You Ain?t Got No Rights
By Karl F. Auerbach – 08.01.00 Karl’s Home Page

Unless, of course, they come to you from society.

At least, that?s what Luis Tolley, the western director for Handgun Control Inc., seems to think. Tolley has stated “Any society lives as a process of responsibilities to the greater society, and there are no individual rights that the courts upheld of any kind that supersede the society?s rights as a whole.”

In other words, you are not endowed by your creation, your existence, with unalienable rights. Your rights only come to you via society, and whatever society gives, it can take away. And why not? Tolley believes that the right to keep and bear arms is granted and guaranteed by the US Constitution, and that even the Constitution is not above the greater social good. So whenever society decides that your rights are alienable, they?ll be alienated.

A couple of things wrong with this argument. First off, the Constitution does not grant us any rights. The key phrase in all the amendments, in the Bill of Rights and those following, is “shall not be infringed.” No mention is made in the Constitution?s amendments, nor in the document itself, that our rights exist as a result to being a member of some society. The Constitution does not even address the source or basis of our rights. Except for mentioning copyrights, the word “right” doesn?t even appear in the Constitution until the First Amendment.

The only document that even mentions the source of our rights is the Declaration of Independence: “?that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” In effect, the Declaration does not grant any rights, but recognizes that we have certain rights resulting from the simple fact that we exist. That?s why the poor slob in the poorest country in the world has rights: he or she is born with them. The local government(s) may infringe those rights at will, but that does not preclude the simple fact that we have certain rights by birth.

I know, for the most part, I?m preaching to the choir. But it?s fundamental in any discussion to recognize that the Constitution does not grant us any rights. What it?s supposed to do, and rarely does, is limit what the government can and can?t do, and expressly states that some rights can not be infringed by the only organization that can infringe: the government.

The second thing wrong with Tolley?s argument is the idea that he believes society has some inherent rights to infringe on the rights of individuals. Not that it isn?t done. Examples of society infringing on the rights of individuals, and claiming the sanctity of that infringement based on the mere fact that some law has been written stating they could do it, has been the bane of man?s existence throughout time. By Tolley?s reasoning, slavery was justified simply because society decided it was so, and wrote laws stating such. Tolley?s argument could be expanded to state that any oppression is OK as long as society has determined it?s OK. This is the means by which socialist/collectivist society have oppressed and murdered millions of people: “we decided it was OK.” It?s a form of altruism whereby the individual is expected to give up any rights for the good of society, and trust society not to step all over the individual?s toes.

What the Constitution should do is provide a basis from which laws are written, with the understanding that laws should not infringe on ANY rights. That the Constitution lists certain rights that the government should not infringe does not grant the government carte blanche to infringe on all other rights not mentioned. The Ninth Amendment states that quite clearly: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In other words, the listing or mentioning of certain rights does not mean that we the People have no other rights, and states that the government should not infringe those rights not mentioned or covered.

This does open a can of worms. If we insist that government should not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, we must recognize that this comes from our unalienable right to life and liberty. Basically, if we have the right to life, then we have the right to defend that life. We have the right to live our lives in the manner we see fit, and to pursue happiness in the manner we see fit as long as it does not infringe on any other?s rights to the same.

Which raises an interesting question regarding abortion. If our right to life and liberty includes the right to self-defense, to keep and bear arms, does the same right to life not mean that an individual may do to themselves what they will? Pierce their ears or any other body part? Full body tattoos? Even taking their own life? Does an individual not have the right then to terminate a pregnancy if they determine that it is some way detrimental to their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

The answer has to be yes. While this bothers some of us, we must realize that consistency in all applications of the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will lead us to situations where we don?t like the outcome.

So what role do societies play in all this? We need to realize that society is not an entity in itself. As such, it has no rights. Society is simply a collection of individuals, each individual having his or her rights. Likewise, as members of society, each individual has a responsibility to ensure his or her rights do not adversely impact the rights of others.

What is important then is how we deal with others. There is a branch of philosophy, ethics, that deals with the rules or standards of conduct governing the members, the individuals, of a society. Basically, it is a system of moral principles or values which governs how we deal with each other. When individuals make a practice of actually determining these basic principles for themselves, based on accurate knowledge, then they tend to develop an ethical/moral standard which, for the most part, are somewhat identical. This then becomes the ethical/moral standard of a “society.” But it has to based on the efforts of individuals to stringently determine on their own what they know
(metaphysics), how they know it (epistemology), and how these affect how we deal with each other (ethics). All part of a philosophy.

Unfortunately, we the people, seem to have forgotten the importance of developing a philosophy for ourselves. We seem to have abandoned any hope of knowing what is real in the world around us, why we know what is real, and using that knowledge to determine how we deal with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When we accept the propositions that “we can?t trust our senses” or “nothing is certain,” then we can?t know what is real or why it?s real. When this ignorance lead us to accept the proposition that “anything goes,” we can?t even make an ethical or moral determination of what is right or wrong. Indeed, when we accept the above propositions, we shouldn?t be surprised when we end up with a “society” that considers individuals wrong to want to defend themselves, but right to want to kill a baby in the womb.

What?s the answer? Philosophy. We, the people, need to get off our duffs and recognize that if we don?t consciously develop a philosophy that addresses what we know, why we know it, and how we?ll use this knowledge to deal with each other, then one will be chosen for us. We have the choice of accepting whatever someone throws at us, like “anything goes,” or of deciding for ourselves what goes and what doesn?t.

Banning abortion does no real good. It?s an infringement of an individual right, and will always be that. What does do some good is recognizing that abortion means the taking of a human life, and as such, should be avoided except in the most extreme cases. Don?t want to have a baby? Then recognize the truth, via metaphysics and epistemology, that if you don?t get pregnant, you won?t have one. This may mean hard, difficult, moral (ethics) choices. It has to be a personal choice. A responsibility.

The same applies to banning guns. A well-developed and understood philosophy tells us that it is immoral to take the life of another except in self-defense. This underlies the fallacy in banning guns: it ignores that it a moral (ethics) problem. When individuals have no moral basis with which to deal with others, or have accepted an “anything goes” morality, then we shouldn?t be surprised that they resort to killing others as a means of solving problems. Banning guns will not solve this lack of moral principles simply because any weapon, or anything that could be used as such, will be used to resolve a conflict or problem.

It wasn?t the guns that caused Dylan and Klebold to enact the Columbine killings, it was, in part, the lack of moral principles other than “anything goes” and “if it feels good, do it!” Their philosophy was decided for them.

Our rights come to us as a fact of our existence, not the society we happen to be born in. Our responsibilities, to ourselves and to others, also come as a fact of our existence. Philosophy provides us the means by which we understand these facts, and how we chose to use these facts in dealing with each other.

So get a philosophy. You?ll need it.