If Our Rights Are Natural, Then Everybody Has Them Not Just Citizens

I had a good back and forth discussion with one of our Indiana Tea Party Patriots today.

Our good patriot friend said:

I mean the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the natural rights bestowed upon us by God, our Creator. I believe our country does not/cannot give us rights..they are from God.

But then in a subsequent message added:

My concern is not to give terrorists the same constitutional rights that citizens have.

So, understanding that the debate over the current Guantanamo prisoners is terse and heated, I still waded in to the water a bit as I perceived a bit of circular logic here. I don't propose that true enemy combatants in a war should be granted the same privileges non combatant citizens enjoy; however, it did spark a train of thought related to the source of our rights and who has them. It occurred to me that there is a trap in the debate about the prisoners and whether or not they have rights. If you believe rights come from government and can be taken away, then you have to believe that the prisoners have no rights. If you believe we all are endowed with natural rights and that government does not grant them, then you have to accept that even prisoners accused of terrorism have a right to due process and fair treatment.

E-mail is never a great place for debate and for busy people the responses can often be quick, not well thought through or riddled with typos, but here is what I responded with:

Do people have rights guaranteed by the creator or not? If the rights come from, as you state, God (or whatever creative force one subscribes to) and not from our Constitution then do these people have rights or not? (I'm not taking a position either way - just confused by the circular logic).

I would argue that anyone has a right to face their accuser, be presented with evidence, given a fair and speedy trial and then either required to provide compensation/restitution for their crimes or set free. I would also be curious as to how many people we have in Gitmo who were captured just, as far as they were concerned, defending their country and were not really "terrorists". I don't trust anything the government tells us about anything or anyone anymore.

You can't invade a country and then accuse everyone who fights back of being a "terrorist". Most of the problem we have with modern terrorism is that these folks feel they are fighting back against U.S. hegemony. Unfortunately, they cross an unforgivable line when they target innocent people and private interests. Again, a lot of terrorism's roots lay in the response to actions most Americans are not even aware happened 'on their behalf'. The foreign foot soldiers may not know this, but their leaders and those that manipulate are keenly aware of their political and economic goals.

We fell right into their trap by spending trillions on these wars overseas that have contributed to tanking our economy and weakening our nation. They knew they couldn't win a military victory, but they knew they might get us economically eventually. They saw us do it to the U.S.S.R.

In all fairness, entitlements are ultimately the bill that we will not be able to pay; but, in an already weakened and debt ridden state tacking an extra couple (or few) trillion for war just isn't helpful. We should always be wary of the economic warfare, not just the physical warfare fought by troops and machinery.

Regardless of disagreements, it is oftentimes in conversations like these where thoughts, opinions, policies and approaches are forged. A far better source of belief, understanding and rationale than just parroting whatever the favorite partisan hack of the day is saying on the boob tube.

THE TIGHTROPE OF RIGHTS REGARDING PANHANDLERS

There is a move affoot by the Mayor to increase restrictions on panhandling. I like the Mayor quite a bit, but am going to offer a dissenting opinion on this topic. I'll start by referencing the Indianapolis Star article and then the Indiana Barrister BLOG of my good friend and local radio radio show host and reporter of all things politic Abdul Hakim-Shabazz of Abdul in the Morning on WXNT 1430 AM (6 AM till 10 AM each weekday morning).

These are my thoughts posted to Abdul's Comments Section. I would hope the Mayor and City County Council would take them into consideration. The premise here is that just because a bunch of people desire it or think it sounds like a good idea, does it make not make it okay to violate someone else's rights.

This is not much different in principle than holding a position on freedom of speech that says, "I may disagree completely with what you say, but I will defend [perhaps even unto death] your right to say it."

January 8th, 2009 at 11:47 am

I am going to agree completely with Patriot Paul and Shorebreak here. Those disagreeing maybe need to consider the nuance in what is being said.

I completely support the right of any individual to be out in public marketing their desire to get paid for nothing. I completely support people opting to give directly to charities that support worthy individuals and causes and often have safeguards or qualifications to make sure the money is put to proper use.

To the extent that anyone impedes someones progress or harasses someone though, then they have violated the rights of another individual and that should be actionable as a legitimate role of “the state” is to protect the rights of individuals (from violation by others, including the state [a collection of 'others']).

Obviously, the issue here is that there is money to be made doing this so it is a profitable endeavor [especially given the, presumably, tax 'unreported' status of the earnings]. This income being unreported, also means they likely are qualifying for government assistance/welfare programs as well.

Several things fix this problem right away. (A) don’t give them money and (B) tax consumption instead of income and (C) enforce any existing laws, especially repeat offenses, when they impede the progress of individuals or cause some other problem and (D) scale back the welfare state. Item B would reduce the benefit to operating outside of the mainstream economy. Remember $15 an hour tax free is like making $20 or $25 fully taxable.

States or cities with better (or longer lasting) welfare benefits can become a magnet for people working the system [which not everyone is doing - but some]. Reduce the strength of the magnet and the pull to other places becomes greater.

I hate being bothered by panhandlers as well, but to the extent they do not violate my rights I can make no argument against their activities. One thought, perhaps, is a law barring someone self-employed in the panhandling business from receiving welfare benefits… that might be easier to get behind.

And, regarding a comment regarding frequency of panhandler interaction at gas stations:

January 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Melyssa, when you go out in public it can be argued that you consent to encountering other people. Other people, however, have no right to accost you, impede your progress or intimidate someone.

…

A gas station owner (or its empowered management) has a right to request someone leave their property. The state has no right to dictate who that property may or may not allow there so long as no one’s rights are being violated.

So, private land owners obviously have a right to restrict who does or doesn't come on their property or what activities those people undertake. The Government; however, must respect everyone's rights equally including the right to use of public places.

Just quit making panhandling a profitable endeavor and it will no longer be so. There are lots of worthy charities and other organizations that help people in need. I'll start by mentioning Wheeler Men's Mission reachable at (317) 687-6795 and various women's shelters throughout the state (click for list). Don't hesitate to share this idea with your friends and colleagues or to even make any panhandlers aware that you contribute to these organizations instead of directly to individuals.

Lessons in Liberty: Your rights and Eliminating or Sharing the Plunder?

Annotated quotes from Bastiat's "The Law".

Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty or property of another individual, then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty or property of individuals or groups.

If one person has no right to murder, enslave or steal from any other person than no organization of individuals or other group has the right to murder, enslave or steal from other individuals or groups.

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter - by peaceful or revolutionary means - into the making of the laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of the two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

When you hear Libertarians speak, do they intend to "share" the plunder or eliminate it? Are libertarians power hungry political cronies attempting to partake in the great profitable endeavor that is elected office or are they running for office to fight for the restoration of personal freedoms and end the plunder by the political classes?

And when you think of "plunder" think not just of your tax bills and special favors doled out to interest groups and contributors, but things like the $46,000 per American Household in bailouts and loan guarantees that have been doled out thus far. That's right. $46,000 per family in more debt hoisted upon the shoulders of our children and children's children in order to try and fix an economy that government largely broke to begin with.

End the plunder.

UPDATE: Some measures say the number is now $65,000 per American household.  Regardless, it's a big number.