Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Grants, Rights and Other Distinctions…
Many a time, I have gotten into discussions with my lefty friends about the Second Amendment. It usually goes something like this:
Friend: Are you for gun rights?
Me: Yes!
Friend: Would you be okay with machine guns?
The issue with the any such conversation is the context of the questioning. Is the Second Amendment a right or a grant?
When one “receives” a grant, then one can have the conversation about the extent of the grant, the specifics, etc. Is the grant for one gun or a hundred? Is the grant for one bullet or 15 or 100? Does the gun shoot one bullet per trigger pull or 10 or 50?
Is the ability to carry a gun openly more or less convenient for women and disabled people? Are guns better or worse for minorities?
While these are good questions, they still are questions that arise from the premise that gun ownership is a grant; that there is someone or something greater than us who is benevolent enough “allow” us to have guns. And hence we get to negotiate with this benevolent entity… but only after they are being nice by letting us have our guns.
We do this again and again in life. We think of agreed-upon rules and regulations as necessary, as if we have no right to our freedoms. Whether it be speed limits on highways or expiration dates on food products, we operate from the “grant” premise — and act as if we should be grateful for “someone looking after us” — by protecting us from ourselves.
Should there be a limit on speed on all roads in the country? Certainly not. Can a community set limits near, say school zones or residential communities? Not as a negation of our rights to drive at any speed, but by self-policing? Sure.
When we delegate our freedoms to government, we are letting our rights just go away. And as happened in Europe, the first step towards taking away rights is to start treating them as grants. Once you have people start talking about rights as if they were grant, then we are clearly on the path to relinquish our rights.
So the appropriate answer to “Are you in favor of speed limits?” is “Who has the right to enforce it upon me?” And to “How do you feel about machine guns?” is “Who has the right to take it away from me? By what authority? You and whose army?”
While we continue to operate from the premise of “grants,” we are just arguing over degrees of allowance. In order to secure true freedom, one has to get the distinction between rights and grants. If I am a free citizen, then I should not have to negotiate on the degrees of allowances.
This is the truth that is “common knowledge” to all libertarians but not always — I think — to conservatives.
If we are free, then we do not “seek” grants for guns, how fast we drive, who we marry, or any other matter. While laws exist, they only exist to ensure individual liberty. They do not exist to “grant” anything to the citizenry.
Published in General
Agreed, Godel, that it would be foolish to ignore the threat of slippery slopes. They are not 100% certain, but arguments don’t need to be absolutely certain to be logical and strong. History is full of slippery slopes.
Life is full of need for prudential, circumstantial, and uncertain judgments. Rules and rights can rarely be absolute.
The distinction between rights and grants is a good one. But I think it primarily regards the burden of proof, as derived from the locus of authority. This tells us where an authority begins, not where it ends. It defines the premises of prudential claims.
In any case, authority is a concept which depends as much on action as on design. It doesn’t matter what protections law offers if citizens will allow distortions and abrogations, as we have. A threat of war can buy a lot of corruption.
Government is an exchange and contest of powers. It will always involve competition for control. Authority relies on power, even when it is not defined by power. So citizens who wish to be generally free of government must dominate it.
That freedom/power begins with weapons. Natural rights are not guaranteed by God or nature.
As Tom has the option to leave MA and move to VA where open carry is permitted, the association he has with the state of MA is voluntary.
FWIW, I disagree that we have devolved into a simple democracy. I see very little evidence to support that claim.
Agreed, but I’d just add that the rules one is implicitly forced to abide should be as few as possible, and relate to direct violations of other’s rights. All others rules — or sets of rules — should be voluntary and explicitly opted-in to.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. Rights are not absolute and not every limit on them transforms them into grants.
My freedom of speech does not extend to yelling to such an extent it deprives others of a restful night. That does not mean the government has granted me the right to speak but that it needs to be balanced by the rights of others.
Are my rights directly violated if a crack house emerges next to my children’s school? You could argue the crack addict has the right to ingest crack but his actions have consequences that impact others, no?
I do not believe a society could function in the manner you describe.
Klaatu – your yelling is merely a disturbing the peace action. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The right to arms is jsut the same. It does not give you the right to walk down the street and shoot people randomly, nor even because you don’t like them. People have been upset with cops lately not because they are armed but because they have deployed deadly force without good cause.
People often quote a false statement that “you don’t have the right to yell ‘FIRE’ in a theatre.” Of course you do! What you can’t do is cause disruption maliceously. If the theatre IS, indeed, on fire, it is actually prudent to warn the people that there is a fire, and you would be remiss to not do so.
Talk of “rights” is problematic from the start. What a person usually means by “rights” is “I win.” If I have a right to free speech, you can’t shut me up. If I have a right to bear arms, you can’t punish me for bearing them. And so on.
Now, in the real world, all rights, even the right to one’s own life, is limited by the needs of the society. Some have been mentioned in the comments, such as safety needs vis-a-vis driving. But other rights are limited for other reasons not having to do with physical safety. Free speech is limited (and should be) by laws against defamation. Property rights, e.g., in one’s home, are limited by the effects on property values of neighboring owners, hence zoning and homeowner’s association covenants.
But even one’s freedom and life might be requisitioned by the society in time of need, e.g., military conscription if the country were invaded, quarantine for ebola.
Now, not every person will agree that these restrictions on freedoms are appropriate, but it’s hard to imagine a sensible person who doesn’t understand that rights must always be tempered by societal needs. The constitution, as Justice Jackson once said, is not a suicide pact.
The person who eats too much has consequences and impact on others. What’s the difference between eating food and using crack if both have impacts on others? It seems like the difference is how uncomfortable the idea makes you.
How is making me pay to leave the country an obstruction to anyone else’s liberty? (taking for your example of yelling at someone).
Man-with-an-Axe
Guess you and I view rights differently. I see defamation as injury to another person falsely. That is not part of freedom of speech, but an action with consequences. Rights continue to be things that cannot be modified by democracy. Even if 80% of a society viewed being armed as not acceptable, it remains the right of each individual to be armed.
Governments often disagree with the exercise of individual rights. They camoflage these objections in the guise of “safety” or “societal good”. What they mostly are doing naked weilding of power. Traffic laws are great examples. There is no scientific basis for the speed limits seen on roads – only some bureaucrat’s idea what it should be. Traffic lights, a mechanism to aid in creating an orderly – and efficient – flow of traffic, often these days have the yellow light time shortened – when a camera is installed. Yet scientific studies have demonstrated conclusively that prolonging the yellow light time would remove just about all the “red light” incursions.
When you want to rob someone – and you’re the government – you have to get creative.
I don’t see anything wrong with this. Why do you want to shut me up or prevent me from carrying weapons? (Did I mention I am the girl with a gun – oh man with an axe?)
The trouble with “greater good” is the abuse of it. On the good end of the greater good concept might be a quarantine for Ebola, but on the bad end lies Soda bans and magazine size restrictions.
If we give up on rights, then we are back in the grant s territory – where I am guessing you like to live. Under a free society – that is fine. “Grant zones” are OK with me, so long as I am not forced into it.
The difference is the level of impact on the rights of others. Comfort really does not play a role.
No one is making you pay to leave anywhere.
Let’s take this further. In an free society I advocate, the community can decide to get rid of the crack house using explicit consent or just free market – you can buy the property from the current owners – probably at an excellent price. Absent authoritative Government, you have choices.
On the other hand we have the “grants based” benevolent government right now, that can put a Section 8 housing right next to your kids school. If you call it a crack house, you may be fined for racism, you may be forced to do business with them etc., etc. Because, benevolent Government has a “higher moral authority” than you, you ignorant serf!
OR they can just use eminent domain or asset forfeiture to just take your house away (you ignorant serf!); or zone your kids to go to a different school.
The question becomes, who gets to make the final decision?
Delegating rights is an everyday thing we do; but when it is to a monopoly – then it is not by choice. I have no right to prevent you from giving away your rights — go for it! However you have no right to give away mine.
Yelling is a means of speaking, no? You have the right to speak, even to yell but that right needs to be balanced against the rights of others.
Rights are not absolute, that is the point I am trying to make.
The only reason democracy works is because people expect it to work; because people respect some amount of rights of others. But it is wrong to believe that democracy causes the better outcomes. It’s only as good as the expectations of the people.
There was a time when their was no democracy, and if you asked people then, they wouldn’t expect it to work. Contemporarily, people don’t expect democracy to work in Egypt, and thus it doesn’t work well there.
If people’s respect for rights continues to expand, there will likely become a time where people expect a non-monopoly form of self-government to work. For it to not work would be viewed as crazy as the president not relinquishing power after his term is up.
Explicit consent of whom? Does it have to be unanimous? What if the owner does not want to sell?
What monopoly are you speaking of?
So it’s utilitarianism then? If we did a meta analysis and found that sodas caused greater costs than the costs of legalized crack, what is the proper course of action?
Well on the one hand you have rights, but on the other hand the states have the police power which regulates these for the purpose of the general welfare, which is a significant reason why we have regulation at all concerning these rights.
So while I can agree that the state does not dispense rights, it also has a responsibility to the general welfare. The state doesn’t give you the right to own a gun, but it certainly can and should force you to prove you can wield it responsibly. Just as you getting a driver’s license doesn’t grant you the right to use an automobile, it ensures your responsible operation on the public roads. Requiring voter ID does not put the state in a position to grant you the right to vote, it rather ensures the responsible use of the franchise in ensuring that you are exercising your right to vote, and not someone else’s. The state that does not do these things it is derelict in its responsibilities to its citizens, and the state does willful harm in neglecting this duty.
So I must disagree. These laws which enshrine our rights do not exist for the purposes of individual liberty alone. They also do not (or at least should not) exist to turn rights into de facto grants through regulation. They exist to promote the general welfare and also respect these rights at the same time.
This is one of those fundamental issues about which you’ll never get the libertarians and conservatives to really agree. But I think there is a substantial common ground in saying that the Federal Government should not be involved.
It is not a question of cost, it is impact on the rights of others.
In fact, should the People let the government have guns?
What do you mean by explicit agreement? Direct democracy instead of representative forms? Or do you mean something deeper like ignoring laws you don’t explicitly agree with even if it’s the legitimate product of the the system you agreed to for sorting such things out?
So, we have “rights,” but the onus is on us to prove we are capable of using our rights? Doesn’t sound like a right anymore.
I don’t see how this is true. We don’t only have the rights specified in the first 10 Amendments. The Ninth Amendment hints at a very long list of rights of indeterminate length.
If one is specific enough, one could create a huge list of very narrow and trivial rights that are nonetheless rights, such as the right to wear a blue hat. These would be derived from the more fundamental and abstract rights to life, property, association, speech, thought, etc.
Use of a substance, food, drink, or drug doesn’t necessarily impact the rights of others.
It’s not an obligation to move. It’s an obligation to live according to the prevailing laws. If you don’t want to live under the prevailing laws then you have several options: persuade your fellow citizens to change the prevailing law, disregard the law and chance punishment, lead a revolt, or leave for someplace more to your liking. Why should the majority bve obligated to accommodate the dissenter?
Personally, I greatly value our system precisely for its ability to reasonably balance the viewpoint of the majority with the viewpoint of the individual. This balancing is possible because it’s based on truth, natural law, and an understanding of human nature.
Well, in a libertarian paradise, the roads would be private and the owners could set their owns terms, which may require licenses, or not. Then drivers would choose on which roads to travel.
These arguments would go more smoothly with our liberal friends if we could convince them that government is not the only or even the most effective arbiter of justice and aid. To say that government should not limit something is not to deny the need of limits. Before the advent of Big Government, we protected each other’s freedoms and property by other means; and we were not a disorganized bunch of vigilantes.
Society is not government. Justice is not law.
Except that Mike goes further than this. Kinda. Mike objects to political incorporation via elections; he’d prefer political incorporation via purchasing it.
We have the government we elect and tolerate. It’s our government at the end of the day. I’d say the onus is on them to govern correctly or get fired. This is why I want all these kinds of regulations happening on the lowest level possible. It’s a lot harder to trample the rights of individuals under the guise of the public good when one of them is your neighbor.
But I think we can all agree that people who own guns should know how to use them, and people who drive cards should know how to drive them, and all the rest. I’m not too particular on the details of how it gets done, but it is a legitimate function of government to see that it is done.