Ho Say Peng
John Locke: Father of Liberty
If one is to advocate a free society, one must recognize its indispensable foundation: the principle of rights. Today’s politicians view rights as an impractical, unattainable ideal, or as an impediment to the implementation of their policies. Worse are the alleged defenders of rights. They have, through their misconception of rights, perverted the meaning of it.
Altogether, the issue of rights has been evaded, distorted, misrepresented, and in most of today’s political discourse, seldom or never mentioned. In this article, I will present a proper account for rights. I will explain why rights are crucially necessary to man’s existence on earth, how rights are violated and should be protected, and why the preservation of rights must be consistent and absolute.
What is the principle of rights?
The principle of rights is a moral concept. It is a concept that defines and sanctions man’s freedom of action in a social context. It is the link between ethics and politics – between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society – between the principles guiding man’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others. The principle of rights represents the extension of morality into the realm of the social and the political.
The origin and necessity of rights
The source of man’s rights is not god or the state, but Nature, i.e., reality. Nature dictates that man’s mind is his only tool of survival. Unlike animals whose self-sustaining actions are programmed and automatic, man cannot hope to survive any other way except through the free and deliberate use of his mind.
If man is to survive, it must be right for him to be free to use his mind. If man is to survive, it must right for him to be free to act on his own independent judgment and pursue the actions he deems necessary for his survival. If man is to survive, it must be right for him to be free to pursue work, and right for him to keep the products of his own labor.
If man is to survive, he must have the fundamental and inalienable right to his own life, i.e., the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action – which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. Freedom is the fundamental requirement for the proper function of man’s mind.
From ethics to politics
In a society where it is appropriate that man may choose to establish social relationships with other men, most commonly for the benefit of trade, the only proper principle to guide such a relationship is the principle of rights and voluntary consent.
The principle of rights draws a clear and objective line between the rights of a man and those of another. The principle of rights pertains only to freedom of action. It is a sanction of positive action. However, with regards to another man, a man’s freedom of action extends to the limit that he cannot act to violate another man’s rights.
The ‘act’ of not violating another’s rights is a non-action which is necessary for the preservation of rights. This is not a conflict or compromise of rights but is consistent with the concept of rights (and reality), for there is no such thing as having a ‘right’ to violate rights. It is self-contradictory. (And contradictions don’t exist in reality.) If one wishes for one’s own rights to be recognized and protected, it means a self-chosen obligation to respect the rights of others. It is a line of division – implicit in the nature of rights – that preserves both rights untouched.
The violation and protection of rights
There is only one way to violate rights: through the use of physical force. It is by means of physical force that man can be denied of his right to life: by killing him, by robbing him, by enslaving him, by preventing him to use his mind to act on his own independent judgment and by forcing him to act against his own judgment. The principle of rights bars the use of physical force from social relationships. But there must be an institution whose sole purpose is the enforcement and protection of rights. Such an institution is the government.
In a civil society, men renounce the use of physical force and delegate them to government. The government is an institution with a monopoly on the legal use of force, deriving its “just powers” from the “consent of the governed”. Since the sole purpose of government is the enforcement and protection of rights, all laws and legislature must be aimed at their protection. This purpose also gives rise to a need for a police force – to protect against domestic threats – armed forces – to protect against foreign threats – and courts of law – to settle disputes peacefully.
Why rights must be absolutely and consistently practiced
The source of man’s rights is reality and the law of identity. A is A, and man is man. To survive, man has to survive qua man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. Therefore, no compromise can be tolerated. To violate rights is to evade or oppose reality with catastrophic results. A country who does not uphold rights is headed for a progressive and inevitable self-destruction, as history has effectively and, I hope, sufficiently demonstrated.
Conclusion
Man has only one fundamental inalienable right: the right to his own life. All other rights are its corollaries: the right to (earn and keep) property, the right to speak freely, the right to trade freely, the right to buy and own guns, the right to whatever action a man wishes to take, provided he does not infringe on the rights of others.
It was the concept of rights borne during the Enlightenment which gave birth to freedom and a free society. The result was the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. The 18th and 19th centuries were the most prosperous periods for the United States of America, which was the first nation in the world to establish the principle of rights as the foundation of a constitutional republic. This is no coincidence. A free society and a free economy, which are corollaries of one another, which can only be established on the principles of rights, is the ultimate engine to prosperity.
‘It was the concept of rights which gave birth to freedom and a free society. The result was the Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and the American Revolution. The 18th and 19th centuries were the most prosperous periods in the history of man.’
I think you folks have the relationship on its head – It was the turbulence of all the revolutions that gave birth to the concept of rights, not the other way around. And no, the 18th and 19th centuries were hardly the most prosperous periods in the history of man. That was the late 20th century after WWII was until now.
It was the violence of the French Revolution that gave us the concept of ‘Liberte’ and the Social Contract, all the ideological underpinnings of a secular state.
As a matter of fact, taking into consideration those facts, collective human prosperity has as much to do with the denial of rights of some as it does with the enforcement of rights in others.
The concept of rights is the product of Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Paine. The American and French Revolution are the result of the American and French people acting on these ideas of rights and freedom, and revolted against their oppressors, the English and French monarch. The Industrial Revolution is the economic result of the practical application of the scientific ideas of the Enlightenment, which could only have happened in a free society.
“As a matter of fact, taking into consideration those facts, collective human prosperity has as much to do with the denial of rights of some as it does with the enforcement of rights in others.”
Do you have a concrete example to illustrate your point? As I know, so far, history has never been merciful to countries that do not uphold the rights of its citizens.
You have the international financial system whose architecture basically only gives 1 out of 6 billion people the right to play – how else do you think the commodity prices are so low for the 1 billion people in the developed world? That is slowly unwinding of course, but I think it would be a pretty tough case to argue that the global market place is fair and confers equal rights on all humanity, when half of the world’s population lives in poverty not for what they did – but where they live.
I take it you’re taking a narrow comparative politics definition of rights that still assumes the nation state and a sovereign? Rather outdated for a globalized world isn’t it?
The realms of domestic and international politics are usually incompatible – what’s good for one usually asks for some sacrifices in the other. And as of yet, international politics still
Any thoughts on what you think the definitive list of ‘natural rights’ actually are, and how we get to enforcing them practically? And in your definition of a ‘free society’ – any operational ideas on ‘freedom from what?’. There’s a whole list of good stuff we never want to be free from – like material comforts, physical safety etc.
This is a reply to IC’s second comment.
“You have the international financial system whose architecture basically only gives 1 out of 6 billion people the right to play”
Firstly, your statistics is utterly wrong. As of 2008, the world population is 6,692,030,277 (Source: World Bank) and more than a quarter of them are legitimately employed. It is reasonable to assume that these employed would have basic social security, pension or a savings account. As such, they are indirectly connected to the international financial system. So it is not “1 out of 6 billion”.
Secondly, regarding “the right to play”: In such a scenario, I do not think we should be discussing in the international context. Different countries have varying degrees of freedom. In United States or Singapore, there is a relatively high degree of economic freedom. As long as certain basic requirements, such as minimum age, etc, are fulfilled, all are free to enter the financial market to “play”. But in oppressed countries such as North Korea and Zimbabwe, the situation is undoubtedly different. Citizens of such countries are denied of their right to free trade, i.e., their right to buy and sell financial products in this case.
“[H]ow else do you think the commodity prices are so low for the 1 billion people in the developed world?”
The prices of commodity are universal. There is no such thing as commodity prices being cheap for this group of people and expensive for another group of people. For example, an American would pay the same price for gold as a Singaporean would – based on the price listed on an international index for gold, based on the international demand and supply of gold. But I understand your question and you asked an important question, though you might have phrased it slightly wrongly. The reason why prices of commodity are nominally lower in the developing and developed world than in the undeveloped world is because of additional domestic factors: the currencies of the developing and developed world are relatively stronger and more stable than the undeveloped world, thus the currencies of the developing and developed world have more purchasing power and also, in the developing and developed world, there are less economic red tape (which are costly barriers of trade) than in undeveloped world.
“I think it would be a pretty tough case to argue that the global market place is fair and confers equal rights on all humanity, when half of the world’s population lives in poverty not for what they did – but where they live.”
Again, I do not think we should discuss in the international context for reasons I explained above. But regarding your “equal rights” and “half of the world’s population lives in poverty not for what they did – but where they live”: The impoverished countries are normally countries with an oppressive governmental regime where citizens are denied of their rights to life, liberty, property, etc. The fault does not lie with the “global market place” but with their governments. It is also the fault of the citizens if they choose either not to leave their countries or not to overthrow their governments as rightful citizens.
“Any thoughts on what you think the definitive list of ‘natural rights’ actually are”
I do not have a “definitive” list of rights. (By the way, the term ‘natural rights’ is redundant. All rights have its source in Nature, i.e., reality.) But man has only one fundamental inalienable right, which is his right to live his life as he chooses as long as his actions do not violate the rights of others. All other rights are its corollaries which mean that the corollary rights are instrumental to the fundamental right to life.
“[H]ow we get to enforcing them practically?”
I have already explained this. It is the role – the only proper role – of government to protect and enforce rights.
“And in your definition of a ‘free society’ – any operational ideas on ‘freedom from what?’”
Firstly, there is no such thing as ‘my’ definition of a free society. A free society is a free society, i.e., a society whereby its citizens are completely free to engage in any action they wish as long as they do not violate the rights of others. This is the objective definition of a ‘free society’.
Secondly, to address your “freedom from what”, the purpose of rights is to bar the use of physical force from social relationships. Therefore, it is freedom from the initiation of physical force.
“There’s a whole list of good stuff we never want to be free from – like material comforts, physical safety etc.”
Implicit in your statement is the fallacy that man has a ‘right’ to material comforts such as a house or education. But no, man has only the right to be free to buy a house if another chooses to sell it to him. I shall refute this more completely in my next article titled “On rights and freedom of action” to be released this week. So, keep a look out!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you might want to re-read your economic and social history. For one thing, the prosperous 18th and 19th centuries were also among the most oppressive of periods in human history.
If you examine the social history of the UK itself, supposedly one of the torchbearers of freedom and rights, you will find that the notions of rights and freedom were what was used to justify the creation of an aristocratic elite, along with ‘everyone else’. The Enlightenment brought a lot ideas as we know today. But most of these were implemented in name, not in action. Similar too in France, America, Prussia, Russia and others.
There was perhaps much more freedom per se in the Scandinavian states comparatively speaking (c.f. the economic history of Sweden by Eli Heckscher). But they did not experience the same massive degree of ‘prosperity’ that has come to characterise the Anglo-Saxon type of countries. Apart from freedom, the rule of law and the stability of a particular social order is equally important and necessary. This much was recognised too by the thinkers of that period.
Edward, firstly, I would like to thank you for pointing out my error. You are correct in that the “18th and 19th centuries were also among the most oppressive of periods in human history.”
So, I revisited my history and made some changes to the last paragraph. Previously, I wrote “The 18th and 19th centuries were the most prosperous periods in the history of man.” I changed it to “The 18th and 19th centuries were the most prosperous periods for the United States of America, which was the first nation in the world to establish the principle of rights as the foundation of a constitutional republic.”
This is where I explain my change and explain why your statement “But most of these were implemented in name, not in action. Similar too in France, America, Prussia, Russia and others” is only half true.
The change is factual of course. Although the Industrial Revolution began in Europe and spread to America, because of America’s recognition of rights – particularly a man’s right to his own property in this case – 19th century Americans could keep most of their wealth, paid meager taxes, and enjoyed more prosperity as a result. Government spending in America in the 19th century was only 2-3% of GDP, as compared to today’s America where government spending is 25% of GDP. Europe, as it has always been, paid higher taxes (percentage-wise) than the US.
Russia and Prussia never even broached the subject of rights. Their citizens remained oppressed under czars, dictators, kings and emperors for most of history. So, they did not, as you mentioned, even tried to “implement in name” the principle of rights.
After the Revolution, France was proclaimed a republic but they did not establish it on the principle of rights, which subsequently led to an empire, King Louis XVIII being restored to power, another revolution, a second republic which failed due to a highly flawed Constitution with no resolution, another empire, etc. You are correct here.
But, you are wrong about America. The US is the first nation to recognize and establish the principle of rights as the foundation of their constitutional republic. After the Revolutionary War, when General George Washington, later to be the first US President, was offered the position of king, his reply was “Abhorrent!” and said that he did not expel King George the Third to be King George the First.
In the US’s Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s Founding Fathers, wrote “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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The United States of America is the first free nation. But that was 18th century America, today’s America is different. It is not as free as it was intended by the Founding Fathers.
This is another reply to IC’s second comment.
“I take it you’re taking a narrow comparative politics definition of rights that still assumes the nation state and a sovereign? Rather outdated for a globalized world isn’t it?”
I do not understand what you are talking about here. What exactly is a “narrow comparative politics definition of rights”? In my article, I provide an objective theory of rights based on facts of reality. How is it outdated for a “globalized world”?
“The realms of domestic and international politics are usually incompatible – what’s good for one usually asks for some sacrifices in the other.”
This point is wrong. Life is not a zero-sum game. It is a game where as long as participating parties stick to clear objective principles, all benefits. If you wish to refute what I said, do provide concrete examples from history to illustrate your point that “what’s good for one usually asks for some sacrifices in the other.”
Still steep in the tradition of dialectics and looking for the grand narrative I see.
Look forward to your next article Say Peng!
My next article “On rights and freedom of action” can be found here: http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=16920