Dave Bangert has a column in the Lafayette Journal & Courier about an exchange between Congressman Todd Rokita and a constituent that speaks to a bigger problem with political discourse.
A constituent asked him about the government’s role in regulating firearms. Rokita says, apparently, that government has no such role, “See, that’s why you’ll never be able to communicate with me this way, because you have a fundamental different perspective on who gives someone the rights found in our Constitution.” The facile reasoning here being that because God gave us the Second Amendment or the right to bear arms, Congress has no role in regulating such rights. It immediately falls apart if, say, Congressman Rokita recognizes a role for Congress in regulating the broadcast spectrum through the FCC or otherwise despite our “God given” right to free speech.
This is a variation of “‘Shut up,’ he explained.”
I’ve taken the unpopular view that when someone speaks of “natural” rights (God-given or otherwise), from Thomas Jefferson up to and including Congressman Rokita, it suggests that the individual is appealing to authority either to foreclose further discussion or because the proponent’s claim to a right is on less stable ground than he or she would like to acknowledge. For example, in 2010 on the subject of god-given gun rights, I wrote:
I’m not really sure what a “god given right” might be. Those strike me as less enforceable than those rights protected by government force.
But, in any event, I’d argue that your right to protect yourself and your family doesn’t extend to putting me and my family in danger. So, if you start blasting away when you feel threatened, the corollary would be that I have a right to set you on fire or otherwise subject you to physical harm until I feel like I’m safe.
And then we’re back to a state of nature, with man in a war of all against all where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Without government, there are no rights, just a Hobbesian war of all-against-all with individuals being able to bring greater or lesser levels of force to bear, protecting or obtaining what they want.
But, that’s straying a bit far afield for the incident noted by Mr. Bangert. What’s really going on in this particular case is that there is no real upside to Congressman Rokita in discussing the issue. Wavering on gun rights might prompt a primary challenge which, in his District, is the only real electoral concern he has. Foreclosing further conversation on gun rights in the name of God carries no political downside for him.
Good points, Dog. So-called “natural rights” reliance is used to short circuit further discussion. As people in Minnesota would say, “end ‘a story.”
The other value of such an argument is that one can draw any right from such an amorphous cloud of “rights” and impute a “natural” origin of such rights. Why not a right to marry fish, fly a jet fighter without a helmet and lie with corpses.
I can’t possibly disagree more, but am trying to phrase this positively rather than negatively.
Rather than god-given, the definition I use is that humans have rights simply because they are human. In a sense this could be taken as a restating of the god-given thing, or as an expression of natural law, but I mean it in the simplest and most unencumbered way. Taking the view that anybody can do anything they want, as long as it doesn’t harm others, is the only way to maximize freedom. Government, if it is to serve any purpose at all, exists to prevent harm; a society creates a government to enforce society’s wish to be both free and free of harm.
When you state “Without government, there are no rights…” I wonder if you mean something like, “in a large, complex, populous nation, without government, peoples’ rights would be unprotected”. Or do you truly mean that humans only have the rights bestowed on them by government ?
You mention a couple items I suggest constitute straw man arguments:
1. The FCC as it exists now isn’t compatible with free speech, because the FCC for decades has refused to grant broadcast licenses to applicants. It would only be compatible with free speech if its sole purpose was to prevent the harm of broadcasters interfering with each other. To promote freedom and free speech, anyone capable of building a tower and paying for the electricity must be able to broadcast. The FCC now exists solely to enforce government control of media, and protect the broadcasting cartel.
2. The example of someone “blasting away” has nothing to do with freedom, because a person (even one defending themself) isn’t empowered by freedom to randomly shoot their gun, lest bystanders be harmed. Nobody arguing for gun rights would insist that someone who feels threatened should be able to put everyone around them in harm.
Another way of weighing Rokita’s statement is to take it and the opposite viewpoint to the nth degree. If humans have only those rights granted by government, then a good way for me to get rich is to pay off the government so I have more privileges and other people have less privileges; this is how new NFL stadiums get built with public funds. But if rights are inalienable, then everyone is equal, which seems to me to be a better world.
In the absence of government, how do these natural rights manifest themselves in the real world? I say they don’t exist at all until we say they do.
Rights are things that we as a people have decided we ought to have and have implemented these policy decisions through government enforcement. Humans have the rights they bestow upon themselves using government as a tool.
I think a big part of our disconnect is that I think of government as a tool we use to implement our policy decisions. As far as I can tell, you seem to view government as a sort of alien force.
No argument for “natural rights” exist without first cause, which demands either a consensus or posited rules from some humans somewhere. Dog argues that consensus develops and it seems clear that the Hobbesian necessity to ensure some order and the Lockeian model of a government as a servant-tool are the source of this consensus.
We still live in that Lockeian world. At any given time, some sizeable portion of the population will oppose the government for a myriad of reasons. Yet most in the opposition believe they are just one election from returning to the “real” America. In tripartite weak government like we have, they will never get their wish.
It also seems pellucid that if there are in fact “natural rights,” they would be genetically inculcated and not subject to much disagreement.
Fascinating discussion…….and of those who would insist that God ultimately trumps all in the definition of those “fundamental rights”, one might ask why She has historically allowed so many people on this planet to disagree over what they are. Where is good old papal infallibility when you really need it?
The only prior “reality” is a delusion peddled by flying spaghetti monsters and those that believe Jesus kept a spotted stegosaurus as a pet.
Rokita, or anyone, paints himself in a corner when he makes a political construct into theological doctrine. It’s non-negotiable, while politics is by nature negotiation, and because he is applying the language and thinking from one world into another world, the language and the way of thinking do not fit, like to square peg in the round hole. It doesn’t make consistent sense. Furthermore, it doesn’t really fit into a society which is diverse from many standpoints, especially religious thinking. It’s one of those “whose religion?” issues, in which different religions have slightly different assumptions about “rights”. Actually, from a conservative Christian standpoint, one has no rights before God, an idea that Mr. Rokita’s American Civil Religion may not have taken into account. In fact, his position is rigid, adversarial and much more in line with an authoritarian regime. What other “rights” are fundamental? He can start with God’s election of a monarch.
“See, that’s why you’ll never be able to communicate with me this way, because you have a fundamental different perspective on who gives someone the rights found in our Constitution.”
That is really a very clear response. He’s exactly right. It’s time for the people with a foggy understanding of the Constitution and Natural Law to educate themselves or be quiet.
I agree!
But the silence would be deafening!
“In the absence of government, how do these natural rights manifest themselves in the real world?”
What a silly question. Really? Do you lack enough imagination and are you so constrained by your circumstances to understand a prior reality?
The only prior “reality” is a delusion peddled by flying spaghetti monsters and those that believe Jesus kept a spotted stegosaurus as a pet.
I just closed my eyes and tried to picture both of those things. Mind. Blown.
Answering a question with another question. Sounds like someone knows the answer, but doesn’t like it so they’re avoiding it. Try again.
And then we’re back to a state of nature,
-Whatever that means
with man in a war of all against all
-Doesn’t follow
where life is solitary,
-Doesn’t follow
poor,
-Doesn’t follow
nasty,
-Doesn’t follow
brutish,
-Doesn’t follow
and short.
-Doesn’t follow
Aim higher than conclusory propaganda.
Ironic, when I think of “nasty, brutish, and short,” Carlito and his liberal comrades come most immediately to mind.
Wow, I wasn’t aware that it was custom for commenters on this blog to name themselves after something they hate and are wholly opposed to.
But that’s what you’ve done.
Interesting.
Meds still not working. I used to be nasty and brutish. It was a job requirement. But not short.
And wouldn’t you know it. A troll is at the door and I’m fresh out of troll food, so I can’t feed him.