Resolving the Conservatism vs. Liberalism Conflict

Yeah, I know. It’s been a week and a half or so. I’ve been busy with other things. “Life” intrudes on “my life”.

Phlyer posted: A “right” is an ability that the government has the power to take from you, but not the authority.

Kriskrinkle responds: I find your definition of a right problematic. It seems to imply that the existence of an ability as a right depends on the existence of a government; that without a government there would be no rights.

That in turn seems to imply that if the members of an organized society formed, empowered, and authorized a government to take an ability “from you”, “you” would cease to have that ability as a right. (I suppose that’s kind of what happens when someone is sentenced to death or prison for a crime, but the someone initiated the string of events that led to the sentencing.)

It follows then, that if the members of an organized society formed, empowered and authorized a government to take the ability to live (for said government to kill them) of everyone born with blue eyes, those born with blue eyes wouldn’t have a right to life.

It also follows that if the members of two separately organized societies living on opposite sides of a river 8,000 years ago, each formed, empowered and authorized a government (in the form of a chief, war leader, tribal council, clan elders and so forth) to take the ability to live from those on the opposite side of the river, each side would not have the right to live in the eyes of the other, but would have the right to live in their own eyes.

Also, I find the term “the government” lacks clarity because there are multiple governments. I assume when most write “the government” they mean the Federal Government which ignores the existence of State, County, Municipal and other classes of “government” in the US, not to mention ignoring the existence of other governing bodies throughout the world and history.

I prefer the definition published by Samuel Johnson in his dictionary of the late 1700’s and of Noah Webster in his 1828 dictionary. They both defined a “right”, as a noun, as a “just claim”. Webster went on to say “Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal and public.”

As to “claim”, that would be an assertion that something is one’s due: “I have a natural (or unalienable) right to the life I was born with.”

As to “just”, that would mean in accord with morality or law (civil). “My claim to vote in local elections is “just” because I am of legal age and legal residency.” “My claim to the life I was born with is “just” because I have not breached the code of morality or law, for instance by murdering someone.”

Of course there are problems with this too because there are different codes of morality and differenct civil (legal) codes which might deny the right to life of everyone born with blue eyes, but I like it better as I can account for my natural rights without depending on the existence of a government. Also it allows for differentiation of rights which a lot of people seem to ignore.

Phlyer posted: The problem is that they then try to conflate ‘rights’ that the government can take away as being equivalent to those over which the government has no actual power. Thus, the ‘right’ to keep and bear arms is different from the ‘right’ to pursue happiness.

Kriskrinkle responds: “The government” (to use your term) has the authority and the power to infringe, but not eliminate, the right to pursue happiness, as do individuals, depending on the form the pursuit takes. If an individual’s pursuit of happiness involves being a serial killer, “the government” has the power and authority to infringe on that pursuit, as do those about to be victims of the effort.

Similarly, “the government” has the power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, but not to take it away since there are too many things that can be converted to arms.

Phlyer posted: There is a third category that is called a ‘right’ but which is not. These are “rights” that inherently require involuntary servitude from another. Thus, the ‘right’ to health care requires either that the doctors, nurses, X-ray technicians, etc. provide their skill and expertise for free (as well as facilities), or others must provide from the fruits of their own labors through taxation which means that they are in involuntary servitude for at least part of their working lives.

Kriskrinkle responds: Under my definition as noted further above, the “rights” in question directly above are rights under law at least, but may lose their status as rights through changes in the law. As to such rights requiring taxation which puts people into involuntary servitude, maybe. In this country we have taxation with representation; taxes are voted on by our elected representatives (for whom we vote) or voted on directly by people. Usually, someone loses the vote, and if the side voting for a tax wins, the side voting against it might be said to be subject to involuntary servitude, except we have mostly conceded to abide by such votes so maybe the servitude is not involuntary. It might be argued that we are all in involuntary servitude since at some point our tax dollars are used for something we don’t want them used for.

Migraine posted: Conservatism and liberalism are diametrical opposites . . .

Phlyer responded: Actually, I disagree. There are some who are considered ‘conservative’ who would gladly use the power to government to enforce their own personal view of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ That is inherently the same as the statists, with only differences in exactly which views each hold (which in turn change with time).

Kriskrinkle responds: Aside from anarchists, I believe most people would gladly use the power of government to enforce their own view of what is “right” and “wrong”, After all, “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men“. If so, most people would be statists according to you. Of course there may be significant differences between people’s view of “right” and “wrong”,

Phlyer also responded: By the way, even controlling murder is not an authority delegated to the federal government. It’s for the States to decide, just as the most recent Supreme Court decision leaves the control of abortion. If you want (speaking generically, if “one” wants) the federal government to enforce your personal moral views, then you are an authoritarian statist, close in your spectrum to the leftists.

Kriskrinkle responds: From Article I Section 8 of the US Constitutiion: “The Congress shall have power:… To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (referring to Washington DC)… and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased… To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” I believe that delegates at least some authority regarding control of murder to the Federal Government.

And I must be, in your view, an “authoritarian statist, “close in…spectrum to the leftists” because I want the federal government, within its delegated authority, to enforce my personal moral views regarding “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, but then who doesn’t? A problem is that people’s views on those matters differ. But then we have elections and elected representatives to sort out those differences, though individuals might not like the outcome.

Chicory posted: I had read quickly some years ago that rights stem from our obligations…

Kriskrinkle responds: I would say that obligations, at least some of them, stem from the rights of others.

Kriskrinkle responds: I find your definition of a right problematic.

And your comment could stop there. I started with a definition of a "right" because it is important that we do (or do not) agree on that definition. All the rest of my comments proceed from my definition. All the rest of your comments proceed from disagreeing with my definition.

You are, of course, free to make your own definition. I did not find yours particularly compelling, but neither did you find mine compelling. I will maintain that mine is logical in the context of citizens and governments because it focuses on potentially enforceable limitations on "rights" by the government, rather than tropisms. It offers a way to judge candidates for office, or in a larger sense, systems of government and its controls (e.g. The Constitution).

I will agree with a couple of your comments, because in fact they align with my definitions.

That in turn seems to imply that if the members of an organized society formed, empowered, and authorized a government to take an ability “from you”, “you” would cease to have that ability as a right.

Exactly! In my definition, a 'right' that you have no ability to enforce is not a right at all. In the society you mentioned, if there are no limitations on what the society has the *authority* to take from you, then you have no rights. At a simplistic level, authority like that can take three forms. The society may be totalitarian in which the citizens have no enforceable rights. The society may collectively agree to some limitations on the authority of government (e.g. The Constitution), or each individual has to have the power to enforce his own rights, denying any others the authority to take them away (anarchy).

. . . would have the right to live in their own eyes.

Exactly, but the core of my definition is that "rights" which are unenforceable are no rights at all. Hence, if those on one side of the river have no ability to come across and kill you then you have the right not to be killed by them because they do not have the power to kill you (in your example because the "government" on your side of the river, which has the power but not the authority to take away your life won't let them). On the other hand, if the government on your side of the river does not have the power to stop them, then you have no right not to be killed because you can't stop them (unless you have the personal power to limit government authority).

“the government” lacks clarity because there are multiple governments.

Actually, that supports my position. An unspecific government includes all levels of government. If the federal government (which has the power) does not have the authority to take away one of my rights (e.g. the right to keep and bear arms), but the state has both the power and the authority to take away my arms, then I do not have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't matter who has the authority to take away my right. The fact any level of government has that authority means - in my definition - that I do not have that right (short, once again, of having enough personal power to resist their confiscation).

My final comment, because this message is about as long as yours, is that I find the word "just" to be way too fuzzy to be useful. Hitler thought he had a just "right" to seize lebensraum and eliminate inferior races. That didn't make it "just" in my mind. I did not find sufficient clarity in your definition of "just" to feel I had a better understanding of what should be considered a "right" than I had with my own definition. Mine is, at least, objectively defined. The power to do something can be evaluated objectively, and the authority to do something can be evaluated objectively (for all that those trying to take away someone's rights will find ways to make the objective into subjective evaluations, like using the word, "just.")

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.