Negative Rights

What is a right? 

There are two theories that seek to describe what a right is: positive rights and negative rights. A positive right requires action on the part of someone else. For instance, someone must pay for your health-care or education, or provide that service for free. Negative rights require inaction, to be left alone. Your right to life is your right to not be murdered. Your right to property is your right to not be robbed. Your right to free speech is your ability to speak your mind without being stopped.

These two theories are mutually exclusive. Your rights cannot be both positive and negative. To give an example, if you have a positive right to health-care, you are infringing on the property rights of some poor sucker who will need to pay for your health-care. Another alternative is to force the doctor to provide you with health-care, which is a violation of his liberty. There is no way to do this without infringing on someone's negative rights.

The theory of negative rights is a foundational tenet of conservatism. Conservatives believe that it costs nothing to be a decent person. Simply live and let live.

What Are Your Rights

There are many negative rights outlined in the Declaration and Constitution. First, however, we must point out that these documents do NOT grant you these rights. Neither does the government. These rights are inalienable, they rightfully belong to everyone. These document's indicate that these rights are given to us by a Creator. Our government is simply set up by us to protect these negative rights.

The first and most important right is your right to life: the right to not be murdered. Without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless. Next is your right to liberty: your right to not be enslaved, or forced to do something against your will. Then you have you right to pursue happiness. The statement found only in the Declaration of Independence speaks of eudaimonia, the pursuit of human flourishing.

(Jefferson considered property rights to be under this umbrella as well. The Fifth Amendment protects your right to private property, as well as your right to life and liberty.)

All of the rights found in the Constitution are examples of negative rights, which the government exists to protect. With negative rights, your freedom is only limited by the rights of others. You have the freedom to do virtually anything, as long as you don't violate the rights of others. That's called liberty

Promoting Liberty

So how do we promote liberty? By protecting the negative rights of all citizens. By force if we must. The institution of government is established as a referee to protect negative rights of it's citizens, and severely punish those who violate the rights of others. Sometimes by having their rights proportionally violated. It may seem contradictory to use force to promote liberty. However, it is imperative that negative rights be protected, in order to uphold civilization.

If we want to  maintain a society where every citizen has maximum freedom, then each of us has certain responsibilities that we must fulfill.

6 Essentials of Conservative-liberalism

There are six concepts that I feel are essential to conservatism. These aren't just “my six conservative principles”, instead these are the six principles that I propose are essential to conservatism. I have written them in a way that builds one on top of the other. Let me know if you can see how they are all connected.

Individualism

Individualism is the idea that all humans are equal. We are equal in essence, and therefore equal in rights, and therefore equal before the law. We are all one people, not to be divided by religion, political party, ethnicity, gender, or any such thing. Yet, each of us is a unique individual. We each have similarities and differences that we can find with each human being on Earth.

Negative rights

Negative rights are rights that only require inaction on the part of others. Your right to life, requires that others NOT kill you. Your right to free speech requires that others NOT stop you from talking (although you can't force them to listen, either). Negative rights boils down to your right to be left alone. This is in stark contrast with positive rights, which are entitlements to free stuff. Negative rights must be protected in order to maintain civilization, and those who violate negative rights must be punished (usually by having their rights proportionally violated).

Personal virtue and liberty

When we protect everyone's negative rights, we create a society with the purest form of liberty, but in order to maintain this pure liberty, we must have virtue, which can be defined as moral excellence. Someone who pursues moral excellence (virtue) can be expected to give liberty to his fellow-man. In fact liberty can be considered the most basic form of virtue.

He can also be expected to pursue the highest good for himself and others. He will seek mutually-beneficial trades, that will lift up both himself and his fellow-man. He will give to the poor, without government coercion. He will stay away from substances and activities which harm himself and those around him.

A perfectly moral population would need no government, but no one is perfectly moral. However, the more moral a population, the smaller government that they will require. This concept is the often unspoken core of conservatism. If we want greater liberty, we need to promote the highest virtue, in the greatest number of people. Virtue cannot be brought by force, from the top down, except for severely punishing those who violate negative rights. Instead virtue must be taught from the ground up.

Limited government

The government is an institution, set up by the people, to protect the negative rights of their citizens. The job of the government is to recognize different rights, create laws to protect those rights, and punish those who break the law. In America, we have a contract with our government called the Constitution. Our government promises to protect certain negative rights, and we promise not to overthrow them. At least that's supposed to be the idea.

Decentralization

Our Constitution limits the government's power, and the Tenth Amendment delegates all other powers, not mentioned, to the states or to the people. This protects us from centralizing power, which leads to more micro-managing from bureaucrats in the capitol. An effective government delegates power as much as possible. The federal government delegates power to the states, states to counties, cities, and towns, and from there to private institutions, families, and individuals.

Free enterprise

Free enterprise is based off of two negative rights: your right to your own property and your right to control how you use your property. When these rights are truly carried out, we create a free enterprise, and wealth is generated. Not money, but wealth. Wealth is generated primarily when there is a mutually-beneficial exchange. When both parties in a trade win, they walk away wealthier than they were before. This doesn't eliminate poverty, as we can never eliminate poverty. However, it can alleviate the severity of poverty.

So What Do You Think?

Please share this post if you liked it. Also, tell me what you think. Tweet at me @frank_perseo or comment on the Frank Talks Facebook page. Did I miss any essential concepts in conservatism? Do you disagree with any of the ones I presented? If so, please tell me why. I am curious to know.

Be the Change

"Be the change that you want to see in the world." That's my senior-year advice, to all the upcoming freshmen, and to anyone reading this. It's the advice that sent me on a journey, leading me to start this blog. I started this blog to share my personal thoughts on my faith, my political views, and on living a well-rounded life. It was this advice that sparked my interest in well-roundedness and consequently into politics.

I knew that if I wanted to bring real and positive change, I need to be informed on the issues and to exercise my right to vote! For the past four years I have immersed myself in learning about politics. For the past year, I have followed the presidential election with great anticipation.

More Than Politics

I have informed myself on what the candidates believe. I have educated my friends and encouraged them to vote. I have made my opinions known. I voted. I have exercised my free speech and my right to vote. All of this is futile if that is all I do.

Even if my dream candidate is nominated and elected, that will not fix the problem with our country. It would only begin to fix our problem. It is the Left that teaches our problems are in our circumstances. We need more laws, we need a better President, we need to make this a safer place. On the other hand, the Right is founded on the philosophy of individualism. The idea that the individual has the ability to make life good for himself, if he wants to.

Many of the issues that the Left and Right talk about are far to complex to pass a law, or some executive order, and simply fix. Americans, throughout history have never really trusted the government to do stuff. We won't get old waiting for bureaucrats to decide to do something. We are do-it-yourself people. We start a business or non-profit, and get that problem fixed, if at all possible.

Be A Better Person

No man is an island. Nothing happens in a vacuum. If you want to see a better world, first you must seek to be a better person. Then, when you discover what works, you should encourage others to do the same.

So many issues will not be solved by passing another law, or by some bureaucratic action. Poverty, obesity, violence, education, abortion, joblessness and many more issues could be solved by individuals refusing to accept their situation. By individuals changing their circumstances, instead of letting the circumstances change them. You cannot change circumstances on a global scale, but you can change circumstances within your reach.

Well-Rounded Life

As I have written in previous blogs, I am a firm believer in six arenas of the human experience. We all have them, and we can all grow in each of them. They are spiritual*, intellectual, physical, social, occupational*, and financial.

*(I want to take a minute to explain spiritual and occupational, to clarify my meaning. The spiritual arena is not just for those who believe in the supernatural. The spiritual arena includes your worldview philosophy, your moral philosophy, and your moral practices. For instance, an atheist might have an empirical/naturalist philosophy, and they may live by a utilitarian ethical system. Occupation is about what you do with your time: your job, volunteer work, recreation, or learning new skills.)

The spiritual aspect is the most import, which is why I always list it first. Our founders knew that this Republic was for a moral people: a people that would seek the best for one another. Only a moral people will care to respect the rights of others. An immoral people will simply want their own way, which leads to tyranny.

It is important for us all to grow intellectually. Not simply to receive a diploma, but to be readers, researchers, critical thinkers, and to love the Truth. American obesity will not be solved by government programs, but instead by individuals being motivated to improve their health, and motivating their friends to do the same.

As far as the social, occupational, and financial arenas: there are an countless ways in which these can impact political issues. You only need a bit of imagination to see how these areas can impact society. The social arena is the one that inspired this whole post. I was thinking about how it takes a village to raise a kid. This goes back to the moral arena. Kids are taught morals, not from textbooks, but from relationships. Particularly from their parents. However, I have never seen a well adjusted kid who didn't have mentors outside of their parents. It takes a village to raise a kid, which requires parents to have a good social circle.

I Could Go On

I literally could go on for several pages, on this topic, but I hope that I have demonstrated my point and inspired you. Don't wait for some government official to change the world. Be a well-rounded person. Be the person that you think everyone should be. Be the best version of yourself. Then inspire others to do the same. If we all did that... we could change the world.

6 Conservative Principles

(Or the six principles which conservatives seek to conserve)

I want to continue with a theme that I started with at the beginning of the year: what does it mean to be a conservative. Now even among conservatives, there are many definitions for conservatism, but the the broadest definition that I can come up is that conservatism* is about conserving the ideas and principles which preserve our liberty. Conservatism is not about maintaining outdated traditions or some status quo.

*This is conservatism in American politics.

What are these principles which preserve our liberty? Well, I want to take a look at that. I have come up with at least 6 principles which conservatives seek to maintain.

1. Truth- conservatives unique attitude towards the Truth, and the method for finding it.
2. Natural Law- the system of ethics that our legal system is founded on.
3. Human rights- part of Natural Law, we believe that all humans are born with certain rights
4. Liberty- the purest form of freedom
5. Justice- we cannot maintain liberty without justice
6. Checks and balances- Our country has an intricate system of checks and balances that must be maintained.

Now most people who identify as conservatives are pragmatists. That is to say, they believe (at least some if not all) conservative policies work to create a society with greater liberty and prosperity for all. However, historically, and today in a growing movement, conservatism is becoming more and more about following a conservative interpretation of the Constitution.

Truth

Ok, everyone is going to make the claim that their position in the truth. I am of, course doing no different here. However, even beyond that, conservatives have an entirely different view of the truth. I would argue that conservatives and progressives have an entirely different ways of dealing with unpleasant ideas.

Conservatives generally have a pragmatic view of truth. That is to say that they seek what works best to create liberty and prosperity.

Natural law

Conservatives hold that morality is not relative. We also hold that there are some ethical laws, which are universally applicable, no matter what religion or culture you come from. We believe that certain moral truths are self-evident, and can be known intuitively. Whether you believe that it comes from a God-given conscience, or from your sub-conscious (System 1 thinking). The people can then elect representatives to pass legislation, to reflect the conscience of the people.

Human rights

In political philosophy, there are two theories on the meaning of rights: positive rights and negative rights. They are misnamed in my opinion, because negative rights are not a negative thing. Positive rights means that the government (and by extension society) must give you something, like free healthcare or education. Negative rights means that the government (and society) will not prevent you from doing something, like speaking freely.

I will dive into this more in a future post, but conservatives take the negative rights approach. Why? Because negative rights do not harm anyone, and they don't cost anyone time or money. It shouldn't cost anything to be a decent person. If you want to help someone out, you are free to do that, but no one should force you to do so. That would take away the joy of helping: doing it willingly.

Conservatives recognize many of these negative rights. Among them are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That "pursuit of happiness" is an old-fashioned term, I like to redefine it as the pursuit of anything material or immaterial that leads to human flourishing. If you want to make money, you are free to do that. If you want to spend money on health care or education, you are free to do that. If you want to give money to charities so that the less fortunate can afford things, awesome!

Liberty

Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever you want. Did your parents ever tell you that? It's true. First off, you do not have the freedom to trample on some else's rights. If you do that, then we no longer have freedom for everyone, but instead tyranny from the strongest. So we all must agree not to infringe on the rights of others.

Second, on a personal level, you should use your liberty to do good instead of evil. The government cannot make you a moral person. It can only pass laws and try to enforce them. However, if you personally are using your freedom to do things that are less-than-good you are wasting your freedom. Also, if you are using your freedom to do something that is addictive or dangerous, you risk throwing away your life or your liberty. Now, liberty is about letting people make their own choices, but I will always promote liberty coupled with personal responsibility.

Justice

You cannot have liberty and a civil society without justice. Without justice, there is no repercussions for those who trample on the rights of others. Without laws and a system to enforce them, criminals will simply bully the week. Conservatives believe that the role of mediating and dispensing justice belongs to the government (at least when individuals can't resolve it peacefully).

This is one of the main differences between conservatives and those like "liberal-tarian", voluntarians, and anarchists. Those ideologies tend to believe that government is inherently immoral, because it uses force. Conservatives understand that we need the institution of government to protect the rights of the weak from those who would trample them by force.

Checks and balances

Conservatives believe in a system of checks and balances. Our Constitution sets up such a system between different entities, namely the three branches of government. While the Constitution does not say the words "separation of church and state" (go ahead, look it up), it does guarantee that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,".

Now before you get too excited, the sentence finishes out "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Now I am talking about religion in the broadest sense: any philosophical and ethical system and practices. You have the right to exercise your beliefs, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. You also have the right to exercise, by using your moral code as a guide in your voting.

We believe in the tenth amendment that delegates all other powers to the states and to the people, rather than having a federal government which micromanages everything. However, during the 1800s, conservative Republican Party was founded to abolish slavery, because we believed that states rights do not trump human rights.

Finally, we have a democratic-republic rather than a pure democracy. This is an important distinction to make, conservatives don't believe in a simple "majority-rule". Why not? Because if we have majority-rule, then it sucks to be in the minority. This leads to the sort of mob-rule which allowed for slavery, segregation, and Nazism. Just because the majority says something doesn't make it right. Do you remember your parents asking you "if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you go too?"

These are my 6 principles, which define conservatism. Different people may define it different ways, but I am arguing that these are the ones which are essential to conservatism. What do you think? Does this change how you see conservatives?

An Open Letter to Dave Rubin

Dear Dave Rubin,

First, I wanted to let you know that I enjoy your show. I think the thing I love the most is how you promote civil discourse, even among those you disagree with: which is one of the most important virtues in life. I disagree with you on many things as a Christian, evangelical, conservative. However, I am always glad to see those I disagree with being open to conversation.

I am writing this open letter as a response to one of your videos with Larry Elder, particularly the part where you talk about the definition of "conservative". I dissent to the definition that you gave, as well as the one that I heard Larry give. In your video you define conservatism "... to resist sudden change... and adherence to traditional values". I couldn't disagree more with this definition. Remember, dictionaries don't tell us how we ought to use certain words, but rather how society already uses them.

Even when I was 19, I was already registered as a Republican, but I was averse to identifying as a "conservative" because of this definition. It wasn't until a mentor of mine provided me with a new definition that I started to identify as a conservative. I think many people my age may be averse to identifying as a "conservative" because they equate the word to a traditionalist. I am not a traditionalist, nor do I "resist sudden change". There are plenty of changes I (and my conservative friends) would love to see happen overnight. Simultaneously, conservatives and liberals each have changes that they would not like to see.

For anyone reading this, I'd like to give my personal definition of conservatism. I would like to present a definition that could appeal not just to evangelicals, but also to the young, atheists, and libertarians. Also, conservatives are not libertarians, as Larry Elder stated. (And we are not all old stuffy white men in the one-percent, either.) There may be some overlap between conservative and libertarian philosophies and goals, but they are different.

This definition of conservatism is my own, and it comes in three parts. These are not three isolated parts, but they build each on top of the other. From the top down they are: conservative (strict) interpretation of the Constitution, pragmatism, and Natural law.

1. Conservative Constitutionalist- I cannot, in a blog post, go into all the intricacies of what this means and why it's important. America has changed a great deal over the years, but we believe that one of the things that makes America great is its Constitution. A government formed by "We the people", as the preamble says, and a nation ruled primarily by written laws rather than by the whim of leaders. Under the US Constitution, and other state and local laws, leaders are supposed to be limited by the law, just like regular people. In fact, maybe even more so than regular people.

That's just one reason why we believe in interpreting it strictly (conservatively), rather than letting leaders bend the laws to fit their agenda. We believe that everyone should follow the laws, or there is no purpose in having the laws anyway. Also, myself and many other conservatives and libertarians would agree, it is better to have just a few basic laws. Fewer laws, and more effective laws, is always better than having thousands of more laws than anyone will ever know or follow. Again, what is the point in a law if no one follows it, or even knows about it?

As a side note, interpreting the Constitution Conservatively means we take into account what the founding fathers meant by what is written therein. We can look at things like other writings of the founders, including the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers, works of individual founders, and what certain words meant back then; and these things give us a better understanding of what the founders were saying. Now you can argue that the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine the complexities of today's world, but I would say the principles of human nature and political science don't change.

2. Pragmatism- this is is the definition that my mentor gave me for conservatism. "Conservatives are for what WORKS!" he quipped. And we are arguing that progressivism, communism, fascism, and all other collectivist systems do not work to create happy and prosperous societies. Neither do far-right philosophies like anarchy. We are not against change, instead we want to implement changes that have been tested and proven to work. Try it on a small scale, before enforcing it on the whole country.

We try to resist the human urge to be idealists, and fight for some utopia, because we understand that nothing is perfect. Instead, we simply labor to just make society better. Dennis Prager outlines it this way: liberals ask "does it feel good", conservatives ask "does it do good".

So we are very pragmatic, at least to a certain degree. However, anyone who has ever taken philosophy 101 can show you the problem with pragmatic philosophy. You can always argue that something works, because it meets a given set of goals, but the question remains is that thing right? Is it true? So we must delve deeper into ethics.

3. Natural law- Natural law comes from JudeoChristian theology, but you don't have to be religious to believe it. It is a code of ethics that transcends religion and culture. It says that morality and ethics can be clearly seen, and known intuitively, through the conscience. This is not some mystical mumbo-jumbo, but refers to the fact (studies in moral psychology have shown this) that the emotional, subconscious part of our brain is responsible for making moral judgments.

I also believe that our understanding of natural law is progressive, as individuals and as a society. For instance, through most of human history slavery was an acceptable practice. Then individuals began to become convicted that it was wrong, and they banded together to get written laws passed to reflect the Natural Law.

America is founded on Natural Law, as reflected in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Let's note a few things: first off these truths are self-evident (just like Natural Law). Second, these rights are not granted by the government. They are innate, and our government only agrees not to infringe upon them. This is what's so revolutionary about America. All other countries before that taught that God gave power to kings to grant rights (commodities) to citizens. In American philosophy, God grants rights to the people, and then tells government to protect those rights. Now since you are an atheist, you could say that nature granted these, but you cannot deny that these rights are inherent.

Finally, Natural Law is not determined by popularity. Slavery was always wrong, even when it was accepted by the majority. Racism and prejudice have always been wrong, even when they were socially acceptable and popular.

So conservatives are basically the defenders of natural law. Therefore, we believe in a transcendent ethical system. We tend to be more pragmatic and less idealistic (in a Utopian way). Because of these things, we fight for smaller government and for Constitutional limitations.

I am not sure of all of my positions on all of the issues, but this would be my definition for conservatism. I would love to come on your show and talk about this definition more in depth, and talk more about Natural Law. I hope your show continues to gain traction, and this idea of civil discourse continues to spread.

Sincerely,

Frank Perseo

(@frank_perseo)