Government doesn't bestow rights

Over the past four centuries, the idea of basic human rights has had a rough go of it.

After surfacing in history as far back as ancient Greece, then coming to nearly full fruition at the hands of the English philosopher John Locke — who had a major influence on the American Founders — several prominent political thinkers gave it a thumbs down.

The English jurist Jeremy Bentham ridiculed such rights, calling them all “nonsense upon stilts.” Although the idea had been adopted to serve the thinking of some major legal theorists, philosophers were skeptical. This is because philosophers began to move in the direction of the belief that only what could be observed could be known to be true, and moral or political ideas could not pass this test.

Indeed, until the mid-20th century, ethics, morality, politics and aesthetics — all areas where one is concerned with norms, with how we ought or ought not to think and act — had been dismissed as literally meaningless.

Yes, what to ordinary people is the most important area of human life, namely the issue of what standards ought to guide our conduct, to the major academic philosophers had no foundation at all. This is because of the widespread philosophical belief that only what is perceivable can be meaningful.

This outlook lasted a long time, at least until it was realized, finally, that if it were true, then the rejection of these ideas would also lack any foundation. After all, the skeptic is saying, “You ought not to use ethical, political or aesthetic notions,” and that, of course, amounts to the ethical notion that it is wrong to think in terms of what we ought to do or ought not to do.

But many people in the academic philosophical world, including some prominent legal philosophers, hung on to the skeptical position so that even in our day some of the most influential ones reject the idea that politics could be based on principles of right versus wrong.

Public opinion, majority rule, governmental edicts are all that can be invoked, meaning, of course, that in the end all we have is power underlying our morality and laws.

This is one reason the idea of rights is no longer based on human nature but on governmental power. Several prominent legal theorists, some working in the new administration of President Barack Obama, think no one has any rights without government first giving those rights to them.

This is one reason our governments take themselves to be the granters instead of discoverers of rights. And, ironically, it is now in countries across the globe that have had and still have governments that violate rights all over the place that the American Founders’ and John Locke’s views are dominant.

For example, the Chinese Charter 08 group, under the leadership of Liu Xiaoba and 302 dissidents, has written as follows:

“Human rights are not bestowed by a state. Every person is born with inherent rights to dignity and freedom. The government exists for the protection of the human rights of its citizens. The exercise of state power must be authorized by the people. The succession of political disasters in China’s recent history is a direct consequence of the ruling regime’s disregard for human rights.”

It is truly amazing that today it is people who have lived under tyranny instead of in relative freedom who make such a declaration.

Tibor Machan advises Freedom Communications, parent company of this newspaper. E-mail him at:
TMachan@link.freedom.com