------------
The concept of inalienable rights (and its application in
society and government) is often misunderstood and misused. This is especially
true of the right to liberty. Some argue that more liberty is always better and
that the government does not have the right to tell people what they can and
cannot do in private. They associate the liberty to do various things (such as
partake of drugs, prostitution, etc.) with the right to liberty and claim that
government is infringing on their rights in making such things illegal. But
that shows a misunderstanding of the right to liberty.
The right to liberty
is a right to be free in one's person and to freely dispose of one's time as
one sees fit as long as one does not trample on the inalienable rights of
another person. On the other hand, individual
liberties are possible free choices that a person can make. These
individual choices are not inalienable rights, but are alienable rights that
can be given up.
This difference between the right to liberty and individual
liberties is the same as that between the right to own property and the right
to a particular property. Remember that every person has the right to own
property, which is an inalienable right. This right comes directly from our
right to our own labor (which results from our right to liberty). However, the
right to use a particular piece of property is an alienable right that can be
sold, given away, or traded. In the same way, the right to liberty is
inalienable, but individual liberties are alienable rights.
In society, a person voluntarily gives up some individual
liberties in order to belong to the society. A person on a deserted island all
alone has more individual liberty than a person in society because the person
who lives around other people must take into account the rights of those around
him. The more people around a person, the more their liberties will be
curtailed. This is an inescapable fact. This is seen, for instance, when my
right to shoot a gun in any direction I please must be tempered by the fact
that people are standing around and I must not harm them. The more people there
are around, the more my choice of which direction to shoot will be limited.
Similarly, I give up my right to drive a car at 100 miles an hour in order not
to endanger those around me. I should not trash my own house and yard so that I
do not devalue the property of those living in my neighborhood. Living in
society means that I cannot always do as I please with myself or even with my
own property because my actions affect others.
Since people often do not understand (or do not care about)
the consequences of their actions on others, laws are used to make illegal
those behaviors that society has determined are detrimental to others. Again,
these laws must never violate the inalienable rights of any person, but they
may put limitations on alienable rights. It is for this reason, for instance,
that governments can tax people (taking away an alienable right to a specific
property such as a sum of money). Actually, this taxation occurs when we the
people voluntarily levy taxes on ourselves (via our representatives in
government) – otherwise, taxation would violate our inalienable right to the
private ownership of property.
So liberty, as an inalienable right, is not only good for
society, but a necessity. However, all societies must necessarily limit some individual
liberties. The question, of course, is what individual liberties should be
limited and how.
In some cases, the way that a person’s actions impact others
is not direct and obvious. A society made up of many people is complex. Actions
may have indirect effects that make them seem at first glance to harm no one,
when they do in fact violate someone’s rights. That is why we vote and why
lawmakers debate on what is best for society. No society gets the balance
perfect between individual liberties and the good of society. However, the
United States does better than most (mainly because our founding documents took
special care to limit government and to protect inalienable rights).
Unfortunately, many people do not understand inalienable
rights or individual liberties (including lawmakers) and thus laws are often
made that are not good. However, society has the right to choose (through a
government that makes and enforces laws) which behaviors will be permissible
within that society as long as no inalienable rights of any person are
violated. A government that routinely violates inalienable rights is an invalid
or illegitimate government and may rightfully be abolished and replaced by its
people. (This is the justification for the Revolutionary War, for example.)
In order for a government to rightfully make laws for the
people that limit their individual liberties, the laws must be made by the
people. In other words, the people must voluntarily give up those individual
liberties by agreeing to the laws. If a government can take away a person’s
individual liberties without that person’s consent, then it has prevented him from
choosing for himself what he will do, thus violating his inalienable right to
liberty. However, when laws are made by representatives of the people, the
people have chosen the laws, and thus individual liberties are given up
voluntarily by the people.
One important thing to note is that each person need not
consciously agree with every law. As long as each person has the ability to
make their choice known in government (through voting, contacting
representatives, lobbying, etc), and so long as the lawmakers are accountable
to them under threat of recall, they have been represented in making the law.
Also, a person’s continued presence in society gives their implicit consent to
its laws. So, for example, while I may not consciously wish to pay taxes, I
have voluntarily agreed to do so because I have chosen, through my
representatives, to make this the law and have chosen to remain in society.
Thus government has not violated my inalienable rights by taxing me.
Again, we are talking here of giving up individual liberties
voluntarily, not of making laws that violate inalienable rights. Even if all
the people agree to laws that violate inalienable rights, such laws are still
wrong, and such government is illegitimate. This ability to voluntarily give up
individual liberties through laws passed by our representatives in government
applies only to alienable rights. Inalienable rights cannot rightfully be given
up by anyone for any reason and thus cannot ever be rightfully violated by
government.
------------
Stay tuned for more of the inalienable rights series. In
Part 4, I discuss the way that government obtains its just powers by the consent
of the governed.
Questions for further discussion:
1. List 3 or more individual liberties that may
be given up in order to belong to society. Would these individual liberties
violate the inalienable rights of others if not given up? If so, which
inalienable rights would be violated and how?
2. The justification for the Declaration of
Independence and the Revolutionary War was that the British king had violated
the inalienable rights of the colonists and, thus, was no longer fit to rule over
them. Read the list of “abuses and usurpations” in the Declaration of
Independence. How do each of these violate inalienable rights?
3. Are there any current laws in this country
that violate inalienable rights?
The Inalienable Rights Series
Part 1: What are Inalienable Rights?
Part 2: The Source of Inalienable Rights
Part 3: Liberty in Society and Government
Part 4: Government by Consent of the Governed
Part 5: Some Common Misconceptions
No comments:
Post a Comment