Sep
10
On Rights
Filed Under Civil Liberties | 2 Comments
In a recent column about Western governments’ treatment of terrorists, the incomparable Thomas Sowell writes:
So many “rights” have been conjured up out of thin air that many people seem unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically correct pieties. If you don’t meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then the Geneva Convention doesn’t protect you. If you are not an American citizen, then the rights guaranteed to American citizens do not apply to you.
First of all, let me say that Dr. Sowell is someone who I greatly admire and with whom I agree a great deal. However, the argument above, while in the context of rightly argued condemnation of the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, is misguided when explaining the nature of rights.
The beauty of the American Revolution and the genius of our founding as a nation was the concept of natural, inalienable rights. These rights exist independent of government and its laws. We institute the government to protect these rights against those who would violate them. Therefore, government exists because of our rights, not the other way around.
To say that rights “derive from explicit laws” is to confirm the worst fears of those who opposed the bill of rights when the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was being debated. Many were worried that if amendments were added guaranteeing our right to free spech or due process, that the bill of rights would be viewed as an exhaustive list, and that rights that were not included on such a list could only be granted at the whim of politicians. To assuage such fears, the 9th Amendment was added, which reads:
The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If we are to concede to the viewpoint that rights can only be valid if endorsed by written laws, then the statists will have the authority to trample individual liberty in countless forms. Constitutions like those of the United States were meant to give explicit rights only to governments; that is governments may only do what is permitted to them by the constitution written by free individuals. Individuals (and state and local governments) hold all other rights.
My right to freedom of speech and worship does not come from the 1st Amendment - it is only codified by it. Likewise for my right to bear arms. However, if we are to operate on the assumption that my rights are only derived from what is explicitly stated in the constitution or by statute, then where is my right to trade and commerce with my fellow citizens? My right to donate to the charity of my choosing? My right to have children? My right to freedom of association and movement?
Nonsense. My right to these things are inherent by virtue of my existent. They are “self-evident.” No law can erase them.
Battles over the right to bear arms have largely focused on the wording and intent of the 2nd Amendment. This too is misguided. The right to personal protection is a natural right given by our creator, and exists regardless of what some law or circuit court says.
That is not to say that Dr. Sowell is incorrect in his assertion that Megrahi’s release was a gross miscariage of justice and an offense to the innocent. Nor that enemy combatants should pay, in many cases harshly and swiftly, for their attacks on our country. However, this is because such individuals, like any petty criminal down the street, did indeed have rights, but that by virtue of their actions they lost them. This is the argument conservatives should use that not only keeps Americans safe and our system of justice intact, but preserves our freedom.
If we fall into the trap that the statist has set that government may do whatever it wants, but that the rights of individuals are restricted to what is spelled out by law, then we have already lost the battle against a leviathan government. Where is the explicit right to property? To dissent? There is none. Nor do we need it to know these rights exist.
Jan
19
Over the weekend I saw Gran Torino starring libertarian Clint Eastwood. I went in with high expectations and must say they were met. It had everything a good movie should - drama, comedy, good characters, and creative profanity. But what was best was how the movie soundly repudiated the liberal themes that permeate a lot of mainstream cinema today. Gran Torino is chock full of pro-American, pro-military, pro-gun messages, all centering around a politically-incorrect protagonist who regularly throws out racial epithets.
The short version of the film is the story of Walt, an older, white Korean War veteran whose neighborhood is becoming increasingly populated by younger and poorer Asian immigrants. Originally hostile towards his new neighbors (the term ‘gook’ is used frequently throughout), he befriends a young teenage boy named Thao who lives next door. Walt becomes a good influence on Thao and shows him how to work, find a job, and curse with the best of ‘em. However, some of Thao’s family are members of a gang and want him to join, trying to take him by force if necesarry. The movie follows Walt’s attempts to protect Thao from the gang, using scorching profanity, violence, and his constitutionally-protected right to bear arms.
The most obvious anti-liberal theme in Gran Torino is its depiction of gun ownership. The film accurately portrays the reality of the gun situation in the real world. Both Walt and the gang bangers use, store, and own guns in ways many liberals would love to outlaw. But who would benefit from this? The criminals, of course, who would never follow such a law in the first place. As pro-gun advocates have maintained, gun laws only harm the innocent by disarming law-abiding citizens.
Secondly, the movie puts to rest the absurd liberal argument that gun ownership breeds violence. The mantra guns don’t kill people, people kill people rings true. Violent people will be violent whether they use guns, knives, sticks, or stones. Remember, the most heinous murder in modern American history was committed with box cutters and airplanes. We’re not going to outlaw those, are we? It is the gun that makes equal the physical disparity between a muscular twenty something gang member and a frail, 68 year old retiree. If left unchecked, barbarians will steal and assault at will. It is consequences that prevent thugs from committing violence, and there are few things like an armed and self-defensive populace to bring about consequences.
A theme in Gran Torino I also liked was the method by which two cultures meshed, that being the culture of the Hmong immigrants and the native Michigander, Walt. While liberals would prefer legislation, banking regulations, and demonizing western culture as the source of all evil as a method of cultural reconciliation, the film shows how even the most stubborn people can mesh over common values like family, hard work, accountability, and good food. Thao doesn’t earn Walt’s trust by berating him on the evils of the white race or American exceptionalism. No, he does this by showing his respect for elders and his work ethic. Likewise, Walt does not come to be accepted among Thao’s family by apologizing for his patriotism, military service, or political-incorrect vernacular. He does this by standing in solidarity against violent thugs, of any race, and by partaking in the delicious Hmong cuisine that the family leaves at his doorstep.
Finally, it’s worth noting a little jab that Gran Torino takes at those who would antagonize our military and glorify collectivist dictators abroad. Begrudging the escalating racial tension in his community, Walt asks Thao’s sister, Sue, how the Hmong people ended up in suburban Detroit. She explains that when in Southeast Asia, the Hmong were anti-communist and supported the Americans. When the U.S. withdrew, the communists began slaughtering the Hmong people. She then explains that the Lutherans were instrumental in bringing many Hmong people to the U.S.
So let’s get this right, communism: bad, religious-right types: good? Definitely not your typical Hollywood mantra.
Political dissection aside, Gran Torino is an awesome flick. Its a lot of fun, and it makes you think. It also gives me hope that I’ll be as spry as Clint Eastwood when I’m 78. Get out and see it, and take your liberal friends!
