Why the picture above? One of the oddball things about the civil rights movement that Martin Luther King helped to lead is this expression “civil rights”. It was certainly uncivil to deny blacks their rights as Americans, but the expression “civil rights” doesn’t add anything. Some people just used our racial differences as an excuse to deny other people their rights as Americans and as fellow human beings. Nothing new about that.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 New King James Version (NKJV)
9 That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.
This is the third part in a series designed to inspire debate on the nature of our Rights.
- Part 1: Here we considered the definition of rights promoted by the Declaration of Independence.
- Part 2: This part examined whether the Bible affirms whether or not our rights are God-given. In addition this part considered other views on that question.
What’s the topic of this post?
What Is The Argument For Government-given Rights?
Note that I have dealt with topic of government-given rights before, WHY WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF OUR RIGHTS — PART 2 and CORRUPTED BY OUR SUPPOSED GENEROSITY — PART 4. While we may hit some of the same points, we will consider different references to provide a somewhat different perspective. We will also focus on the arguments for government-given rights as opposed to the arguments against government-given rights.
Here, Rights, is a short article provided by the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Without trying to resolve the issue, the article defines current terminology, provides some history, and identifies the areas of conflict. Since the article is blessed with a high degree of clarity, it is well worth reading. What do the authors call a right?
What is a right? A right is a justified claim on others. For example, if I have a right to freedom, then I have a justified claim to be left alone by others. Turned around, I can say that others have a duty or responsibility to leave me alone. If I have a right to an education, then I have a justified claim to be provided with an education by society. (from here (scu.edu))
Keep in mind we are talking about “legal” rights. Leaving others in peace is fairly easy, but some people still won’t do it. What is the solution? We create a government that makes everyone leave everyone else in peace.
Does everyone want to pay for a government? No, but such a limited government is a relatively small expense, and everyone benefits. So the majority makes everyone pay. On the other hand, giving someone an education can be a costly affair. Who are we talking about educating? The whole world? How extensive an education? Just the 3 R’s or several doctorates?
Because the term “right” is often only vaguely defined, that is why the claim to a right has to be justified. Even when a right just requires us to leave our fellow citizens in peace, it cost us something: judges, lawyers, policemen, and juries. If we have external enemies, then we have to pay for military forces.
As the expenses go up, people begin to resist. Military forces are costly, and their job requires them to kill people and break things. That’s quite unpleasant. Still, most people have relatively little problem with government providing protection for their life, liberty, property rights, and religious choices. Many more balk when government forces them to redistribute their property to others for the sake of the “rights” of those others. That seem to be a different kind of rights. Here is how To Secure These Rights (from the Public Broadcasting Corporation) explains the difference.
All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are designed as limits on government. They say what government cannot do, not what it must do. Such limits are known as negative rights, versus the positive rights of requiring government to provide jobs and healthcare. For instance, the First Amendment forbids the government to ban freedom of speech in the public square. It does not say the government has to buy everyone a microphone so they can be heard. Similarly, the Bill of Rights protects freedom of petition so that citizens can lobby their legislatures for better schools, but it does not guarantee the right to public education. But in other countries, and in the United Nations, there are legal mandates for jobs, education, and healthcare. Nonetheless, these mandates are often difficult to enforce. (from here)
The Declaration of Independence speaks of what the “educated” now call negative rights. Positive or “welfare rights” followed the success of American Revolution. The Manifesto of the Communist Party (published1888) by Karl Marx eventually proved to be the most formidable document in favor of “welfare rights”. Marx’s philosophical attitude towards rights took off most strongly in the United States during the Great Depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) stated it formally in his 1944 State of the Union Message to Congress address when he spoke of an “economic” or Second Bill of Rights. Of course, since Americans were still hardworking at this point, FDR did not peddle Communism or a list of welfare programs. Instead, he spoke of such things as government guarantees to a good paying job, fair competition for businessmen, a decent home, adequate medical care, a retirement income, and good education.
After FDR, the camel’s nose was in the tent. A less violent form of Communism, Socialism, now had a grip on the United States. Those posts I mentioned before, especially WHY WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF OUR RIGHTS — PART 2, argues that when our government starts redistributing the wealth — giving us other people’s property as a positive rights — that leads to trouble. It confuses our obligation to be charitable with a legal “right” to receive the charity of others whether others want to provide that charity or not. Those who want “charity” will be tempted to vote for those politicians who offer them such “charity”. That is why most of the Federal Budget now involves such “charity”. Contrary to what some would like to believe, our defense budget, large though it may be, is not responsible for the Federal deficit.
Arguments For Government-Given Rights
Obviously, I have my biases in this matter, and I don’t see much point in hiding those biases. So here are some other sources.
Human Rights (un.org) gives the United Nations viewpoint. Since it was passed just after World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights looks a lot like something FDR would have liked. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) seems to be the primary vehicle the UN uses to promote its views on human rights. Curiously, the UN calls human rights universal and inalienable.
Columbia University (www.columbia.edu) has a website devoted to the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/udhr/index.html). The discussion is where the meat is located. Of course, you have to be a little crazy to read all of it, but it is worth sampling.
The Advocates For Human Rights promote a Human Rights Approach to Social Justice. The expression “social justice” is part of the secularist’s lexicon for wealth redistribution. Their training manual, DISCOVER HUMAN RIGHTS: A Human Rights Approach to Social Justice, explains their approach. Consider this extract.
Why Are Human Rights Important?
Human rights reflect the minimum standards necessary for people to live with dignity. Human rights give people the freedom to choose how they live, how they express themselves, and what kind of government they want to support, among many other things. Human rights also guarantee people the means necessary to satisfy their basic needs, such as food, housing, and education, so they can take full advantage of all opportunities. Finally, by guaranteeing life, liberty, equality, and security, human rights protect people against abuse by those who are more powerful. According to the United Nations, human rights: “Ensure that a human being will be able to fully develop and use human qualities such as intelligence, talent, and conscience and satisfy his or her spiritual and other needs.” (from here)
When Advocates For Human Rights explains the role of government, it becomes obvious they see government as the guarantor of basic needs such as food, housing, and education.
Responsibility of the State, part of SOCIAL PROTECTION & HUMAN RIGHTS website and a United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) project, lists the things government supposedly must do to protect our human rights. Here is how that page begins.
States have the legal obligation to protect and promote human rights, including the right to social security, and ensure that people can realize their rights without discrimination. The overall responsibility of the State includes ensuring the due provision of benefits according to clear and transparent eligibility criteria and entitlements, and the proper administration of the institutions and services. Where benefits and services are not provided directly by public institutions, the effective enforcement of the legislative frameworks is particularly important for the provision of benefits and services. (from here)
What are human rights? (equalityhumanrights.com) provides the view on human rights from The Equality and Human Rights Commission, Great Britain’s national equality body.
Our Rights Do Not Come From God (dailycaller.com) by David Benkof uses the Bible to refute the idea that our rights come from God.
HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS (lincoln.edu) summarizes the history of human rights. This includes a putdown on John Locke and natural rights.
A Brief History of Human Rights (humanrights.com) begins by claiming Cyrus Cylinder was the world’s first charter of human rights. That was a hoax, UN Treasure Honors Persian Despot (spiegel.de) and Cyrus cylinder’s ancient bill of rights ‘is just propaganda’ (telegraph.co.ukl). Trusting the UN on matters related to human rights is kind of stupid.
A Short History of Human Rights (hrlibrary.umn.edu) is another website that focuses on the role of government in creating “rights”.
Arguments For God-Given Rights
There are lots of articles on the web that argue for God-given rights, but this is a post about government-given rights. So that is where I put the focus. Still, here are some interesting ones.
The Source Of Rights (fee.org) takes issue with majoritarian tyranny by expounding upon the ideas of Frederic Bastiat.
The Paradox of Rights ‘Granted’ Us by Government (forbes.com) by Lawrence Hunter considers the source of the government’s powers with respect to the People.
The Source of Law, Rights, and Martin Luther King Jr. (theamericanview.com) discusses Martin Luther King’s views. Consider.
In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he stated “there are two types of laws: just and unjust.” And that “one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” (from here)
If the government gives us our rights, how do we know a law is unjust?