Rights versus Privileges
In today's America we hear arguments for this or that policy goal framed with the language of "my rights." Gay marriage is supposedly a right. Abortion is supposedly a right. Health insurance is supposedly a right. Cheap housing is supposedly a right. And so on. It does beg the question, though: what exactly is a right? And second to that, what is a privilege?
A proper understanding of rights and privileges requires us to start from the beginning of the American Republic, namely the Declaration of Independence. Our founding charter articulated the concept of inalienable rights, or rights that derive from G-d and not from the beneficent hand of man (government). These rights are inseparably embedded in the human condition and therefore cannot be legitimately denied or curbed by the arbitrary force of our government, or any government for that matter. For the first time in human history, the American founders articulated the truth that rights are distinguished separably from privileges; one is inherent in human life at the moment that life comes to be; one is left to the realm of the legitimate political process that derives said legitimacy only from the consent of the governed.
We are indeed endowed by our Creator to the rights of life and liberty, and only when one impedes upon the other can either be circumscribed. If I destroy your right to life, then my own life and liberty are at risk. If I destroy your right to liberty, than my own is properly at risk. In the American system, my rights of life and liberty may only be proscribed according to the due process of law, and not by the sheer arbitrary acts of those who hold the levers of power.
Privileges, on the other hand, are benefits or favors bequeathed from one to another, or from oneself to oneself. Should I choose to purchase health insurance I have accorded myself this benefit. Should my employer provide me with it, he or she has accorded it to me. But one cannot write a check to G-d and purchase health insurance, and one is not accorded health insurance at conception or even birth. I suppose a more succinct way to put it would be to say that things created by man cannot be inalienable rights. With respect to abortion, the only legitimate means of the termination of pregnancy is through the natural course of gestation and the body's natural acceptance or rejection of the baby developing inside the womb. For as the right to life is inalienable as properly understood by our Declaration and protected by our Constitution, it is self-evident then that the destruction of that right by arbitrary exercise of power at the hands of a physician (whose knowledge was not inherent at either conception or birth, but learned over a lifetime) and the whim of decision-making by the mother who allowed herself (in almost all cases) to be impregnated in the first place, then the act of abortion is a privilege to be decided by the People of the United States or of the several States. But let's please dispense of the fraudulent discussion of abortion as a right that derives itself from two documents that place the inalienable rights of life and liberty above all others. This is tragicomedy at best.
What got me thinking about rights and privileges was all the discussion about Michael Vick's reinstatement into the NFL and his signing by my favorite team, the Philadelphia Eagles. Many have mused that Vick "deserves" a second chance or that he has a "right" to play football. One statement is questionable and one is wrong.
Viewed solely through the prism of law and order, Vick is indeed deserving of a second chance at exercising his rights of life and liberty. But the conglomeration known as the NFL also has an inherent right of free association and therefore gets to make decisions for itself about who plays and who doesn't. If the NFL can deny the privilege to me because I'm not athletically gifted enough, then it also has the right to deny that privilege to someone who committed an outright felonious atrocity against dogs. So yes, Vick's freedom (e.g. liberty) is guaranteed because he paid his debt to society as defined by society and enforced through the courts, but his ability to play football is not inherent in his humanity and is therefore properly defined as a privilege. No, Michael Vick does not deserve to play football and has no right to do so in the NFL. Sadly, the Eagles bestowed that privilege upon him and have angered a city and fan base around the nation.
We do a profound disservice to ourselves, our family, our friends, and most importantly our Declaration of Independence and Constitution when we debase the discussion of rights and privileges and allow the lines between the two to be blurred or even completely removed. In our efforts to return our nation to a better path for the future, we must place at the forefront of the discussion an honest effort at the proper distinction between the two. Then we will have taken our first steps toward a new morning in America.
A proper understanding of rights and privileges requires us to start from the beginning of the American Republic, namely the Declaration of Independence. Our founding charter articulated the concept of inalienable rights, or rights that derive from G-d and not from the beneficent hand of man (government). These rights are inseparably embedded in the human condition and therefore cannot be legitimately denied or curbed by the arbitrary force of our government, or any government for that matter. For the first time in human history, the American founders articulated the truth that rights are distinguished separably from privileges; one is inherent in human life at the moment that life comes to be; one is left to the realm of the legitimate political process that derives said legitimacy only from the consent of the governed.
We are indeed endowed by our Creator to the rights of life and liberty, and only when one impedes upon the other can either be circumscribed. If I destroy your right to life, then my own life and liberty are at risk. If I destroy your right to liberty, than my own is properly at risk. In the American system, my rights of life and liberty may only be proscribed according to the due process of law, and not by the sheer arbitrary acts of those who hold the levers of power.
Privileges, on the other hand, are benefits or favors bequeathed from one to another, or from oneself to oneself. Should I choose to purchase health insurance I have accorded myself this benefit. Should my employer provide me with it, he or she has accorded it to me. But one cannot write a check to G-d and purchase health insurance, and one is not accorded health insurance at conception or even birth. I suppose a more succinct way to put it would be to say that things created by man cannot be inalienable rights. With respect to abortion, the only legitimate means of the termination of pregnancy is through the natural course of gestation and the body's natural acceptance or rejection of the baby developing inside the womb. For as the right to life is inalienable as properly understood by our Declaration and protected by our Constitution, it is self-evident then that the destruction of that right by arbitrary exercise of power at the hands of a physician (whose knowledge was not inherent at either conception or birth, but learned over a lifetime) and the whim of decision-making by the mother who allowed herself (in almost all cases) to be impregnated in the first place, then the act of abortion is a privilege to be decided by the People of the United States or of the several States. But let's please dispense of the fraudulent discussion of abortion as a right that derives itself from two documents that place the inalienable rights of life and liberty above all others. This is tragicomedy at best.
What got me thinking about rights and privileges was all the discussion about Michael Vick's reinstatement into the NFL and his signing by my favorite team, the Philadelphia Eagles. Many have mused that Vick "deserves" a second chance or that he has a "right" to play football. One statement is questionable and one is wrong.
Viewed solely through the prism of law and order, Vick is indeed deserving of a second chance at exercising his rights of life and liberty. But the conglomeration known as the NFL also has an inherent right of free association and therefore gets to make decisions for itself about who plays and who doesn't. If the NFL can deny the privilege to me because I'm not athletically gifted enough, then it also has the right to deny that privilege to someone who committed an outright felonious atrocity against dogs. So yes, Vick's freedom (e.g. liberty) is guaranteed because he paid his debt to society as defined by society and enforced through the courts, but his ability to play football is not inherent in his humanity and is therefore properly defined as a privilege. No, Michael Vick does not deserve to play football and has no right to do so in the NFL. Sadly, the Eagles bestowed that privilege upon him and have angered a city and fan base around the nation.
We do a profound disservice to ourselves, our family, our friends, and most importantly our Declaration of Independence and Constitution when we debase the discussion of rights and privileges and allow the lines between the two to be blurred or even completely removed. In our efforts to return our nation to a better path for the future, we must place at the forefront of the discussion an honest effort at the proper distinction between the two. Then we will have taken our first steps toward a new morning in America.
posted by The Rock | 1:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home