Inalienable Rights – Part 3: Liberty in Society and Government

If you haven’t yet, you may want to read Part 1 and Part 2 of this series first.

------------

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.

E-Sword – A Handy Bible Software

One resource which I recommend for Bible study is E-Sword. It has an easy-to-use format I’ve found helpful in making Bible study easier. It makes it much quicker and easier to find verses and passages for personal Bible study or for preparing sunday school or homeschool Bible lessons.

And best of all, it’s FREE!

The E-Sword download comes with the King James Version and King James with Strong’s numbers. However, you can download multiple other Bible versions for it (many for free and some for a cost). You can download commentaries and dictionaries as well.

Of course, you can simply read the text on screen, but there are a number of other features that make Bible study easier:

·         Its handy search feature allows you to search for words or phrases, which is very helpful in doing a topical study or when you can’t remember where a particular verse is.

·         There a couple of options for comparing different translations. The compare tab allows you to compare a verse between multiple Bible versions. The parallel tab, on the other hand, places chapters from different versions in parallel so that you can compare larger amounts of scripture at once. 

·         You can also make notes on various verses or passages right in the program and save them. This is similar to writing in the margins in your Bible, but without having to worry about making anything hard to read. 

·         In addition, you can have various windows open on the same screen so that in one you view the Scripture, in another view commentary on that passage, in another view Strong’s numbers and their meanings, and in another make your own notes. Each window can also be moved around the screen and the size can be modified.

To download E-Sword for free, click here.

Note: I am not affiliated with E-Sword or its creator in any way and do not receive any money for my recommendations. I simply like to share things that have been helpful to me.

Lemon Pepper Chicken Strips - A Quick and Easy Meal

This recipe is one of the absolute easiest and tastiest ways to make chicken. My husband loves these and they only take about 20 minutes to prepare.

You need:

Boneless, skinless chicken breasts

Olive oil
Lemon pepper seasoning

Trim the chicken breasts to remove any inedible material and cut them into 4-5 strips each. I usually cut them into strips along the grain of the meat.

Place a small amount of olive oil in a skillet (enough to easily cover the bottom). Place the chicken strips in the skillet and sprinkle generously with lemon pepper. Cover the pan with a lid and cook on medium heat.

Here's one chicken breast cut into 5 strips and seasoned. It's hard to see all of the lemon pepper in this picture.

After a minute or two, turn the strips over and sprinkle lemon pepper on the other side. I usually turn them frequently (every 3-4 minutes) as it seems to keep the strips more moist inside. Cook until golden brown on the outside and done inside (about 15-20 minutes).

I usually serve these chicken strips with flavored mashed potatoes and green beans. I like to steam frozen green beans and add a little kosher salt. Sometimes, however, I just open a can and add a little butter and Mrs. Dash to flavor them.

Here is my usual recipe for mashed potatoes (although I sometimes use instant if I’m in a hurry). These take about 25-30 minutes to prepare so I start them first if I’m making the lemon pepper chicken strips.

You need:

3-4 Red potatoes or 2 large Russet potatoes

1/4 to 1/3 cup Butter
1/4 cup Sour cream
Salt
Pepper
Garlic powder
Mrs. Dash original flavor

Wash and peel the potatoes (you don’t have to peel the red potatoes) and cut them into small chunks. Boil them until soft (or steam them). Drain the potatoes and add butter. Mash with a potato masher or fork. Add salt, pepper, a tiny bit of garlic powder, and a sprinkle or two of Mrs. Dash. Add sour cream and mix well. Serve with or without gravy. Makes about 3 servings.

The amounts of all the ingredients can be adjusted to taste. You can omit the sour cream and use milk to thin the potatoes if you prefer. I always add sour cream to mashed potatoes if they aren’t going to have gravy as they have more flavor that way. This recipe makes rather thick and lumpy mashed potatoes. If you prefer thinner ones without chunks, you can add a small amount of milk and use a mixer to smooth them out.

  

Here's the whole meal. Yum!

Inalienable Rights – Part 2: The Source of Inalienable Rights

In Part 1 of this series, I discussed the difference between alienable and inalienable rights. Remember that alienable rights can be given up or transferred while inalienable rights cannot.

------------

The concept of inalienable rights was developed mainly by John Locke in the 17^th century as part of his social contract theory. Locke began his reasoning with what he called a “state of nature” in which there is no government and all the earth and its resources are owned in common by all people. In such a theoretical state, if all resources belong to every person equally, there must be some means of obtaining sole ownership of objects. The food that a person eats is used only by himself. If he eats food that belongs to everyone equally, he has robbed every person on the planet by violating their right to that food item. That doesn’t make sense, so there must be a way to obtain rightful sole ownership of objects. A hungry man must be able to rightfully take and eat food, thus having sole use of that food item, or else he would starve.

Locke said that it was in doing work that an object owned in common comes to belong to only one person. The result of a person’s labor belongs to that person. When a person performs work on something and thereby increases its value, he obtains a “property” in that object. (Note that this is a slightly different use of the word “property” than we use today.) Thus, when a man picks apples, for example, he mixes his work (in picking the apples) with the objects and thus obtains a property in those apples. The gathered apples have greater worth than apples on the tree because they are easier to consume. (An apple in the hand is worth two on the tree…or something like that.) He now has a greater right to those particular apples than anyone else because his labor has been invested in them. The apples are then his private property.

Once private ownership of a particular item has been established, the property that a person has in it (the alienable right to it) can be traded or given to someone else. If anyone wants to consume those apples, they should pay the man who gathered them for his labor by giving him something of value in return. Thus a man who owns apples may trade some of them for nuts owned by someone else or for wood to build a house or for various other objects owned by others. However, it would be wrong for someone else to take, use or destroy the apples without having the property rightfully transferred to them by its owner.

This was the beginning stages of Locke’s logic from which he developed his political theory. This same logic, that the result of a person’s labor belongs to the person, can be applied to God.

God, as the Creator, has invested His work in creating people. He thus has a property in us, giving Him the right to do with us as He pleases. It would be wrong for anyone to use or kill a human being because to do so is to usurp the right that God has to His property. Thus what we see as our inalienable right to life is really God’s right to His property. Such rights cannot be transferred or given up by us because the right to each person is actually owned by God.

Some of the rights that God originally had to us have been given to us by Him. Since God actually owns the rights to us, His right to us is alienable from His perspective and He can grant some of those rights to us. For example, by giving us a free will, God has given us the right to choose what we will do with our time and our labor, thus allowing us liberty. God has also given human beings stewardship over the earth and the various plants and animals that inhabit it. There are a number of implications of these rights that God has granted us that I will discuss in the future.

One thing that is important to note is that inalienable rights – as rights that a person naturally has that cannot be given, taken away, or transferred – can only exist if humans are the work of a Creator. There is no logical basis for such rights in any other scenario.

If there is no creator, if nature is all that there is, there can be no right or wrong; there can be no metaphysical entities such as rights. The only thing that evolution could tell us is that might makes right and that the only thing that matters is to get as much as you can and to survive in whatever way is necessary. If humans have come to exist through eons of slow gradual change as evolution would tell us, how could it be that humans obtained inalienable rights and other branches of the evolutionary tree did not?

Often times, people try to answer various moral and ethical questions by appealing to society. Society, they say, can decide to grant rights or make laws for the good of the group. While this may be true, such “rights” created by society are arbitrary and not inalienable. If society can grant us rights, it can take them away just as easily.

Thus, naturalistic causes cannot be a source of inalienable rights. There is no way that truly inalienable rights can exist unless humans are the product of a Creator.

------------

In Part 3 of this series, I discuss some of the implications of inalienable rights in society and government.

Being on the Same Team

My husband and I have never had an argument. That’s right. Not once in nearly two years of marriage or the nine months of dating before that. (Update: More than 7 years of marriage now, and still no arguments.) A lot of people will probably think that’s because we never discuss anything serious or because we avoid talking about problems, but that is not the case. We talk about everything and we do sometimes disagree. We just don’t argue about it.

You see, arguing involves two people who not only disagree, but insist on their way. It’s a me against you attitude. And it’s usually rather emotional. Doug and I talked about this before we even got married and decided that we would do our best not to handle disagreements by arguing about them. Instead, we make it point to remember that we are on the same team. The goal is not to get our way or prove that we are right, but to find the best solution together. So we discuss issues rationally and work toward finding the best solution – whether that’s his idea, my idea, or some other solution. Handling problems from the perspective that we are teammates really helps keep us close and minimizes friction between us.

Of course, it helps that we usually see eye to eye on things. And it also helps that we both are the logical, analytical type. Neither of us is likely to fly off the handle or break down in tears. But I’m convinced that having a team mentality can help anyone have a better, less contentious marriage.

The thing to consider, though, is that you can’t remember to think of your spouse as your teammate when problems arise if you don’t during the rest of the time. In other words, it has to be a permanent pattern in your thinking, not just a good intention during times of disagreement.

Part of the reason that Doug and I started thinking and talking about being on the same team was an observation Doug had made years before we ever met. There was a man he knew at work who had been happily married for many years. While the other guys at work would often make jokes or complain about their wives, this man never did. He never called her his “old lady” or made fun of her in public. Instead, he always spoke of her as if she was the best thing that ever happened to him. It was obvious that he loved and respected her. Doug decided then that he wanted a marriage like that.

When we were talking about how things would be in our marriage, Doug brought up this story. It hit me then that it’s easy to get sucked into the “complain about my spouse” habit - especially when everyone around you is doing it. I know when men or women get together and talk and one starts complaining, it can easily degenerate into gossip and complaints. It’s like we want to outdo each other with stories of how bad we have it. It’s almost like talking about someone behind their back is somehow okay if it’s your spouse. But if anyone should be able to count on you to have their back, to stand with them against the world, it should be your spouse.

The other problem with this complaining attitude is that tearing down your spouse to other people also causes you to focus on the negative aspects of your spouse. Everyone has less than perfect attributes, but focusing on them only leads to nitpicking, dissatisfaction, and friction in the marriage. Complaining is corrosive to a marriage. It is far better, for our own sake and that of our marriage, to focus on the positive aspects. And when you start purposely focusing on the ways in which your spouse is wonderful, you get more and more grateful for your relationship.

So, Doug and I make it a point to refrain from complaining about each other, even to other people, and even in jest. My husband is my best friend and I love him. I want him to know that I am on his side, no matter what. We are going to encourage each other and stand by each other when we’re together and also when we’re apart. When others complain about their spouses, I try to turn it around by bragging about my husband. I focus on the positive aspects, not the negative ones. It’s no wonder then, that we are quite happily married. It doesn’t happen by accident. It takes a conscious decision to be, at all times, on the same team.

Linked up with WLWW, To Love, Honor and Vacuum, Yes They're All Ours, Warrior Wives, and The Alabaster Jar.