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

www.jim-mac.com