Rights vs. Privileges

In law school, my Constitutional Law professor asked us to define the word rights, as in "What are the rights we possess?". As an intellectual exercise, it is a worthwhile one, even if often times the courts and legislatures in our country fail to differentiate the two. Still, I think that the distinction is not only possible, but necessary. 

Rights are God-given and inalienable. In other words, we are born with them (or some might even argue, conceived with them, but that's another topic for a different post) and they cannot be taken away from us. The Declaration of Independence recognized some of those rights--life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness--and the U.S. Constitution enumerates others. But neither of those documents grants us the rights that we possess by virtue of our birth on this earth.

Privileges, on the other hand, essentially amount to permissions granted to us by government. When the government affords us the ability or authority to do something, it can also take it away. Thus, when we receive our driver's license, we are subject to the whims of the state on whether we can keep it. 

These two distinct concepts are often conflated intentionally to muddy the waters, but there's a simple way to differentiate between the two. A right is incapable of jutting up against another right. Privileges don't have that, ahem, privilege. To illustrate this point, consider the right to free speech. My right to speak extends as far as I can stretch it, up until the point where it would interfere with your right to speak. Thus, I cannot use my right to free speech to silence you, nor can you use your right to silence me. We can both speak at each other and not accomplish a whole lot, but we are both still free to speak.

On the other hand, a privilege that is often branded as a right is health care access, specifically to prescription birth control. When the Department of Health and Human Services provided an exemption to numerous companies that held sincere religious or moral objections to providing birth control for employees, people shrieked at the shift in policy. But as the government giveth, so the government taketh away. The very requirement that companies provide birth control to employees was a government privilege enacted through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it is more commonly known.

One of the high-minded debates that goes on in law schools and other academic circles, then, is what happens when rights run up against privileges? And today, in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear those very arguments. This is "the gay wedding cake" case, as it's colloquially known. However, the stakes in this case make it abundantly clear: "[it's] not about the cake."

This case pits the freedom of conscience embedded in our nation's founding against the government-granted dignity provided by anti-discrimination laws. For proof of the former, look no further than the thousands of people who fled England and Europe in pursuit of religious freedom to found America. For the importance of the latter, we can look to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and cases like Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States. In other words, no matter the outcome of the case, this nation stands to lose a large part of its identity.

A lot of people say that we have to think and speak and act a certain way. Whether it's believing that everyone stand for the national anthem, or the idea that a bakery open to the public ought to bake a cake for same-sex ceremonies, the central theme appears to be that a person’s thoughts and opinions are no longer his own. To think differently is to be intolerant. And tolerance above all else has become the end goal for many in society. Nonconformity is the new pariah, and there are plenty of Joseph McCarthys out there to cast aspersions on those who will not tow the lion.

It's easy to say that Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips is wrong and is simply using religion to discriminate. But people with such a simplistic view of the situation do not understand the battle going on within Phillips's conscience when he has to tell a gay couple he cannot make a custom wedding cake for them. The Bible tells us that the two greatest commandments are to love God with all of our heart, mind, and soul, and to love our neighbor as ourself (Matthew 22:35-40; Mark 12:28-34). But the Bible also tells Christians to live apart from sinful desires and to put on our new selves in the image of God (Ephesians 4:17-24). And for many Christians, although same-sex marriage is now a legal reality in the United States, it is still a sin against God (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9-11). Therefore, forcing someone to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony by baking a cake--a symbolic and edible representation of the union--is to force that person into celebrating a sin, and thereby violate his or her conscience.

In the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court ruled that schools cannot force students to pledge allegiance to the flag (much to the chagrin of many Republican politicians today, I'm sure). The Court's reasoning is something that can serve as a beacon of hope amidst this tidal wave of social tolerance washing over us:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

Our dignity does not lie in the privileges granted to us by government, or on the misguided hope that we can have our cake and eat it too. Trusting in government to provide us with dignity will only set us up for a greater fall down the road, when it's no longer convenient for us to be dignified. Instead, we should find our sense of worth in the rights that God bestows on us from birth. Only when we recognize the value that He sees in us will we begin to see the value in each other, and that cannot be given to us by government.

Small Government Conservatism is Not Possible from Today's GOP

The Republican Party has some problems. For a political party that claims to be the party of smaller government, they sure have a funny way of showing it. First, they shut out the eventual Libertarian Party candidate from the GOP primary debates, even though he had two terms' experience governing in a Democrat state where he balanced the budget without raising taxes. Then, Dr. No himself, the stalwart of Constitutional conservatism, is largely ignored by the media during his primary run. Finally, they nominate for the presidential campaign the man who laid the groundwork for Obamacare.

It's more than fair to say that Republicans care about reducing the size and scope of government about as much as a hoarder cares about a single dirty sock on the floor. So why do people who claim they want government to be smaller continue to vote for candidates that show no loyalty to those same ends? A case of battered wife syndrome? or simply a fear that the "other party" is that much worse? As I have said before, a vote for the "lesser of two evils" is still a vote for evil.

The major source of the problem as I see it stems from the belief that the GOP is the party for Christians. And it's easy to see why that is the perception. When your biggest social issue is abortion you kind of paint yourself into a corner. Now, abortion is a difficult issue to tackle (as a libertarian I find myself constantly falling on either side of the aisle due to the question of when life begins) that unfortunately tries to devolve into a simple black-and-white argument. But by no means should it come to define a political party's entire platform.

Another huge pet cause of the modern GOP is American imperialism. While officially called "nation building" and "spreading democracy", America's current foreign policy amounts to nothing more than the Philippine-American War circa the age of aircraft carriers and drones.

So we have the Christian moralists and the hawkish neo-conservatives trying to find common ground in a candidate. Unfortunately, neither of those things fit with a small-government mentality. It is impossible to force morality on people through legislation, and it is even more impossible to run a global war machine and keep a small budget.

Over the coming years, so-called conservatives need to make a choice: will they be sincere in their pledge of wanting smaller government, will they continue to make decisions in the lives of others, or will they perpetuate a culture of war-making? I know what I will choose, and I have a few reasons why a lot more people should embrace the same.

A lot of people like to say they have no interest in politics or government. (That's too bad, since the government takes a lot of interest in us.) Even so, interests seem to be piqued during election cycles. Going back the last few presidential elections, though, there hasn't been a lot of difference between the winning candidate and the other major party's platform. George Bush was the Republican candidate in 2000 and 2004, but he also brought us an education boondoggle and the biggest healthcare spending increase since the 1960's. Barack Obama wanted to end the War in Iraq but began conflicts in numerous other countries. He also has continued a policy of spying on American citizens. Neither had a record that is worthy of defending, which is why our election cycles of late have focused on negative campaigning against the opposing candidates.

It has always struck me as strange that people who proclaim the love of Christ would follow it up with bombing runs against foreigners and campaigns to make everyone righteous via government fiat. In my mind, Jesus would prefer people to follow him willingly. So it makes as little sense for the religious right to force people to live a certain way as it makes for progressives to force people to live a certain way.*

The other thing about the GOP attempting to have a large social agenda is that it grows the size of government. If you try to make abortion illegal, every time someone would try to have one there would be a circus of bureaucracy trying to implement it. Was she raped? Fill out this form and take a test. Oh, she wasn't raped? You're under arrest and we're going to trial. Every step in the process amounts to more paperwork and more tax dollars being spent than are already in Planned Parenthood's coffers.

If the religious right wants to make an impact in people's lives, they should lead by example. Preach smaller government while practicing private charity. Change people's lives through individual action, not threat of punishment. As the saying goes, you can catch more flies with honey than with governor (*or vinegar, even). We need to show that greater individual liberty is the way to bring about more positive changes in American lives.

Many of the religious right like to say that this country was founded on Christian morals. I used to count myself among the group that believed that. But Christian morals no more belong to America than to England. One of the founding principles of this country is, however, freedom of religion.  It is beneficial to society for people to live a moralistic life. But the highest moral we, as a country of dozens if not hundreds of religions, can live by is respecting everyone's God-given rights to life, liberty, and property.

This same idea goes for our country abroad. Do we really think we are going to convert Muslims to democracy or even Christianity by bombing them, their parents, their children, their cousins at a wedding? Our mission abroad, if anything, should be to protect only those American interests that are directly in danger. And long, drawn-out wars do nothing to protect American interests; in fact, they make us more vulnerable over the long term by spreading our forces thin. The United States are supposed to be the greatest military might in the world, but we sure don't act like it when we can't even "win" a war after ten years.

Where does this entire post take us then? Only by pushing for candidates who truly believe in small government will we be able to roll back the government interventions into everyone's lives and start to make differences in individual lives. We cannot succumb to desires to control or manipulate the lives of others, for that is neither what Christ taught nor is it the foundation of this great nation.

Before you move on from the 2012 presidential election and go the next three and a half to four years largely ignoring politics, let me leave you with two quotes:

"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
- George Washington

Christians and small government conservatives have a decision to make moving forward. They can continue policies that limit the freedom of others, or they can practice what they preach. I choose the latter.

*updated on 11/12/12.

What Does It Mean to Be Free?

I think as a basis for freedom we can agree that both life and liberty constitute the foundation. For one cannot be free if he is enslaved to death or another man. Therefore self-ownership--to be the master of one's own domain--is essential to freedom. It is important to note that self-ownership means that the results of one's labor are his to do with as he wishes. So individual property is an equal tenet to the foundation of freedom.

But with this basic foundation, what creates the walls of Castle Freedom? When colonials were creating the form of government we now know in the United States today, they realized they were giving up part of their freedom voluntarily to "form a more perfect union". But in return, many states required certain protections for the many freedoms (they called them "rights") possessed besides those named within the Constitution. They drew up the Bill of Rights as a list of the rights which we keep and the government may not infringe upon. The ninth amendment is an especially important one for what it states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This means that we may have many more rights than those expressed within the United States Constitution.

But overall, it seems pretty straightforward, right? Freedom of speech means we have the right to speak and believe what we want and cannot be persecuted by the government for what we say. And yet throughout our history the federal government on down to local governments have passed laws infringing upon that right. Currently, hate crimes legislation is nothing more than punishing someone for their beliefs.

Well, what about the right to keep and bear arms, our second amendment? Even leaving out the exception of catastrophic weaponry such as nuclear and chemical weapons, everything from handguns to automatic rifles have been heavily regulated and even outright banned in our country. Fortunately, a few key Supreme Court decisions (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) have pushed back against government restrictions in recent years.

At least we can freely associate with whomever we choose, correct? Au contraire, dear reader. Laws  denying individuals the right to marry based on their skin color or sexual orientation have plagued our society, and prostitution--sex between consenting individuals based on the transaction of money--is outlawed in all but a few places in our country.

So why is it that these freedoms and so many more are trampled upon on a daily basis? One possible reason is fear; people are afraid of what unchecked freedom may result in. They worry that if restrictions and regulations are not put in place, then people will abuse their freedoms. But to be free does not mean one is free from responsibility of his actions, but that he is free to take responsibility. A person who infringes on the most inherent rights of another (remember our foundation of life, liberty, and property) is held accountable for such. But my right to swing my arms ends just in front of your face, to paraphrase a common saying. So I am not entitled to use my freedom in such a way that in inhibits the freedoms of another person, and that is the crux of the issue.

Many people assume that with the freedom of speech comes the freedom to not be offended. That, to some extent, is the basis for hate crimes laws--prosecuting individuals more heavily based on their thoughts about the victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It also seems to be the go-to defense of many people who hear something that they don't agree with, or that upsets them. But just as I have the freedom to speak my mind, you have the freedom to not listen.

With the freedom of religion--the ability to worship who or what we believe in--comes the freedom from religion: no state-sanctioned or sponsored religion. The freedom to associate with whomever one wants does not mean that a person can be forced to associate with an individual with whom they do not want.

Another reason society may be willing to place restrictions on freedom is due to a misplaced sense of justice. They rightly believe that all men (as in humanity) are created equally. However, in our society, some people are born into rich environments and some into poor. It is from there that they feel it is fair, equitable, just to provide assistance to individuals who were born into less-than-favorable circumstances. So they feel that taking the property (most often in the form of money) from wealthy individuals or organizations and giving it to the impoverished is justifiable.

An extension of the freedom of association is the freedom to voluntarily donate one's property (wealth) to an individual or organization of his choosing. The key, though, is that it is voluntary. It goes back to our main tenet of self-ownership. If a man does not have control over himself and his property then he is not free. To stake a claim on another man's property is to exert unjust power over him and ultimately, infringing on his freedoms.

We should strive to create a world and society that expand freedom for all, but not at the expense of taking freedoms from others. Even our forefathers made the mistake of establishing freedoms for some while denying them to others. But that does not negate the principles stated within the Bill of Rights. Freedom from coercion is what we should strive for. We must primarily recognize that our rights are not granted to us by government (for that which is given by man can be taken away), but we are endowed with them upon birth. And it is those freedoms that both make us human and make us equal.