The Promise of Individuality: Inalienable Rights

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 0 comments


by David Odegard

I am an individual. I believe in human rights being guaranteed at the individual level. My rights are not derived by my belonging to a group. I believe the State has to maintain what I call the libertarian minimum. That is, it must only guarantee the security of life, liberty, and property to its citizens and go no farther! The State is to guarantee that I do no harm to someone else or use force or violence against another person.

The State’s position is a purely defensive one. It is the amalgamation of every free person’s right to voluntarily unite for the common defense against the aggression of others. It is all the nerds on the playground standing together against a bully saying, “If you fight one of us, you fight all of us.” We have the right to use violence only in self-defense, and we have the right to empower the State to use that defensive power on our behalf in a civil way. But that is as far as the violence can go.

The State may not be used to wield power against others. Our nerds can persuade stronger students into standing with them in solidarity against the bully, but they may not hire the bully to wreak havoc on others. The State is to guarantee that we have rigorous freedom and leave us mostly to ourselves. (Read more about that here.)

There are basically three kinds of freedom: libertine, libertarian, and virtuous (or the pursuit of the good).

Libertine freedom denotes casting off moral restraint and doing whatever gives you pleasure.

Libertarian freedom implies the ability to make choices that can be harmful or destructive, as long as that harm or destruction does not spill over onto another person—that is those actions do not impede another’s life, liberty, or property.

Virtuous freedom is freedom from restraint (chemical, moral, etc.) to pursue the good life. It is the ancient idea of Eudemonia. You can read more about that here.

The State is unable to allow libertine freedom, because that would be unjust. The State cannot allow persons to harm one another. Libertine freedom allows a person to live without moral constraints including theft, murder, fraud, debauchery, etc. It is antinomianism run amuck.

On the other hand, the State is powerless to provide you with virtuous freedom. That is, it cannot compel you pursue the good life, because virtue must be voluntary for it to be virtuous. The State can only prevent others from using violence against you, thus providing everyone with the equal opportunity for the good life. But you must pursue it for yourself at your own expense and to the risk of your own person.

That leaves only libertarian freedom; that is why I call it the libertarian minimum. The State has a responsibility to guarantee this minimum, and any attempts to do otherwise become tyranny and injustice. No one can be allowed to take your life, liberty, or property without repercussions from the law. The libertarian minimum is the only just course for the State regardless of how much persons might wish it could produce a utopia. It can’t.

Asking the State to do otherwise would mean that the State must become a bully and shakedown others on your behalf. The State would have to choose those for whom it would provide benefits and those whom it would subjugate in order for those benefits to be provided. Any service that is mandated as your right must be taken from someone else, who is forced to comply with the State’s demand. The result is that the State treats everyone unfairly—some with benefits and others with burdens. Even though this is the exact opposite of actual justice, it is the current state of affairs in the United States.

If you are to have something you did not earn, someone has to earn it and have it taken away—if that isn’t injustice, what is? Of course, someone could voluntarily give something away from the goodness of her heart, and that would be virtuous. But can you see how forcing her to do this removes the virtue? It is no longer a gift; it is theft by a bully.

The concept of justice is nearly as old as human beings. Christianity places the source of justice in God Himself. He is maximally good and perfect. He is holy and just and He cannot leave sin unpunished (Nahum 1:3). While God does punish nations, and innocent members of the community have to suffer along with those who actually caused the problems, justice is primarily about individual response to God’s way of life. The ultimate day of justice, Judgment Day, is executed toward the individual. See Ezekiel 18, especially verse 20: “The soul that sins, it shall die.”

If this is how God carries out justice, it behooves us to follow suit. We do not condone punishing families for the crimes of one of its members; rather, holding individuals accountable for their own actions is considered just. As obvious as this sounds, the idea is quickly eroding on college campuses and elsewhere where your membership to certain groups is all the signal of character one needs to condemn or praise a person. It is on your group identity that you are judged, not individual character. (Look for my future post concerning intersectionality.)

I believe in the autonomy of the individual. I am not you, you are not me. There is in impassable barrier between my “self” and your “self.” We are distinct from one another. You cannot read my mind, though you may guess what I am thinking. I am innocent of your crimes and vice versa. But there are limits to individualism, which I will discuss in my next post.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.

0 comments: