Your general proposition is that rights are not objective, but rather defined by circumstance. In this view, rights depend on which government is managing society, or what cultural norms dictate, or what the majority votes. And rights are fluid ideas that change with the rulers of society.
This is a deeply flawed understanding of rights.
Rights are objective. They are absolute. They exist either as endowed by your Creator, or by the nature of man, depending on your religious views. Hence, the term natural rights.
Realize how unqualified this notion of rights is - even if you were one of only two inhabitants of this planet, even if there were no countries, even if there was no civilization, even if there was no family, even if there was no Constitution, you would still have natural rights.
The notion of rights is simply a way of saying that an individual has an absolute claim to possess and control his own person and his property. Thus, all rights, whether it be the right of life, right to free speech, right of free practice of religion, or right to bear arms, are property rights.
Now you might be wondering why I said there need to be two people in the world for rights to exist. The reason is that when I say that an individual has a right to do action x or y, I mean only that it would be unjust for another person to prevent doing x or y by physical force, or threat thereof. Rights are only things that can be taken away. As such, if you were alone in the world, the whole concept of rights is illogical because no other person would be
present to take them away.
Since rights are only things that can be taken away by others, it is logically consistent to claim that you have a right to life, to do with your property what you want, to say what you want, and to worship whatever god you choose. After all, someone can hold a gun to your head and actually prevent you from doing all those things.
However, it is illogical to claim you have a right to an education. How can someone use force or threat thereof to take away your education if you don’t already possess one? It is similarly illogical to claim a right to health care, a “just” wage, or “fair” trade.
An important point here is that the existence of rights is completely different from their recognition and defense by others. I have a right to life, but someone may not recognize my right to life and try to beat me to death. My right to life still exists whether or not he succeeds in beating me to death or not. He simply does not recognize it.
The question of who will defend my rights is the central question of politics. Certainly I can defend my own rights. I can go buy a gun and try to defend against anyone who doesn’t recognize my rights. Or I can make a pact with my neighbors to help each other defend our individual rights in times of need – hence a militia is created. Or I can hire someone to defend my rights – bodyguards, mercenaries, security agencies, etc.
The founders of this great republic decided that in order to defend natural rights (which are objective and exist whether of not others recognize them) a government must be formed. It would be much easier for each man to pursue happiness if he did not have the constant worry about bandits, poachers, and thugs, and so the government was created. Lest you thinking I’m making all this up, straight out of the Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or
to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
So rights do in fact exist without governments. The job of the individuals comprising government is to secure these rights.
When you say, "Do you then have a natural right to live in a civilized society? A society that governs itself by laws and a constitution? I don't think you do unless you agree to abide by such conditions...." you are confounding laws, which are a product of society, and rights, which are natural. Maybe there was once a time in which laws existed to defend natural rights. But it is rarely the case today.
Owning a gun is a natural right. Using a gun in an act of aggression is a violation of another's natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Using a gun in an act of self-defense to defend one's own life, liberty, and property is the basis of civilized society. |
