Rights 101

I believe the most important tool for any task is knowledge. Without knowledge, the ability to successfully complete any task is only guesswork, trial and error, and luck. This includes the arduous task of defending rights.

There are two main factors responsible for the constant struggle of defending rights. One is human nature. Mankind has a built in inclination to obtain that which he wants and needs for the least possible amount of personal effort. This attitude is generally negatively referred to as laziness, however the inclination is morally neutral and produces both positive and negative consequences depending on the actions employed as the means to those ends. To some, this means fitting their concept of rights to suit their needs. The second factor is the nebulous and subjective definitions which people have in regard to rights. People will purposely or subconsciously make their definition of rights elastic to suit their desires. Others, without an objective, consistent concept of rights, are simply easily misled.

I have three dictionaries in the house. My favorite is the oldest one. (I would suggest that every home be equipped with a dictionary that is at least thirty years old.) In them, they attribute several meanings to the noun "right" but as it would be used pertaining to the concept of rights, they tend beat around the bush and don't get around to the meat of the word and the attributes which would separate it from "privilege."

Coming to an understanding of a correct and consistent concept of rights took time for most of us. And it's easier to have such an understanding than it is to relate that understanding to others in a concise manner.

That said, I'd like you to consider taking the time and effort to formulate a definition of rights which is correct, objective, consistently applicable and concise.

The question is, "What are rights?" I believe the following questions will assist in formulating the answer.


From whence do rights come?


To whom do rights belong?


What human actions can be applied to rights? (Or what can one human do in regard to rights, such as respect, violate, waive, transfer, defend...)


What human actions cannot be applied to rights?

To what do rights apply?


What is the difference between a right and a privilege?


Why is a concept of rights necessary?



right(s): n,

My own thoughts on these are;

From whence do rights come? I am a Christian, therefore my answer is theistic in nature. God granted mankind individual rights and is also the only one who can take them away. They are part of His gift of grace which sustains our every breath of life. They exist as part of nature and act in harmony with the laws of nature just as surely as the laws of physics. For the non-theist, consider them as part and parcel of the equilibrium of the natural world.

To whom do rights belong? Rights belong to individual human beings. They do not belong to groups of human beings or plants or animals or society or the Earth.

What human actions can be applied to rights? People can own rights, exercise them, defend them, respect them, transfer them, waive them, abdicate them or violate them, just to name a few.

What human actions cannot be applied to rights? This question is, in my opinion, more important than the last. People cannot grant rights or take them away. They are the inherent property of each individual regardless of his ability to exercise them due to natural limitations or the degree to which they are violated. I believe this is essential to rights for if they can be granted or taken away by men then they are not rights at all, rather they are privileges.

To what do rights apply? Rights are applicable to every form of human interaction. They have to do with what individuals may and may not do, not with what they can and cannot. They do not apply to God who, as creator of all, can snuff out the whole lot of us and justly so. They do not apply to nature. plants and animals do not have rights, nor can they violate your rights, neither can gravity, lightening, hurricanes, floods, or any other natural circumstances which deprive us of our ability to exercise our rights. We are at the mercy of God and nature. The loss of ones rights due to thirst, drowning, starvation, cancer, lightening strike, etc., does not constitute a violation thereof. Only human beings can have rights. Only human beings can violate them.

This brings us to the very important distinction between rights and privileges. Privileges can be granted and taken away by human beings. Privilege is a transfer of the exercise of a right from one individual to another and can also be granted to groups of individuals from the individual members of another. However, legitimate privilege can only be granted by the owner of the right associated with that privilege. Illegitimate privilege is when a third party, such as government by granting privileges, thus violating the rights of one individual, or group, for the benefit of others. A second important distinction is that privilege can be conditional. You may give me the privilege of using your pencil, so long as I don't write dirty words with it and I bring it back sharp. You may use the government's parks, schools and roads so long as you don't bring alcohol or glass containers, don't paint your name on the buildings, wear your seat belts, don't exceed the posted limits, pick up your pet waste, don't bring your defensive weapons and be home before curfew. Rights are absolute and never conditional. Conditions placed on the exercise of rights are violations of those rights regardless of their extent or good intentions.

What are rights? They are the fulcrum of equal justice, the balance of each individual's life, liberty and property against violations by all other individuals. I may not steal from you because you may not steal from me. I may not take your life, because you may not take mine. You may not enslave me, because I may not enslave you. You may not defraud me, because I may not defraud you. All the good intentions in the world, regardless of the number of individuals or governments you can get to back these violations of rights will never legitimize them.

See also this article by Robert Higgs:
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=1088

Please send your replies to:

http://bryandmorton.blogspot.com/2008/03/rights-101.html

Peace, freedom, justice and prosperity,

Bryan Morton

The Physical Laws of Economics

Economies and trade are natural occurrences. Like everything in nature, (created by God), the world's economy is in a constant state of flux while simultaneously seeking equilibrium. The natural laws of economics, like all natural laws, such as those dictated by physics, are laws because they are not variables. They are fixed and unchangeable. There's nothing man can do to permanently alter the balance they seek, but we can, through an expenditure of force, temporarily effect the balance. However, since the force required to effect the balance can never be sustained indefinitely against the natural equilibrium seeking forces, there is always an equal and opposite negative reaction, or in the case of economics, and equal and opposite cost. It is very important to remember that value is subjective and that supply and demand are not constants. It is, therefore impossible to regulate them by centralized planning.

A Few Examples:

Price Controls; The government's attempt at fixing the market price for a good or service above or below its naturally fluctuating value. Not long after price controls are put in place, that portion of the economy is knocked artificially out of balance and the natural economic laws of supply and demand, etc., begin to seek equilibrium. Prices fixed above or below the natural value of goods and services will disrupt the balance of supply and demand achieved through pricing flexibility. Additionally, black markets appear offering them at above or below the fixed price. Minimum wage laws and their unintended consequences are a great example of this in action.

Prohibition; The government's attempt to legally forbid trade of certain goods or services. The natural result is scarcity which drives up the price and provides the incentive to trade them on the black market. Prohibition has never achieved its stated goal and never will.

Professional licensing; The stated goal is consumer protection. That said, it seems odd that it's always the providers who cry for professional licensing, not the consumers. Here again, the attempt is thwarted by the economy's natural forces. Licensed goods and services become more scarce. The providers, with less competition to worry about, decrease quality and raise prices, again creating fertile ground for black markets.

Time is the key. An economy left alone in its natural state, (absolute free trade), will fluctuate with supply, demand and quality. The natural economy has a built in correction system which reacts almost instantly on each individual transaction, lessening the time involved in re-establishing the balance as compared with governmental meddling and tinkering which can delay market signals and makes the inevitable oscillation toward the natural correction longer and more severe.

Think of the economy as a physical object, like an aircraft. In its natural state it is on the ground and stationary. The four forces which act upon an aircraft are weight, lift, thrust and drag. Weight and drag can be temporarily overcome through force in the form of the expenditure of fuel. However, the more altitude and velocity one wished to achieve, the greater the fuel expenditure and the aircraft will exhaust its fuel supply. There's an aviation adage that landing a plane is the hardest part of flying. To the contrary, landing is the simplest part. All one has to do let go of everything and the plane will eventually find the ground all by itself. Landing a plane safely? That's a whole other story, but obviously the safest place where there's the least possible chance of disaster was on the ground where you started. The "altitude" and "velocity" of the economy can also be increased with quickly apparent benefits, but like the aircraft it will eventually have to come to rest back on the ground. And what of the fuel consumed for its temporary trip aloft? In economic terms, that's called wealth and to keep the economic aircraft moving high and fast, unfortunately burns wealth at a greater rate than it is created. At some point the foolish attempt to usurp the natural laws of economics must be paid for with an equal and opposite reaction. Activities, which artificially hold an economic situation aloft for too long, will crash.

I guess that's why politicians and socialists are so enamored with space travel. Vanguard I, the oldest manufactured object still in orbit was launched on March 17, 1958. The satellite itself, of course, is smaller than a basketball and weighs less than five pounds. It stopped transmitting in 1964. But even with the massive expenditure of time and energy to send it into orbit, it cannot break the physical laws which dictate its actions. Vanguard I will eventually succumb to gravity, if not on this Island Earth, on some distant planet.

Capitalism, Wealth and Salvation

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism

Capitalism, it seems, is a very misunderstood term. Apparently misunderstood even by the person who is credited with creating the word. Karl Marx, the founder of modern socialism, observed the economic system around him and the problems which arose from it. He incorrectly diagnosed the problem as being directly related to the ownership of "capital."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capita

Capital, is really nothing more than private property. It is that which you own, the disposition of which you have the absolute right to determine so long as that action does not violate the equal negative rights of others. I own an old pick-up. That, among my few other worldly possessions, is my capital. My property right to that truck is either absolute or it is violated. I have the right to use it, save it, destroy it, trade it, or give it away. It is mine. Capital, understood in this sense, is neither bad nor good. It is inanimate and therefor cannot be the cause of the problems Marx attributed to it. What Marx saw was the limited variety of economic systems which had been around in various forms and degrees throughout modern history. These systems were, as they've always been, based on the ability of the wealthy to violate the rights of the poor by buying privilege from governments or by the wealthy simply being the government. Such was the case with feudalism, where the nobles made it illegal for commoners to own alodial titles to land. Marx targeted the thing, capital, rather than the human sin, as the problem much like people today will say that guns kill people. It wasn't property, but the ability to fraudulently legitimize violations of the rights of others that was the problem.

So what is capitalism, really? Capitalism isn't an economic system. It is the recognition of each individuals absolute private property rights and the disposition of that property without violation by others. It is the market in it's natural state without the use of any system of coercion imposed upon it - without the legitimized fraud, threat of murder, theft, or slavery. Capitalism has never been given a fair shake. It's been allowed in small doses throughout history, but no government has ever allowed the market to work absolutely free of at least some form of taxation, tariffs, quotas, guilds, professional licensure, price controls, regulation, and of course control over "legal tender."

We must remember that wealth is not inherently bad, it is the method by which we attain it and what we choose to do with it that makes the difference. Many people misquote the Bible by saying that money is the root of all evil, but the quote is really that the love of money is the root of all evil. Many Christians also interpret Christ's analogy of a wealthy man entering the Kingdom of Heaven being as probable as a camel passing through the eye of a needle to mean that the wealth is the problem, not the sin. Allow me to relate this to my personal experience. For most of my adult life I worked as a flightline service technician in corporate aviation. I had the opportunity to rub shoulders with the kind of people that wealthy people call wealthy people. These are people who own jets worth tens of millions of dollars and can still afford the operating costs on top of that. It occurred to me that over the years not a single one of them that I could remember came by his wealth without the use of some form of government coercion. Large corporations depend on the government to limit liability, to control competition through tariffs, quotas, licensing, and regulation and to steal through taxation, eminent domain and manipulation of monetary policy. Many of these customers were Christians who owned billions worth of material wealth but would only sacrifice a relatively small portion to help others. Most would practice fake benevolence by advocating government programs instead where theft, the state, and the members of government replace voluntary sacrifice, God and Christian compassion. God does everything for a reason and the command to attend to those less fortunate is no exception. We are not called to do these things just so the poor can have food in their bellies, clothes and shelter. We are so called to give glory to God through our personal sacrifice in that the unsaved might see Christ in us. When Christians selfishly pass that responsibility on to government, those who have the fruit of their labor taken by force feel contempt for the poor rather than compassion. The poor see those more fortunate as greedy individuals who wouldn't lift a finger for them if the government did not force them to and rather than being grateful for God's mercy, they begin to see the ill gotten gain as an entitlement that those who earned it do not deserve. The government, which uses fraud, coercive force, murder, theft and slavery becomes their god. Christians who do not want to give up their comfortable lives, who abdicate their responsibility to the illegitimate means of the state bear the burden of those souls who never saw Christ as a result.

What's in a Name?

I was looking in the Yellow Pages for the phone number of a local charity. The listing for 'Charitable Organizations' says, "See Social Service Organizations." Looks like INGSOC has been at work here. I guess individual responsibility and Christian compassion have been deemed double plus not good.