JUST JACK
On the subject of “rights,” perhaps it is time to rediscover the difference between rights endowed in us by our creator and societal norms that we devise and impose upon ourselves. It may be worth while to also review the relationship between people and their governments and the issue of “rights.” This may be a reminder for many. Unfortunately, it may be an initial lesson in basic American principles for others. Stick with me, there is a reason for the discussion.
Our Declaration of Independence, the document that makes us unique among the nations of the world, firmly established that “rights” flow from the creator to man and that government has only the authority and power delegated to it by man. Government cannot and does not have “rights” and government cannot bestow rights; animal, vegetable or mineral. Governments exist for the primary purpose of protecting the rights of individuals and to perform functions designated by citizens, which are more properly executed by a central authority. Citizens delegate limited authority to governments, but never surrender their individual rights.
Rights are basic to our proper existence as people. “Life,” “Liberty,” “Property” and “Pursuit of Happiness” are not lofty phrases used as an excuse to break away from a king who would not listen. These are the core principles of a free people exercising self-determination. Without the endowed rights of man we are little more than available serfs to whomever would place us into subjugation. Rights are universal because for any one person to have a “right,” all persons must have that right, and it is the responsibility of all to protect those rights for each other. Rights cannot be created or destroyed, only honored and protected or ignored and lost.
In modern society, we tend to confuse our understanding of rights with societal norms. Societies have the ability to establish and impose norms of behavior on the members of society so long as those norms do not impose restrictions on basic rights. Some examples might be the privilege to operate a car established by social norm. There is a “right” to own a car but no “right” to drive a car. There is a right to own a gun, but societal norm may determine where guns may be fired so long as the underlying right is not impacted. Marriage is a societal norm but not a “right.” Unmarried individuals living together is a right even if it may be at odds with social norms. The interesting thing about societal norms is that any individual has the inherent ability to violate any norm but that society has an equal ability to punish behavior that is contrary to established norms.
This brings us to the bottom line: when we confuse “rights” with societal norms we also tend to confuse the role of government. Take health care for example. There is no “right” to health care. Without doctors there would be no health care. Government cannot force medical professionals to provide care for anybody. A doctor, dentist or nurse gained their education and experience by paying their own way. Hospitals and offices are paid for by individuals or corporations and do not belong to the government. Government has no more authority to force doctors to see patients at a specific cost than it does to control the practice of plumbers, auto mechanics or dry cleaners, or to force you to pay the bills and debts of another person. Every individual should have equal opportunity to access the services provided to the public but each individual must also be responsible and accountable to make required compensation for that service. A basic fact of life is that while “All men are created equal,” not all men are equal in everything forever. There really is no “free lunch” in life and the norm of society is that if you want service you must pay. For “rights” the only payment required is the continued exercise of the rights and the protection of a right for all.
The next time you say “But, I have a right to …” please stop and consider if you are really talking about a right.
Jack Hamilton can be reached at gradiver@wavecable.com.
