My view is that freedom is a requirement of
human life, rooted in man’s nature and his relationship to existence, and that
individual rights are the principles that can be derived from the observable
facts of reality. This is broadly referred to as Natural Rights Theory.
Does The Enlightenment concept of Natural Rights leave religionists incapable of effectively
advocating for rights? Not at all.
We who love liberty and Americanism need to
explain WHY we have rights. The Founders seemed to understand this. As Thomas
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, America’s official Founding
document, “all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights.” Using the term “Creator” rather than “God” leaves room for wide
interpretation as to how man got here. Indeed, the Declaration speaks of the
“Laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God,” implying that there is a rational basis
for our rights, and that the rational basis for rights holds no matter how
man originated.
Even if one believes that rights are “God-given”
(I don’t), it’s still true that God created the reality in which man lives. So
a defense of individual rights can still be based objectively on the observable
facts of reality, without abandoning one’s belief in God. It is dangerous to
defend rights merely on faith, which the “God-given” rationalization is all
about. If rights are "unalienable", then by definition rights cannot be given to us. What is given can be taken away. "God-given" is not only ineffective. It contradicts the very idea of rights as unalienable, which means precisely that rights cannot be taken away by any person or human institution. All freedom lovers, theists and atheists alike, can and must defend
rights factually, which means scientifically. We have reality on our side. We
should all use it.
I recommend the following material for gaining a
firm grounding in freedom based on individual rights:
The ideas of John Locke, summarized in John
Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property
Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society—Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard
1 comment:
Unalienable individual rights must be defended on rational grounds? Yes, behind the scenes. But up front, out here in the field of everyday life, those grounds must be summed up in one or two, maybe three at most, simple, straight forward, punch-in-the-face sentences, easily understood, easily remembered and stated, nearly NO thinking needed. In the meantime, how 'bout this, NOW: No initiation of physical force, or there will be physical repercussions.
We need NO legislation for that. The difference between initiation and response is flat out in the face of any adult. No excuse, legislation or no legislation. That FLAT OUT is LAW! That has been written, but ignored as per pseudo-morality and pseudo-law. Let's bring it back, without warning to a world full of knowing CROOKS! Let's hammer all of them.
Post a Comment