Unalienable Rights
When so-called “unalienable” rights, commonly understood as
freedoms, are abrogated by government authority, it is self-evident
that these freedoms are not “unalienable,” but are granted by an
entity with the powers of enforcement. It does not matter if
abridgments come from an elected official, or from a dictator. It
does not matter if there are “good” reasons, or wanton desires
for restrictions. When armed force is employed to arrest those that
violate suppression of “unalienable” rights, freedom no longer
exists.
Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as saying, “Those who would give
up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve
neither liberty nor safety.” This suggests that from the creation
of The Declaration of Independence, there were Americans
willing to sacrifice freedom, for personal safety. This was perhaps
the primary distinction between the “patriots,” and “loyalists,”
of the day. Patriots were willing to sacrifice everything for
freedom, and Loyalists were willing to trade liberty for safety,
under the Crown of England.
While this desire for safety has been with us since our Founding, it
has grown exponentially since Joseph Fletcher’s thesis on
“Situational Ethics,” in the 1960’s. Fletcher’s theories
that there are no absolutes and that every decision should be
motivated by love, found fertile ground in classrooms around the
world. Today, Fletcher’s influence may be seen in every human
endeavor from politics to religion, from charity to the workplace, in
that “moral absolutes” no longer exist. The situation determines
the response. For example, lying is not wrong if done to protect
another person’s feelings, or theft is not wrong, if done to feed a
family.
This is the lens through which “freedom” is viewed by many people
today. For these, the situation determines whether or not, freedom
is allowed, or allowable. However, freedom is an unalienable right
and as such, freedom is not something to be authorized by a governing
authority.
Furthermore, if freedom is unalienable, it must also come with moral
responsibility. It is a moral responsibility to end one person’s
freedom where it collides with another person’s freedom, and
failure to do so is immoral.
Certainly, government has the righteous authority to determine when
and where an individual’s moral freedom infringes on another and
therefore, becomes immoral. For example, an individual has freedom
to own a dog, until that dog bites a neighbor. At that time, the
government has the moral authority and responsibility, to intervene.
However, it is subjugation of the dog owner’s freedom, for
government to decree that the man cannot own a dog, for fear that a
dog may bite someone. On the other side of this situation, the
neighbor has the moral right to defend himself against the dog, and
it is infringement of his freedom, to restrict his doing so.
American society has come to the place where fear of what might
happen, and the attendant desire for security has undermined freedom
in every sector of life. One cannot start a business; engage in a
profession or trade; build, repair, or remodel a home; drive a car;
dig a pond or harvest a forest without government permission. Bank
accounts are monitored and one cannot withdraw or deposit large sums
of cash without government oversight. We are no longer secure in our
homes, persons or papers. Law enforcement can knock down the door of
the wrong house, and if the owner resists, his life may be forfeit
with no accountability.
How does this differ from the conditions in dictatorships that we
Americans rail against? There is no difference, and all one need do
is look at responses around the world concerning Corona Virus to know
this. Americans are at the crossroads. If we continue to cower in
fear of what might happen, government will not need a pandemic to
tell you when you may leave your home, or where you may travel.
Jim
