I have written about it multiple times in recent months: the Founders had the right principles, but they gave us a system that could not properly actuate those principles. (Note, I didn’t say “did not properly actuate those principles”; I said “could not.” The distinction matters.) A conversation yesterday with a subscriber helped me realize a good way to illustrate this sad reality…
A core principle of all classical liberalism is that rights are natural—rooted in universal natural law, and thus the object of a higher ethic that stands above any manmade authority. The Founders believed this in no uncertain terms. Yet the system they gave us forces us to negotiate with a government—and with our fellow voters—over which of our rights we actually get to enjoy, and to what degree. This phenomenon is entirely anathema to the very principles that animated them.
They probably could not have done any better, given their moment in history. The philosophical wellsprings from which they drew were deep and rich, but these men were still products of their times. Most of the brilliant thinkers of the anarcho-libertarian tradition had not yet been born. The world was awash in monarchies. Jumping straight from the ancien régime to modern conceptions of voluntaryism was very likely impossible. But whether they could have done better is not the issue. They did what they did. We are where we are.
And where are we? We are once again heading for another presidential election. We are talking about which candidates we support, and why. But think about it—when we have these conversations, especially on the right, what are we really talking about?
I like what *insert name here* says about lockdowns, masking, and the vaccine, but he’s a gun grabber.
*Candidate X* will probably do a great job on the economy, but he’s the one who gave us the vaccine and Fauci in the first place.
*So and so* is great on speech and censorship, but would be terrible for the economy.
I won’t keep cranking out examples. You already know what I am talking about. We are talking about what rights each candidate threatens more. We are asking ourselves what violations of our rights we can more easily tolerate.
We are doing exactly what we are not supposed to do—we are going to government, hat in hand, asking for permission. We are Oliver Twist with the bowl, asking for more. Please, sir. By your leave, sir.
Rights are not negotiable. A right is anything you want to do that does not initiate force upon another. There is no limit. Rights are not a matter of degree. And yet here we are negotiating for our rights, as if any of our rights are actually negotiable.
They aren’t.
Your right to live…move…engage in voluntary business or social transactions…speak…own property…protect yourself and your property…and so much more—all of it is yours, rooted in your ownership of yourself—of your life, your body, and your being. These rights are yours, no matter what a government says. Even a democratic one.
Here we see the risk of enumerating rights in government documents: people may get the impression—and government may begin to act on the supposition—that we only have the rights that are enumerated, and that we only have them because they are enumerated. Neither of these is true.
Madison saw this risk, which is why Amendment IX was added:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X—the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people—attempts to add another bulwark.
But the bulwarks are not strong enough. The system forces us to negotiate for the non-negotiable. Every government on the planet, including the one that our great Founders gave us, is in direct violation of natural law and human rights.
Every couple of years, we do the same dance. We scramble and fight to secure the enjoyment of as many rights as we can, and then we wait to see which rights we actually get to enjoy, and to what degree. It’s time for a change.
So does that mean we shouldn’t vote?
Stay tuned for that part of the discussion tomorrow…