Tue, 30 Jan 2007

Americans have Certain Unalienable Rights

Rarely have I ran across a piece (usually an editorial) that shows such a stunning lack of comprehension of the meaning of "rights", and indeed the entire concept of Liberty. The only problem here is "where to start". So how about at the beginning?

Americans are inclined to claim a “right” to participate in whatever behavior the government decides to restrict. Remember claims of a right to drive without a seat belt after laws requiring their use took effect? Even today, motorcycle riders in various states claim a right to ride without a helmet.

You know, this is true! Because Americans, by and large, still have an innate sense of what liberty actually means.

When members of the first Congress decided to enumerate specific rights of citizens, they were concerned about protecting Americans’ rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to be safe in their homes from unwarranted government intrusion, to a fair criminal justice system. They never had in mind guaranteeing a right to puff away in public or to maintain workplaces that endanger the health of patrons and workers.

Oh, really? Why did this bonehead stop halfway through the Bill of Rights? Keep reading, friend, until you hit Amendment Number 9:The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. They were certainly aware of, and concerned by, governmental intrusion upon the peoples rights.

In claiming such non-existent “rights,” local residents who complain about the new smoking laws governing Fort Wayne and Allen County diminish the true rights Americans enjoy and much of the world craves.

Note that he's simply dismissed the claimed rights to run your own business and travel without straps and helmets as "non-existent". No word as to why, other than that they don't appear specifically in the Constitution. Nice. Horses aren't mentioned in there, either, dipshit, but can you imagine an American Congress in the 19th century forcing hats off the heads of cowboys to be replaced by safety helmets? Didn't think so ... how about trying to elucidate some reason why you think these rights don't exist? Maybe he's sensed he's out of his depth, as he starts quoting law professors...

“Generally speaking, at least as a federal constitutional matter, our rights are enumerated and are mostly the right to be left alone by the government – that is, not to be searched, not to be censored, not to have our liberty taken without due process,”[Lauren]Robel[dean of the Indiana University School of Law] says.

Now this is scary: apparently the dean of our state law school has never heard of the Ninth Amendment. Or has conveniently forgotten it.

"'Rights' and 'entitlements' are often confused," says Leonard Harris, a philosophy professor at Purdue University in West Lafayette. “We have an entitlement to jog along a jogging trail at our local park, but we do not have a right nor do we have an entitlement to endanger other joggers by swinging a sword around as we jog. Entitlements are what we have at the park because the jogging trail is something we all can enjoy so long as others respect everyone’s need for safety.”

Ohhh, look out! A philosopher! But one who's apparently had his brains sucked out: we have an absolute right to travel, and in fact, to swing our sword around as we do so. Our fellow travelers have the right not to be sliced in half by our sword, however, and should we do so, we should expect to pay the consequences of our violation of their right to remain whole and intact via a criminal prosecution. The government does not grant us an "entitlement" to move about - our right to do so arises from Nature itself. Perhaps this philosopher has never read John Locke.

"Consider what a right is,” says Clark Butler, a professor of philosophy at IPFW. A right, he says, is the ability "to do something that is socially recognized in your community as legitimate."

Then people in Iran or Afghanistan have no right to be a Christian (or a heathen) - and the society has every right to put them to death for even thinking about it. Need I continue?

Many people would agree they have a right not to be exposed to secondhand smoke against their will. As the recent debate over smoking has shown, some people also believe in a right to allow smoking in the business they own. When people claiming opposing rights butt heads, "That’s when you say, 'I need a lawyer,' " says Herman Belz, a professor of history at the University of Maryland.

You don't need a lawyer for this - you need a basic understanding of property rights. Nobody need be forced to smell second hand (or first hand, or third hand) smoke any more than they need be exposed to public nudity: if you don't like smoke or boobies, don't go into places where smoke is in the air and boobies are floppin' around! Simple, really! And this system has worked quite well.

Clearly, government has long had the power to pass laws and issue regulations to protect the safety of Americans – in workplaces, in public places, even in their homes. The federal government, for example, has essentially forced states to require seat-belt use and to establish a minimum drinking age of 21. Local laws require smoke detectors in homes.

Having the power to do something is not the same thing as having the right to do it.

The authority that allows the government to prohibit smoking over a restaurant owner’s objections is the same governmental power that regulates working conditions in factories and coal mines. Such regulation has saved countless lives.

Statistically speaking, most violent crime is committed by young black males. If we simply placed all of these "high risk" individuals into (concentration?) camps, we'd undoubtedly save countless lives... does (potentially) saving lives justify the obviously gross violation of their human right to liberty? According to this editorial, apparently so.

I'm going to stop now before I get sick. I'm ashamed to be an American and a Hoosier when I read tripe like this presented as a serious discussion. The saddest thing is that most folks will silently shamble along this path, until one of their rights disappears into the maws of the Safety State. If we do not stop these encroachments, and indeed roll them back, we will not remain a free nation for much longer.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.-- Ben Franklin

Opponents of recent moves to restrict exposure to secondhand smoke have angrily criticized local officials for tampering with their “right to smoke.” Restaurant owners have claimed a “right” to decide whether to permit or restrict smoking in their businesses.

(link) [Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette]

via Masson's Blog

/Politics | 0 writebacks | permanent link

comment...

 
Notes: If you put a <mailto:> link in the URL field your address will not be mangled: this could be a bad idea as your email address could be easily harvested by bots designed for SPAM. The comments field should now format correctly for line feeds and carriage returns: when you hit the 'Enter' or 'Return' keys in your comment it should break to a new line. The text should wrap cleanly. Please let me know if it doesn't. No HTML tags will pass through - entering links seems to be the main cause of comment SPAM. Also, please be sure that Javascript is enabled in your browser before attempting to post a writeback. Sorry for any inconvenience, but this really helps cut down on the amount of comment SPAM I have to deal with.
 
 Name:
 URL:(optional)
 Title: (optional)
 Comments:  
Save my Name and URL/Email for next time