On Natural Rights

I wrote this as a response to an essay by a liberal supporter of Barrak Obama. His argument, in short, is that the government does not confer rights and its proper role is to safeguard them, and that the Republicans and many Democrats are “radical” in their adoption of the stance that rights can be given or taken away by the Government. The use of the word “radical” is clearly intended as an attack on their credibility, something I took issue with; as well as his typically-liberal argument that it’s ok for the State to limit freedoms as long as they’re not the ones he really cares about or they don’t limit him personally more then he feels comfortable with. My response is an attempt to re-frame the issue in terms of the actual function of State power in the United states and the disconnect between the popular rhetoric of rights and the reality of systematic repression.

For the most part i agree with the main point of the post, governments do not give us rights, we are born with them. In fact in most societies at most points in history, including the here and now, the actions of States can best be characterized as limiting freedom rather then safeguarding or conferring it.. In other words, the institution of the State is fundamentally opposed to the institution of natural rights because the state gains power as the people lose it and vis versa. As the old anarchist proverb puts it, “the degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free”.

The American experiment, as envisioned by the founders, was based on the proposition that the state could be restrained and limited through a constitutional system whereby its powers were strictly delineated and it was explicitly forbidden from granting itself additional powers. That experiment has manifestly been a failure since the entire history of the American nation can be best understood as a series of parallel territorial and government expansions as the United States grew from being a small nation built around a federation of 13 semi-autonomous regions tied together with a relatively weak central government into a massive empire covering almost half a continent based on a strong central government that is active in all aspects of life and the economy.

In short, the nation which is described in the constitution and the nation in which we live are two very, very different places. This should surprise no one, expecting the State to regulate itself and limit its own power was, at best., an exercise in political naivete. At worst it was a cynical ploy on the part of some of our more authoritarian founders to get the fiercely independent American colonists to accept a strong federal government. Men like James Madison for whom the primary role of government was not the preservation of liberty, but “to protect Property from the Majority”, ie the preservation of the wealth and power of the economic and political elites at the expense of all other segments of society. The anti-federalists saw the ruse for what it was and fought the constitution tooth and nail, and we can thank their persistence for the Bill of Rights, without which this particular battle would have been lost a long time ago. Even so, the US Constitution has been a dead letter for a very long time, it’s only real value at this point is sentimental. The federal government has never been really and truly bound by the strict limitations on State power laid out in the Bill of Rights – within a very few years of the constitutions passage Anti-federalists were being held without trial for sedition. And that’s childs play compared to the campaigns of mass-murder and State-terror that were directed against anarchists and other anti-authoritarians in the early part of the last century. Our kids learn about McCartheyism in school – because wealthy hollywood types were affected – but the Palmer Raids and the Red Scare barely get a footnote.

All of which is a rather long-winded way of saying that it is difficult to defend a free society when we do not, in fact, have one to defend. Emma Goldman made this same point much more eloquently then I at the trial that eventually led to her being stripped of her citizenship in 1908. The Republicans, and most Democrats for that matter, would like our society to be even less free. Their efforts should be opposed, no doubt. But those efforts do not make them “radicals” and your use of the term to describe them is disingenuous at best. The word “Radical” refers to one who goes to the root of the issue, not simply one who is an extremist. (Even the term extremist is problematic, one mans wild-eyed extremist is another mans pragmatic thinker, depending mostly on context and popular biases)..

I, sir, am a Radical, and in a society like ours where most discussions of political issues and theory are incredibly shallow i consider it a point of pride that I make a conscious effort to dig a bit deeper and look for the roots of the issues I write on. The Republicans are not Radicals in any sense of the term, they are worshipers of Authority and the State, a position which places them counter to the stated intent of the Declaration of Independence and most American political theory but entirely in line with the actual practice of American political power over the last two centuries. The disconnect between the ideals that we as a nation love to proclaim and the way American politics actually run goes right to the core of your article and of the entire debate over terrorism, rights, and what the response from civil society should be.

You are right to argue that a sane response to terrorism must be careful, nuanced, and respectful of those few rights which we as a people maintain, but when you talk about “limiting” rights you walk a very fine line indeed. So when you write in one of your responses

“We, as citizens, give up many rights – and that is appropriate. We may have the right to pursue our happiness, but not necessarily at the expense of others. The system of rights that we enjoy in America today, and in America’s history, is a system of compromises. Although the Bill of Rights may grant you a right to free speech, this right is not absolute. The Constitution grants me the right to bear arms, but how far does that extend? The freedom of assembly is impinged by numerous regulations about applying for permits and such. If I travel on the subways, I am told that I am granting permission to have my bag searched. Even these explicit Constitutional rights are compromised”

You have already lost me. The bill of Rights doesn’t “grant” anything, it recognizes pre-exzisting rights and prohibits the government from interfering with their exercise. Strangely, it seems you wrote something similar in your original article, but in your response here you clearly contradict yourself and take the Republican line. As for the rest of your paragraph, the only possible abuse of Free Speech is not speaking. Period. The freedom of Assembly according to the constitution should be unlimited, the first amendment is a clear blanket prohibition against limitations of its exercise by the State, and all the permitting processes and limitations that the State places on its exercise are therefore unconstitutional and illegal under what is supposed to be the highest law of the land. And riding on the subway most definitely should not imply ‘consent’ to be searched. By conceding limitations on our rights you have already conceded to the Authoritarians in both parties who would like nothing better then to see America become the newest incarnation of Roman Republicanism instead of the Athenian Democracy it should have been. Freedom has to be absolute or else it isn’t freedom, it’s a less egregious form of slavery.

As for me, your rallying call of “Bigger Cages, Longer Chains!” fails to move me. Better luck next time.

Posted: November 9th, 2007 under culture war, politrix.
Comments: 1

Comments