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.

Individualism

The foundation of conservative political philosophy is the idea of individualism. Simply put, individualism favors the freedom individuals over collective or state control. Individualism says that the rights and freedoms of the individual are more important than the goals of the collective. The rights of the individual cannot be sacrificed for the sake of the collective.

When I hear others talk about individualism, I often feel that the philosophy is misunderstood. In fact, I myself used to be confused about this core conservative idea. Many seem to confuse individualism with isolationism. They believe that individualists are sad and lonely people, who are anti-community. However, individualists are not anti-community. A community is of great benefit to all the individuals involved. Individualism only means that your rights are not to be violated by the community or by another individual.

All Equal

The greatest summation of the concept of individualism can be found in the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...”. Before you point out that this excludes women, I will point out that in this case “men” is supposed to be gender-neutral here. All humans are equal. Every gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion; criminals and upstanding citizens; every age, including the unborn.

We are equal in many ways. First off, we are all equal in essence. Philosophers debate the essential nature of humanity, but we all intuitively know what makes a human. Second, we are equal in rights. The aforementioned statement of the Declaration goes on to list just a few of our basic rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I will describe more about what rights are in the next post.

We all have equal rights, and my rights do not take precedence over your rights. If you violate my rights, you have opened yourself up for reciprocation. Finally, because we all have equal rights, we are all equal before the law. That means, in court, I should have the same shot at justice as a rich person or a person of a different ethnicity.

Collectivism

Individualism stands opposed to the philosophy of collectivism. Collectivism says that the goals of the collective are more important that the rights of the individual. Collectivism has led to many atrocities throughout human history. Consider slavery, and how the slaves right to liberty was violated by the collective of slavery supporters, who felt the institution was necessary for their economy.

The Nazis also declared that whole groups of people didn't possess the right to life. Racism is always a form of collectivism, because it sees people in terms of groups (“races”), instead of as individuals. Finally, communism denies citizens the right to private property, in the name of benefiting the collective.

Illustration: Civil War

One of the greatest illustrations of individualism versus collectivism can be found in Captain America: Civil War. The story is written to highlight the differences between the two philosophies. Captain America beautifully embodies individualism. He believes signing the Sokovia Accords is a violation of his right to follow his conscience. He is not a lone-wolf isolationist, but instead teams up with other heroes (Team Cap) who believe as he does.

Team Iron-Man is very much on-the-nose with spelling out how evil collectivism is. Even Black Widow says at one point [paraphrased] “How we stay together is not as important as the fact that we stay together.” Think about the implications of that statement. Team Iron-Man must bully others into getting their way, all in the name of “safety”. In the end, Cap says that the core of what he believes in is individuals... which is the essence of individualism, conservatism, and America.

The Political Spectrum – Politics 101

What does it mean to be a conservative? What does it mean to be a liberal? What do the left and the right on the political spectrum represent? What about the up and down (authoritarian to libertarian)? Where am I on the political spectrum? These were all questions that I was asking only 4 years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I was always interested in politics. Mostly due to my religious background, my disregard for controversy, and my desire to make a difference in the world. However, before 4 years ago, I was clueless when it came to understanding political philosophy.

I often refer to a "political awakening" that occurred four years ago (the summer before I left for Bible college). It started when I was talking to a mentor of mine, who is very politically involved, and I decided to ask him about the political spectrum. The conversation cleared up so many questions that today I call it my "Politics 101".

Spectrum of Government Control

If you google "political spectrum", there are many different versions out there. Everyone has their own opinion, and I have mine. This one, simply makes the most sense. The political spectrum that I use is one axis which measures the amount of government control. On the far left, there is totalitarianism, which is where the government controls virtually everything it can. On the far right, is not crazy Republicans like Rush Limbaugh, but instead those who believe there should be no government: anarchists.

In fact, this spectrum can be boiled down to five major positions: (left to right) totalitarianism, progressivism, liberalism, libertarianism, and anarchy. Totalitarianism is about virtually total government control. Progressivism is about progressing towards more government control. Libertarianism (for the purpose of this post) is about progressing towards less government control and presence (anarchy). Liberalism is about having a proper amount of government and personal freedom.

For some reason, virtually every spectrum that I found puts fascism on the far-right. However, if we are measuring the amount of control the government has, fascism is on the far-left, as a form of totalitarianism like communism. Fascism, communism, and socialism differ in style, but at their core they all rely heavily on government regulation.

Slippery Slope

I like to say that "Progressivism is a slippery slope to totalitarianism, and libertarianism is a slippery slope to anarchy." Not only that, but anarchy is a slippery slope to tyranny, which loops us right back to totalitarianism. Anarchy (having no government) could only work if everyone behaved and and no one violated their neighbors rights.

This notion goes against all of human experience (not to mention my Christian views of the nature of mankind). We know that the strong, if left unchecked, will terrorize the weak.

Liberalism

Liberalism is founded on the idea of individualism: the idea that all people are created equal. We may not all be equal in circumstances, but we are all equal in essence, before the Law. We all have the right to be left alone. For instance, three of your basic rights include the right to life (to not be killed), to liberty (to not be enslaved), and property (to not be robbed). In order to maintain these rights, we must have justice, and we must have an institution to facilitate justice.

Liberalism is about giving the people as much personal liberty as possible, without violating the rights of others. In order to do that, we must have a government that is properly limited. In America, our founders set up a contract between the people and the government, called the Constitution, to ensure both justice and liberty.

Conservatism

Here in America, those who we call "conservatives" are about conserving the philosophy of liberalism, through a strict (conservative) interpretation of the Constitution. These conservatives, also called conservative-liberals, are interested in conserving the balance of power, to give the people maximum liberty to pursue happiness.

Some of you may be shocked. Some of you probably disagree with what I am saying. Conservatives are not about freedom. "Conservatives are not liberal." We must remember that not everyone who calls himself a conservative is one. In my next blog, I want to spend some time writing about true conservative philosophy. Conservatism is about having the freedom to do what you want, so long as you don't infringe on anyone's basic rights.

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. Where do you line up on this spectrum? Do you think that I am wrong to characterize conservatives as the true liberals. 

Biblical veracity

In apologetics, one issue has always been interesting to me: Biblical veracity. (How do we know that the Bible is true?) Four years ago I was introduced to the cosmological argument, which really simplified and solidified my confidence in God's existence. Still, I couldn't figure out: why the Bible? Why do Christians cling to it? Is it reasonable to treat the Bible as authoritative in all areas of life? Where does this book come from? Why should anyone believe it? I don't have all the answers. In fact, I would like to study apologetics in graduate school, and focus specifically on this issue. But before I do that, let me share some things I have already learned on the subject.

This post only covers the premise for my argument of biblical veracity, and a few sources to help you along on your own research.

Paradigms

You could also use the word narrative, or worldview. These are different terms, but for the purpose of this discussion they can be interchangeable. We all have a paradigm through which we view the world. You can deny religion, by saying that you are an atheist (or just non-religious or whatever), but everyone has a paradigm through which they view the world. Atheists may tend to adopt a purely empirical (naturalistic) paradigm which denies anything supernatural... and they may also chose a side of an objective ethical theory to go with that (like deontology or utilitarianism).

Now although our paradigms are embedded into our very psyche, let’s pretend that you were to detach from it and (possibly) choose a new one. There are at least two things that your paradigm should be. First, the paradigm should be logically coherent within itself. Now, I think that we are fallible humans, so there may always be incoherencies in our personal reasoning, but we should seek to have paradigms which are as coherent as possible. Any religion or paradigm will have questions or problems to solve. Secondly, we want to find the paradigm which best matches the evidence. It can't just look good in theory, it must match the way things actually are in reality.

My Premise

Now, of course, I would argue that the Christian paradigm is the one that fits this criteria. Of course it would take me years of study to get a grasp on the subject, and an entire book to explain it sufficiently. Hopefully, I will be able to do that another day. I also do not have enough time (or expertise) to write on the origins of the Christian Bible.

Aren’t there contradictions?

Theologians have studied the Bible for centuries to form a paradigm from its texts. You may object "what about all the contradictions in the Bible? Don't they make biblical Christianity an incoherent paradigm?" Well, historians and theologians and other thinkers have found explanations for many of these apparent contradictions. If you search for it, you can probably find plausible answers to virtually all of your questions.

Furthermore, as with life, there are paradoxes: phenomenon that seem to be a contradiction (like light being both a wave and a particle) but are not. These apparent contradictions are only signs of our limited understanding. No matter what you believe (atheism, Christianity, Islam) none of us has it all figured out. We are all still learning.

In Closing

So that is the premise for my argument: the paradigm set forth by the Bible (when interpreted correctly) is the paradigm which best matches reality. Keep your eyes open for my book, which maybe I'll release in the next ten years on the origins of the Scriptures, and my arguments for their veracity.

Further Research

In the meantime I would recommend Me, The Professor, Fuzzy, and The Meaning of Life and Evidence that Demands a Verdict. The first is written as a comic book, targeted to a younger audience, and gives two solid syllogistic arguments: one for the existence of God, and one for the Christian religion. The second book is much more deep, but it talks about the origin of the Scriptures and evidence for the Christian faith.