate will not fix the problem. Dismissing the other side through some juvenile ranting about rights will not fix the problem. If you can't be bothered to even try to understand the nature of rights then just go text your buddies about how unfair it all is and leave the debate for the grownups.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Rights Hidden In Smoke
I read yesterday that legislators across the country are slowing down on or, in some cases, even considering backing off of anti-smoking legislation in so-called "public places" because they fear that, in this time of recession, such bans could put additional stress on the economy. That idea, alone, is telling coming, as it does, from people who have sworn all along that forcing business owners to go non-smoking would not have a negative impact on business, but that isn't, in my opinion, the point. The blatant hypocrisy of politicans playing god with business when "times are good" but backing off and catering to business when "times are bad" is just ... well, business as usual for politicians. It is hardly worth noting.
What is worth noting is that, once again, the average person doesn't have a clue what is actually going on or what is actually at state. I read through the comments section, as I always do when one is available, and the silliness was almost unbearable. A few people understood the real point but, for most of them, it was the usual "my right to smoke anywhere I please" versus "my right to not breathe your smoke". I'm a smoker and I'll be the first to admit that I do not have a right to smoke anywhere I please. For you non-smokers, you do not have an inherant right to not breathe my smoke.
It is really quite simple. I smoke. If you come over to my house, you will put up with my smoke. Don't like it? Don't come over. That is your only option. You have no right to dictate terms in my house because it is my house. By the same token, if I come over to your house and you do not allow smoking then I cannot smoke at your house. If that is unbearable to me then I will not come over to your house. I do not get to dictate terms in your house because it is your house. Neither of us has an absolute right in regards to smoking but we both have an absolute right in regards to our property. There can be no conflict because my right over my property has nothing to do with your right over your property or vice versa. There can also be no compromise. I do not surrender my rights to you just because you enter my property. If you enter my home and start demanding your rights, I will point you to the sidewalk and tell you where you can find your rights. Over the years, many people have learned the hard way that I am not kidding about this in the least.
If what I am doing is not otherwise criminal, you get no say in the matter so long as I am doing it on my property. I cannot murder you just because you entered my property but I cannot legally do that anywhere. Smoking is not illegal so the only person who gets to rule on that on my property is me.
Why have we forgotten this simple fact as it relates to business? The fact that I allow multiple people to enter my property for a fee does not stop it from being my property. You don't get to determine what I sell, who I hire, or what uniform my employees wear. Why should you get to be in charge of anything else?
Non-smokers claim that they have a right to go out to eat without putting up with people smoking but that is an absolutely false claim. There is no such right! You don't even have a right to go out to eat, let alone a right to go out to eat in an environment of your demanding. A right to go out to eat implies that someone is obligated to provide you with a location where you can go out to eat. Ask a person who does not live within traveling distance of any kind of eating establishment whether or not they have a right to go out to eat. They'll laugh in your face and probably tell you to get your whiney self off of their property.
If you want a right to go out to eat then you need to get to work building your restaurant because that is the only way you will have such a right. If you want a right to go out to eat without putting up with people smoking then you need to hang a "NO SMOKING" sign on the front door after you build that restaurant. If you own it then you have the right to make it smoke-free. You also have the right to allow smoking. Just because this country has forgotten what property rights mean does not mean that property rights themselves have changed. They cannot change because they are immutable. If you own it, it is yours to do with as you please, such right stopping only when it conflicts with someone else's right. Any law that says otherwise is a violation of natural rights and should be treated as such.
There is no conflict between the rights of the smokers versus the rights of the non-smokers because such rights, as they have been expressed, do not exist. You do not have a right to either smoke or to not be around smoke. What you do have is a right to own what is your and to act as though you own it. That includes your body, your house, and your business. The sooner we realize this fact the sooner we can reduce the number of useless nonsense arguments and maybe - just maybe - we can get on to arguing about stuff that actually matters.
What is worth noting is that, once again, the average person doesn't have a clue what is actually going on or what is actually at state. I read through the comments section, as I always do when one is available, and the silliness was almost unbearable. A few people understood the real point but, for most of them, it was the usual "my right to smoke anywhere I please" versus "my right to not breathe your smoke". I'm a smoker and I'll be the first to admit that I do not have a right to smoke anywhere I please. For you non-smokers, you do not have an inherant right to not breathe my smoke.
It is really quite simple. I smoke. If you come over to my house, you will put up with my smoke. Don't like it? Don't come over. That is your only option. You have no right to dictate terms in my house because it is my house. By the same token, if I come over to your house and you do not allow smoking then I cannot smoke at your house. If that is unbearable to me then I will not come over to your house. I do not get to dictate terms in your house because it is your house. Neither of us has an absolute right in regards to smoking but we both have an absolute right in regards to our property. There can be no conflict because my right over my property has nothing to do with your right over your property or vice versa. There can also be no compromise. I do not surrender my rights to you just because you enter my property. If you enter my home and start demanding your rights, I will point you to the sidewalk and tell you where you can find your rights. Over the years, many people have learned the hard way that I am not kidding about this in the least.
If what I am doing is not otherwise criminal, you get no say in the matter so long as I am doing it on my property. I cannot murder you just because you entered my property but I cannot legally do that anywhere. Smoking is not illegal so the only person who gets to rule on that on my property is me.
Why have we forgotten this simple fact as it relates to business? The fact that I allow multiple people to enter my property for a fee does not stop it from being my property. You don't get to determine what I sell, who I hire, or what uniform my employees wear. Why should you get to be in charge of anything else?
Non-smokers claim that they have a right to go out to eat without putting up with people smoking but that is an absolutely false claim. There is no such right! You don't even have a right to go out to eat, let alone a right to go out to eat in an environment of your demanding. A right to go out to eat implies that someone is obligated to provide you with a location where you can go out to eat. Ask a person who does not live within traveling distance of any kind of eating establishment whether or not they have a right to go out to eat. They'll laugh in your face and probably tell you to get your whiney self off of their property.
If you want a right to go out to eat then you need to get to work building your restaurant because that is the only way you will have such a right. If you want a right to go out to eat without putting up with people smoking then you need to hang a "NO SMOKING" sign on the front door after you build that restaurant. If you own it then you have the right to make it smoke-free. You also have the right to allow smoking. Just because this country has forgotten what property rights mean does not mean that property rights themselves have changed. They cannot change because they are immutable. If you own it, it is yours to do with as you please, such right stopping only when it conflicts with someone else's right. Any law that says otherwise is a violation of natural rights and should be treated as such.
There is no conflict between the rights of the smokers versus the rights of the non-smokers because such rights, as they have been expressed, do not exist. You do not have a right to either smoke or to not be around smoke. What you do have is a right to own what is your and to act as though you own it. That includes your body, your house, and your business. The sooner we realize this fact the sooner we can reduce the number of useless nonsense arguments and maybe - just maybe - we can get on to arguing about stuff that actually matters.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
On The Concept And Nature Of Rights - Part Two
We have established an axiom - Rights are Inherent to Sentient Beings - and we have established a corollary to that axiom - if rights are inherent to sentient beings then rights must be naturally occuring and must be able to exist in the presence of any one sentient being. We have also established the reverse of that corollary - if it is not naturally occuring and/or cannot exist in the presence of any one sentient being, it cannot be a right. Through this process we have eliminated a whole host of things people often claim as rights and have narrowed down the possibilities of what might actually be a right. Now we will see if we can find a more definite answer to what is a right.
If we examine what we have already established we will see that there are three required components of a right.
1. A right must be naturally occurring.
2. A right must be able to exist in the presence of any one sentient being.
3. A right must not interfere with a right of another sentient being.
The first two are explicitly stated in the corollary while the third is implied both through the corollary and through the basic definitions of "rights" and "inherent". A right is what is naturally owed due to the meeting of certain conditions. The rights we are discussing are naturally owed - or inherent - due to the condition of being a living, thinking being. If a right is naturally owed then it cannot be taken away except through violation. Because a right must be able to exist in the presence of any one sentient being, there cannot be a right to violate another right. That would require the presence and/or participation of another sentient being, which violates the corollary.
We could stop right there if we wanted to. You have the right to do anything you choose that can be done naturally, can be done alone, and does not interfere with the rights of another. If an action meets those three requirements then there would be no reason for anyone else to intervene because the action would have nothing to do with anyone else. It would only be the human tendency to want to control the actions of others that would cause interferance, but controling the actions of another is certainly not a right. It does not even come close to satisfying the requirements. Right trumps non-right.
I said we could stop there but we will not because we can take it one step further. Why are rights inherent? Why is anything inherent? If we look at what is inherent in any living thing, we find that these inherent attributes serve the twin purposes of survival and prosperity. Whether it be legs for mobility, claws for hunting and defense, or the ability to reason between a good choice and a bad one, all of these things serve to not only keep a thing alive but also to help improve its life. It seems evident, then, that this is the reason for inherent attributes.
That being the case, rights - being inherent - would serve the same twin purposes: survival and prosperity, staying alive and improving life.
The defining difference between a sentient being and all other living things is the self-aware thought process. Because we are sentient, and because all sentient beings that we currently know about lack such things as claws and fangs, our ability to think and act upon our thoughts is our most critical tool for both survival and prosperity. Even our idea of rights (and of right and wrong in general) stems from this one point. Thus a right, to be properly inherent, would serve the purpose of staying alive and/or improving life.
Your right to hold your own belief improves your life because there is no faster way to misery than to oppose your own will. Your right to defend yourself obviously helps you stay alive. Your right to speak your mind might convince others to believe as you do, thus gaining you friends (we are social creatures) and improving your social interactions. Your right to walk away from someone who is speaking his mind can definitely improve your own peace of mind.
All of these rights, of course, stop at the point of requiring participation from another person. Your right to hold your own belief is not a right to compel another to follow your belief. Your right to defend yourself does not compel someone else to provide you with a weapon. Your right to speak your mind does not require someone else to listen or even to provide you with a location from which to speak.
So we have added a fourth requirement and defined a definite positive for human rights. If it occurs naturally among sentient beings, can exist in the presence of any one sentient being, does not interfere with the rights of another sentient being, and serves the purposes of survival and prosperity then it is a right. Put simply, if it could help you stay alive or improve your life while you were naked and alone in an empty universe then it is your inherent right and any attempt to remove it from you would be a violation of that right. If it doesn't meet that definition then it is not a right. That isn't to say that it isn't a good thing, just that it isn't an automatic.
We have now defined what a right is not and we have defined what a right is. If anyone is still following along, tomorrow we might go into practical application. I'm not promising that Part Three though. It isn't as required as Part Two was and something else may come up that needs to be addressed. Besides, Part Two was difficult to write. Attempting to break down what seems obvious to me is never easy. I'm always afraid that I will forget to say something that needed to be said just because it is so obvious to me that I don't think about it. Try thinking about every biological step involved in breathing sometime and see if you don't have to start over once or twice because you forgot something.
At any rate, come back tomorrow and we will see what we see.
If we examine what we have already established we will see that there are three required components of a right.
1. A right must be naturally occurring.
2. A right must be able to exist in the presence of any one sentient being.
3. A right must not interfere with a right of another sentient being.
The first two are explicitly stated in the corollary while the third is implied both through the corollary and through the basic definitions of "rights" and "inherent". A right is what is naturally owed due to the meeting of certain conditions. The rights we are discussing are naturally owed - or inherent - due to the condition of being a living, thinking being. If a right is naturally owed then it cannot be taken away except through violation. Because a right must be able to exist in the presence of any one sentient being, there cannot be a right to violate another right. That would require the presence and/or participation of another sentient being, which violates the corollary.
We could stop right there if we wanted to. You have the right to do anything you choose that can be done naturally, can be done alone, and does not interfere with the rights of another. If an action meets those three requirements then there would be no reason for anyone else to intervene because the action would have nothing to do with anyone else. It would only be the human tendency to want to control the actions of others that would cause interferance, but controling the actions of another is certainly not a right. It does not even come close to satisfying the requirements. Right trumps non-right.
I said we could stop there but we will not because we can take it one step further. Why are rights inherent? Why is anything inherent? If we look at what is inherent in any living thing, we find that these inherent attributes serve the twin purposes of survival and prosperity. Whether it be legs for mobility, claws for hunting and defense, or the ability to reason between a good choice and a bad one, all of these things serve to not only keep a thing alive but also to help improve its life. It seems evident, then, that this is the reason for inherent attributes.
That being the case, rights - being inherent - would serve the same twin purposes: survival and prosperity, staying alive and improving life.
The defining difference between a sentient being and all other living things is the self-aware thought process. Because we are sentient, and because all sentient beings that we currently know about lack such things as claws and fangs, our ability to think and act upon our thoughts is our most critical tool for both survival and prosperity. Even our idea of rights (and of right and wrong in general) stems from this one point. Thus a right, to be properly inherent, would serve the purpose of staying alive and/or improving life.
Your right to hold your own belief improves your life because there is no faster way to misery than to oppose your own will. Your right to defend yourself obviously helps you stay alive. Your right to speak your mind might convince others to believe as you do, thus gaining you friends (we are social creatures) and improving your social interactions. Your right to walk away from someone who is speaking his mind can definitely improve your own peace of mind.
All of these rights, of course, stop at the point of requiring participation from another person. Your right to hold your own belief is not a right to compel another to follow your belief. Your right to defend yourself does not compel someone else to provide you with a weapon. Your right to speak your mind does not require someone else to listen or even to provide you with a location from which to speak.
So we have added a fourth requirement and defined a definite positive for human rights. If it occurs naturally among sentient beings, can exist in the presence of any one sentient being, does not interfere with the rights of another sentient being, and serves the purposes of survival and prosperity then it is a right. Put simply, if it could help you stay alive or improve your life while you were naked and alone in an empty universe then it is your inherent right and any attempt to remove it from you would be a violation of that right. If it doesn't meet that definition then it is not a right. That isn't to say that it isn't a good thing, just that it isn't an automatic.
We have now defined what a right is not and we have defined what a right is. If anyone is still following along, tomorrow we might go into practical application. I'm not promising that Part Three though. It isn't as required as Part Two was and something else may come up that needs to be addressed. Besides, Part Two was difficult to write. Attempting to break down what seems obvious to me is never easy. I'm always afraid that I will forget to say something that needed to be said just because it is so obvious to me that I don't think about it. Try thinking about every biological step involved in breathing sometime and see if you don't have to start over once or twice because you forgot something.
At any rate, come back tomorrow and we will see what we see.
Friday, December 12, 2008
On The Concept And Nature Of Rights - Part One
I made a comment in passing yesterday that may have left some readers confused, concerning human rights, so I have decided to elaborate today. Many people consider this to be a complicated subject but there is no reason for it to be so. If the root of human rights is treated as axiomatic then the rest becomes obvious. The axiom is one that most people recognize but few people (or at least, not nearly enough) pause to consider the details.
The axiom is this, that what we call human rights is a condition inherent in sentient beings. Whether you consider them to be inherent from God or inherent by nature is irrelevant to this particular discussion. What matters is that they are inextricably contained within living, thinking beings.
Allow me to digress for just a moment to explain why I am using a formal phrase instead of simply saying "people" or "human beings". As of yet there is no credible evidence that there are any other sentient beings either on this planet or within the greater universe. Absence of evidence, however, is not evidence of absence and it may be (it also may not be - please do not read in more than I am actually saying) that we will one day discover or be discovered by other sentient beings. If you are a fan of science or science fiction (as I am of both) then you are already aware that much thought has gone into how such beings should be treated or what rights they might possess if we ever do meet them. I use the phrase "sentient beings" in my axiom instead of "people" to demonstrate that the question is already answered. If they are sentient beings then their rights are as inherent as our own and for the same reason: the simple fact that they are sentient beings.
With that out of the way, let us return to the axiom. An axiom is a truth taken for granted because it is self-evident or is the first cause of other truths that are derived from it. If you do not believe that Rights Are Inherent To Sentient Beings is an axiom then you do not want to keep reading. We do not speak the same language and cannot come to an agreement. Rights are not granted by government or document and, while they can be abridged through force, such abridgment does not remove them, it violates them. Be very clear on and careful of the difference.
If we take our axiom as true then human rights are a natural occurance and, therefore, must occur in nature and must be able to occur in all cases where the required condition applies. Our axiom has only one condition - the existance of a sentient being - and therefore human rights must be naturally occuring to sentient beings and must be able to coexist with any one or more sentient being(s). To put it quite simply, if you can do a thing naturally and by yourself, it is possibly a human right. If you cannot do it naturally and by yourself, it cannot meet the basic definition of a human right. To think, to speak your mind, to arm yourself against possible danger, to believe what you believe and to practice this belief (in any manner that does not require the presence or participation of another person), to keep your thoughts to yourself. While certainly not an all-inclusive list, all of these things meet the basic definition and so can possibly be considered a human right. Color television, indoor plumbing, assault against another person, human sacrifice, a high paying job in someone else's business. None of these things meet the basic definition and so they cannot be human rights.
But there are people who cannot speak (or express themselves in some way) because of physical limitations and there are people who can, by themselves, build a color television or create indoor plumbing! I can hear this argument as plainly as though you were sitting in the room with me. But consider: Communication is a natural part of the human being (ask any biologist or anthropologist) and those who cannot do so are so rare as to come very close to statistical nonexistance. Conversely, those who can create or build entire structures (of almost any type) are almost as rare. In both cases, the rarity of the objection makes them the exception that proves the rule The person who has lost a basic right through physical inability should certainly be pitied but the person who has gained a right to a television (for himself and himself alone) by being able to build that television single-handedly should be greatly admired. Anyone who can add to rights is certainly a kind of hero.
So we have defined, based on our starting axiom, what rights cannot be and what rights can be. We have not, however, defined what rights are. We have only narrowed the field. We have found a definite negative but, on the positive, only a maybe. Is there a way, by drawing corollaries from our axiom, that we can narrow the field even further so that we might arrive at a definite positive?
I believe that there is and I have given a hint of what I believe through the examples I have chosen to provide. You will note, though, that the headline of this post contained the phrase "Part One", making clear that there will be a Part Two. I cannot discuss rights without getting long winded and I would not ask you to sit through all of that at one time, so we will take up Part Two tomorrow when I will attempt to demonstrate that there can be a definite positive to go along with the definite negative on rights. I hope you will join me.
The axiom is this, that what we call human rights is a condition inherent in sentient beings. Whether you consider them to be inherent from God or inherent by nature is irrelevant to this particular discussion. What matters is that they are inextricably contained within living, thinking beings.
Allow me to digress for just a moment to explain why I am using a formal phrase instead of simply saying "people" or "human beings". As of yet there is no credible evidence that there are any other sentient beings either on this planet or within the greater universe. Absence of evidence, however, is not evidence of absence and it may be (it also may not be - please do not read in more than I am actually saying) that we will one day discover or be discovered by other sentient beings. If you are a fan of science or science fiction (as I am of both) then you are already aware that much thought has gone into how such beings should be treated or what rights they might possess if we ever do meet them. I use the phrase "sentient beings" in my axiom instead of "people" to demonstrate that the question is already answered. If they are sentient beings then their rights are as inherent as our own and for the same reason: the simple fact that they are sentient beings.
With that out of the way, let us return to the axiom. An axiom is a truth taken for granted because it is self-evident or is the first cause of other truths that are derived from it. If you do not believe that Rights Are Inherent To Sentient Beings is an axiom then you do not want to keep reading. We do not speak the same language and cannot come to an agreement. Rights are not granted by government or document and, while they can be abridged through force, such abridgment does not remove them, it violates them. Be very clear on and careful of the difference.
If we take our axiom as true then human rights are a natural occurance and, therefore, must occur in nature and must be able to occur in all cases where the required condition applies. Our axiom has only one condition - the existance of a sentient being - and therefore human rights must be naturally occuring to sentient beings and must be able to coexist with any one or more sentient being(s). To put it quite simply, if you can do a thing naturally and by yourself, it is possibly a human right. If you cannot do it naturally and by yourself, it cannot meet the basic definition of a human right. To think, to speak your mind, to arm yourself against possible danger, to believe what you believe and to practice this belief (in any manner that does not require the presence or participation of another person), to keep your thoughts to yourself. While certainly not an all-inclusive list, all of these things meet the basic definition and so can possibly be considered a human right. Color television, indoor plumbing, assault against another person, human sacrifice, a high paying job in someone else's business. None of these things meet the basic definition and so they cannot be human rights.
But there are people who cannot speak (or express themselves in some way) because of physical limitations and there are people who can, by themselves, build a color television or create indoor plumbing! I can hear this argument as plainly as though you were sitting in the room with me. But consider: Communication is a natural part of the human being (ask any biologist or anthropologist) and those who cannot do so are so rare as to come very close to statistical nonexistance. Conversely, those who can create or build entire structures (of almost any type) are almost as rare. In both cases, the rarity of the objection makes them the exception that proves the rule The person who has lost a basic right through physical inability should certainly be pitied but the person who has gained a right to a television (for himself and himself alone) by being able to build that television single-handedly should be greatly admired. Anyone who can add to rights is certainly a kind of hero.
So we have defined, based on our starting axiom, what rights cannot be and what rights can be. We have not, however, defined what rights are. We have only narrowed the field. We have found a definite negative but, on the positive, only a maybe. Is there a way, by drawing corollaries from our axiom, that we can narrow the field even further so that we might arrive at a definite positive?
I believe that there is and I have given a hint of what I believe through the examples I have chosen to provide. You will note, though, that the headline of this post contained the phrase "Part One", making clear that there will be a Part Two. I cannot discuss rights without getting long winded and I would not ask you to sit through all of that at one time, so we will take up Part Two tomorrow when I will attempt to demonstrate that there can be a definite positive to go along with the definite negative on rights. I hope you will join me.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Time To Flush The UN
If you are part of the shrinking minority who still believe that the United Nations has any relevance (or sanity) in the modern world, perhaps today's headlines will finally disabuse you of this notion. U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto announced today that he had chosen Canadian activist Maude Barlow to be his advisor on global water-use policies, a position the media has dubbed "Water Czar". Even if we stipulate that the UN has the authority to even bother with such policies - a position that is far from universally stipulated - this appointment makes about as much sense as naming Osama bin Laden to head a committee on comparative religion.
Where to begin? Well, the first thing you might be wondering is just who in the world is Maude Barlow? I know that was my first question. I'm a political junkie and I had never heard of the woman. So I did a quick Google search and it turns out there is a good reason I had never heard of her. Apparently the only person who has spent any significant amount of time talking about Maude Barlow in the past is Maude Barlow. I'm not kidding. Go look for yourself. There's not much out there except what she has said, herself.
And it turns out there is good reason for that too. Maude Barlow is a hardcore activist, the kind that, ordinarily, no one listens to. We're talking far fringe activism here. Barlow believes that all fresh water sources on the planet should be nationalized, that private enterprise should not be a part of the equation, and that access to fresh water is a basic human right. This begs an obvious question: Of what use is an advisor who is obviously biased toward only one side of an issue? I'm not exaggerating here. One of Barlow's supporters, Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch (of which, Barlow is a board member), describes her as "probably the most outspoken and well-known advocate in making water a human right and making sure that water is in public control ..." Talk about a ringing endorsement for open-minded policy advice.
Barlow has no scientific background and, aside from an assortment of activist committees, no political background. Yet she is somehow qualified to offer advice on global water policy. Barlow maintains that sources of fresh water are shrinking yet would remove from the field the very people who have the greatest ability to improve access and distribution. Barlow claims that access to fresh water is a basic human right and yet ignores the fact that this "right" would require someone else to provide it. Does this make sense to anyone else?
I have said for years that the United Nations is a bloated bureaucracy, incapable of fulfilling its basic function and yet greedy for power beyond its charter, and I couldn't ask for a better example of this fact than has been provided today. This should be a laughing stock moment, but just wait. No one will be laughing, at least not for long.
Where to begin? Well, the first thing you might be wondering is just who in the world is Maude Barlow? I know that was my first question. I'm a political junkie and I had never heard of the woman. So I did a quick Google search and it turns out there is a good reason I had never heard of her. Apparently the only person who has spent any significant amount of time talking about Maude Barlow in the past is Maude Barlow. I'm not kidding. Go look for yourself. There's not much out there except what she has said, herself.
And it turns out there is good reason for that too. Maude Barlow is a hardcore activist, the kind that, ordinarily, no one listens to. We're talking far fringe activism here. Barlow believes that all fresh water sources on the planet should be nationalized, that private enterprise should not be a part of the equation, and that access to fresh water is a basic human right. This begs an obvious question: Of what use is an advisor who is obviously biased toward only one side of an issue? I'm not exaggerating here. One of Barlow's supporters, Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch (of which, Barlow is a board member), describes her as "probably the most outspoken and well-known advocate in making water a human right and making sure that water is in public control ..." Talk about a ringing endorsement for open-minded policy advice.
Barlow has no scientific background and, aside from an assortment of activist committees, no political background. Yet she is somehow qualified to offer advice on global water policy. Barlow maintains that sources of fresh water are shrinking yet would remove from the field the very people who have the greatest ability to improve access and distribution. Barlow claims that access to fresh water is a basic human right and yet ignores the fact that this "right" would require someone else to provide it. Does this make sense to anyone else?
I have said for years that the United Nations is a bloated bureaucracy, incapable of fulfilling its basic function and yet greedy for power beyond its charter, and I couldn't ask for a better example of this fact than has been provided today. This should be a laughing stock moment, but just wait. No one will be laughing, at least not for long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)