Liberty, Freedom and Rights

Liberty, Freedom and Rights
by PunkJohnnyCash

I hear all sides of the political spectrum argue for their ‘rights’. From their bill of rights to the freedom brought by a gun, liberty, freedom and rights are constantly thrown around and mean something completely different to almost everyone who utters the words. I reject the concept of liberty, freedom and rights. None will ever truly be obtained. They are abstract concepts created to describe and defend ones political stance. Rights are used as statist apolagetics to obtain what one desires. If I write on my bill of rights that I have a ‘Right’ to sex does that truly justify me taking that sex from an individual? This can only be given freely or it is nothing more than rape.

Rape is defined by Merriam Webster as ‘to seize or take away by force’. By this definition the majority of government action is nothing more than rape. All attempts for one to obtain these liberties, freedom or rights through taxation or initiation of force which is the state is nothing short of rape.

The only civil way for society to be structured is by acknowledgment of the non-aggression axiom. As the structure of states and the force a state uses against the individual evolves we see a forward progression. Some is positive, some is stagnant. I will not claim every effort of the state has been in vain or for evil. There are people who truly work for a positive through a state. We see this in more recent government actions like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. An injustice in society was acknowledged in society and actions were taken to amend this. The problem is not the Lilly Ledbetter Act and what the state attempted to do within this act, but the problem lies within the existence of the state.

If the state is a corrupt institution whose driving power is rape and initiation of force any action the state takes will be either tainted by this unethical nature or null and void when we have eliminated the state.

You can point out the ‘good politicians’ all day long. You can even point out the so-called ‘good cops’. In reality there is no good cop and there is no good politician. This is not a claim that all are evil and driven to harm. This is the claim that by the nature of the system those positions are naturally violating to others and thus essentially criminal for by their very nature they break the non-aggression axiom. By simply taking the positions to invade and rape others no matter how nice of an individual they may be or how well meaning ones intent is, they have still taken a position that is to invade and rape.

Liberty, Freedom and Rights mean little. Since every time they are spoken these words have a completely different definition to almost everyone. We are better served by defining how society can function in a civil manner. The basis of this being the non-aggression axiom we must find new ways to approach the so-called rights we perceive.

Since I started this site a few years ago my following has grown. I get more regular readers than I could have ever expected. Many correspond with me and even challenge what I write. I started this site when I was still a minarchist libertarian. I held to many concepts of ‘local government’ which I have since rejected. I have actively been seeking alternatives to the state and reading and learning of the illegitimacy of the state. Much of which I have written here. If you have been following me over this time you have seen much of this evolution and have been privy to my journey and change in philosophy. I do not believe I will ever be done with this process of learning and evolving.

My main goal was really to challenge everything I believe and think. Sadly I think this has made me more obstinate in some conclusions I have reached.

The basic concepts of rights in the more traditional constitutional manner would be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is simple enough. We have a right to live. That’s simple, and I think few will disagree with that. When you reach liberty and the pursuit of happiness we see a vague definition of rights. What is liberty? Liberty from what? You can have liberty from work then you may see that you loose your happiness when you can’t pay bills or keep your home. You can be liberated from more confining thought processes.

To acknowledge moral rights you must have a similar moral standard as others. Most do not cling to the same set of morality. Humanist or feminist world views may differ from an Islamic or Christian world view leading to a completely different set of ethics and moral standards. Specific injustices or ills in society must not be thrown out because of what I am saying. I will say that they need to be approached for what they are and not to be claimed as a ‘right’. Under Shariah you see six basic rights:

1. The right to the protection of life.
   
2. The right to the protection of family.
   
3. The right to the protection of education.
   
4. The right to the protection of religion.
   
5. The right to the protection of property (access to resources).
   
6. The right to the protection of human dignity.
   

Via Who’s Afraid of Shariah by: Sumbul ali-Karamali

Who can really go against this concept of rights defined by Shariah? None of those concepts seem like anything I would oppose working for or fighting for. The goals are wonderful. BUT. The only same concept I see here with our constitutional rights is ‘life’. I don’t see Shariah extolling liberty or the pursuit of happiness. One could argue that those elements of Shariah are both liberty or the pursuit of happiness, but at the same time they could also argue they are not at all. Some would cling to freedom of speech or freedom of owning a gun much more closely than any of the above. Some would even reject the right to religion as we see in the conservative anti-Muslim movement in the United States today. Some would say that our rights are relative to conditions of birth. In the early 1800′s if you were born the wrong color you had no ‘rights’ as a slave. Now if you are born in Mexico many argue that you are not entitled to the same ‘rights’ as others.

Immanuel Kant spoke of negative and positive rights. He spoke of our duty not to impose on others. We see a similar concept in the libertarian non-aggression axiom. If any right exists I would argue it is this right. I may not agree that it is even a right. This idea is simply the absent of a right. No one holds the right to aggress on another. No one holds the right to rape another. No one holds the right to kill another. No one holds the right to steal from another. No one holds the right to assault another. I will hold this concept of negative rights above the concept of ‘natural rights’ or any other rights one claims they have. If rights are viewed as negative rights we see there are more we can come to agree upon.

Do you have the liberty to kill and put people in cages? Many would automatically say no, but their actions would say otherwise. Some would claim this is admissible if you own a badge and a gun.

I am not sure that I am at this time willing to agree that anyone has any rights, but we can see a plethora of negative rights that society can be structured upon. The interesting thing is that if we truly implemented the lack of these rights we would see the elimination of the state for they are rights people employed by the state claim for themselves. Every positive right does entail a negative right. The positive right may be the right to sex, but that would lead to the negative which is the right to be invaded upon. Perhaps we should start to look more critically at the negative right.

Could the right to property for one be a negative right to labor for another? Let us take a potter for example. He takes the clay from the ground. Now by his labor the clay is his property. Let us say that the potter gives the clay to another potter who turns it into a bowl. Now that both have put labor into the bowl who has the right to the profit or ownership? Can the potter that removed the clay still claim ownership after another had put labor into the clay?

When rights conflict does either party really have any rights?

I am finding it harder to justify any right as an absolute, but I can see absolutes in negative rights. We do not have certain rights. So where does this lead us?

So what is liberty? Is liberty having the rights to do as we wish? Liberty, Freedom and Rights are all difficult to define because of the vast difference in perception. Each could have a thousand definitions some could even conflict. This makes it near impossible to make any stance of substance on something like liberty, freedom or rights.

Libertarians have naturally leaned towards the liberty and freedom with a strong stance on natural rights or property rights. I am not utterly rejecting the concepts, but I am challenging them. I am saying that they are not enough. I am even rejecting much of it as a basis of my beliefs, instead I should see them as a result of what I believe.