What Is Right?

I. The Basics

These are some of my favorite things…

• Safe food and water
• Information and education
• Meaningful employment
• Health
• A sound home
• Security

These are undeniably basic necessities, and life would hardly be worth living without them. We should work to ensure that everyone, everywhere can meet these needs.

Yet, no one has a right to any of the above.

That’s right. No one has a right to any of these seemingly essential elements of what we call life today. You may think I have lost my mind, but I challenge you to read on. First, clear your mind of all of the trappings of our modern world, and consider life on its most basic level.

II. The Desert

The band America said, "In the desert you can remember your name…" and all the better since at times and in places, all you have is your name – your identity – a point where you cannot strip down human existence any farther. Every one of our basic rights is represented in that stark mode of existence:

• The right to live
• The right to speak freely
• The right to worship or not worship as you see fit
• The right to associate or not associate with whomever you choose (if there are others in the desert with you)
• The right to be left alone – right to privacy
• The right to work towards improving your lot in life
• The right to whatever property you can earn, invent and secure without initiating force or using fraud to take it from others
• The right to defend your life and your justly acquired property using any reasonable and appropriate means available

These rights hold true from the desert to the metropolis and from the dawn of time to life among the stars – and beyond. They are essential, inalienable, or if you like, god given. Regardless, we are born with these rights and must demand that nothing infringe upon them – no person, no business, no government, no social program – not without our consent (voting and losing is not consent). These rights must be more than a line in the sand. They are the mark of a civil society.
I have been told that a desert or island scenario is irrelevant – that it is not valid to compare a harsh isolated existence with living in the developed and powerful societies of the first world today. I do not see why. These are truths – the building blocks of every valid, moral and ethical relationship among people. No matter how complex a superstructure rests on this base, it will crumble if this foundation is weakened. Perhaps we call them natural rights because you have to get out of the city and back to the core of our existence to see the truth of them.

So let’s stay in the desert for just a little while longer. Imagine that two people now cross paths in the desert. What are the just boundaries of their interaction?

Is it acceptable for one…

• To kill the other?
  -- No, that is murder.
• To gag or use the threat of force to silence the other?
  -- No, that is assault and oppression.
• To force the other to stop worshipping or force him to worship in a particular way?
  -- No, that too is assault and oppression.
• To foist himself on the other?
  -- No, that is harassment.
• To forcibly or surreptitiously search the person and effects of the other?
  -- No, that is an assault and a violation of his sovereignty and dignity.
• To subjugate and limit the choices and movement of the other by force?
  -- No, that is slavery.
• To take by force or fraud the provisions of the other?
  -- No, that is theft.
• To prevent the other from protecting his life and property?
  -- No, that is to be an accessory to murder, assault or theft.

No, it is not acceptable for either to violate any rights of the other. If we cannot agree on these principles, I fear that human existence will never be peaceful. These basic rights do not change when a third person arrives on the scene. They each may agree voluntarily to pool and manage their resources through democratic or other processes. If two agree to collaborate and the third does not, the two may have enough power to force their "solutions" on the third. However, their might does not give them any special or additional rights just because of their sheer numbers. Nor does the third forfeit his rights in the face of overwhelming numbers. It does not matter if there is a fourth and a fifth or if there are ten billion of the same mind, with just one outsider – all of his individual rights are just as natural and valid and should be protected.

III. Benevolence

But back to the first two… Let’s suppose that the first one has nothing but a shirt, jeans and boots; the second one has the same, plus a full pack with enough provisions to last for several days. Neither knows how deep they are in the desert. In this scenario, the first person does not suddenly earn special rights to the provisions of the second, just because she is in need. Likewise the second does not forfeit the right to her provisions, just because of her relative advantage.

You may justly say that due to her advantage the second has a moral responsibility to assist the first. Yet that is a matter of conscience. It is not morally superior for a powerful, unbiased third party, i.e., the mythical benevolent dictator, to intervene with force to take from the second and give to the first. The second has done nothing wrong. The second is not responsible for the circumstances of the first.

Such redistribution could mean death for both rather than allowing one to survive. The first may be so inept or unfit that she will die in the desert, even if she takes all of the provisions from the second. The second may be better suited to survival in a harsh environment and her provisions may be just enough to sustain her. No one has an all-divining eye to see the truth of these or most any circumstances. There is no perfect, benevolent dictator who can guarantee desirable or optimum outcomes. For this scenario, one might produce an "equality of outcomes" – a seemingly popular notion these days (Karl Marx would be proud). While I agree that ensuring death for both is equal, it is neither desirable nor optimum. Some would disagree; some openly advocate and prefer equal oppression to allowing freedom for some to fail while others succeed. I cannot comprehend such a mindset. The only "field" that can justly approach being leveled is that of our essential rights.

We are accountable to ourselves, our peers and our maker to be charitable people who take care of those in need. Helping people in need has no moral value, if those helping are coerced with threats of force. True charity must be conscious and voluntary. Even charity that is prodded by social pressure and guilt has greater redeeming value. Even if it lacks a generosity of spirit, at least it reflects a sense of accountability and social or moral responsibility. At least it does not invite violence; we always risk violence when we resort to force.

Yet there are countless numbers who are betting on the benevolence of an overarching society. They want to voluntarily pool their resources and use democratic process to manage them, helping those in need and at the same time building infrastructure that benefits everyone in ways that are ubiquitous and too numerous to measure. That is how villages, towns and cities come to be.

IV. Metropolis

I think that song had it right. We do forget our name, our essence, our truth, when thrown to and fro amongst huddled masses. It is easy to forget that not everyone has what we have, and that even our most basic needs can never be guaranteed as rights can. It is easy to forget that we could easily have nothing tomorrow: no job, no health care, no home, no car, no food, and no security. It is harder to take away natural rights than material needs. You see, natural rights can only be taken by something called a criminal – oh, and governments can take them too.

Still, we are impressed by the throngs of humanity and we convince ourselves that, at least as a species, we are immortal. The social engineers, politicians and scientists, who all know what is best for us, know that we will be better off when we are united towards the same goals – and by god, they will tell us what those goals are – so just shut-up, dig-in and pull your weight. Everything will be decided by benevolent committees. You won’t have to think for yourself or pursue your own goals, or even know the difference between right and wrong. Just follow along. We will all be complicit in every crime and ostensibly in every achievement too. In reality, blame will be shared by all, and credit will go to the committees, along with our thanks for their sound guidance.

There seems to be a common theme pervading the favored social, political and scientific avenues of thought on the future of our species. Even in the most egalitarian and hopeful visions of the future, as with the "Star Trek" television and movie series, we will be united in common purpose, and we will shed our focus on personal gain. We will cease to act as individuals and becomes cells in a larger organism. There is no denying the prevalence of such sentiment.

And strangely, if such a grand vision had to be accomplished though force, I know it would fail. Instead, I suspect it will succeed precisely because we will relinquish the freedoms afforded to us by our natural rights, willingly. We will yield them in exchange for having our every need met and for the promise of safety. All of our needs and none of our rights. Wow! Surely, some of you are saying that sounds pretty good. "What a deal! All I gave up were my rights. I wasn’t even using them." Me? I will take my chances and gladly fight and die to keep my rights.

Certainly, enough will yield that the few holdouts, like me, can be easily marginalized and criminalized. This grand society will come about because we are intoxicated with the comfort, power and technological achievement that only a rich society can offer. In fact, I know someone who says that people will only shed their focus on personal gain when everyone can have anything they could ever need, just like Star Trek.

V. The Replicator

You might suspect that with a name like mine, I would be a big fan of Star Trek. After all Captain Kirk’s arch nemesis was ("Wrath of…") Khan Noonien Singh. Does that make me my own worst enemy? Well, I do like the series and even own a couple of collectibles, but I’m not exactly a trekker or even a trekkie. For those not familiar with Star Trek, I will explain. You see, they have this gadget they call a Replicator. This technology of the 24th Century can create most any physical object practically out of thin air.

So, in the world of Star Trek, everyone can literally have anything they would ever need. The same technology imagined for the Replicator also manifests itself in "holodecks". These are entertainment rooms that go beyond virtual reality to create concrete physical environments with lifelike interactive people, and all can be programmed to our dreams and desires. You can bet that the only time anyone ever leaves the holodecks on the Starship Enterprise is when their rationed time runs out or their shifts are starting (or the Romulans are attacking). If you could spend a few hours a week fulfilling your every fantasy, there is probably no end to the subjugation you would endure the rest of the week.

For now that is pure fantasy, but even the modest technologies of our time are beginning to lull us. I see the malaise setting in all around us. When I speak out to reclaim my rights, people don’t understand why I won’t get with the program, why I won’t relinquish my rights in exchange for the comforts offered to me. The argument seems to be that if I benefit from society in any way, then I turn over my destiny to the majority who get to decide what rights will be traded for what comforts and protections. It is all or nothing.

No, that’s not true. Nothing is not an option. There is no way out. There is no paying your own way or carrying your own weight. You cannot exist amongst the rest of society without being forever in debt to it. For some, like me, this is unacceptable. We demand that life be voluntary and that our freedoms not be relinquished except by our direct individual consent, which we will not give. We do not consent to the will of a simple majority. Again, voting and losing is not consent.

And for those of you who might say, "Well you can just leave, if you don’t like it," I say that is not an option either. For now I suppose it is still possible to find pockets of freedom in communities that do not consider you inextricably entangled, each with the other’s fate. Yet, for any socialist, communist or Marxist society (pick your flavor of collectivism – they all taste the same to me) to succeed, it must be all encompassing. It must resist any dissent. It must not allow anyone to escape its grasp. Total dominion is the goal of all such collectivist schemes. The reason is simple; people with talent, creativity and initiative are oppressed in societies that demand mediocrity. And that is what collectivist societies do. They are systems of oppression that produce relatively equal outcomes by limiting both failure and success.

The other day, a friend aptly pointed out that there is plenty of room for collectivist communities in a libertarian world, but there is no room for libertarians in a collectivist world. I have no doubt; eventually there will be no refuge from the tender mercies of a society united in lust for comfort and safety. Our only choices will be to comply or be crushed, but I am looking for a third option. I want to opt out.

[Look for me to discuss "Opting Out" in future articles. – Kirk Narinder Singh]
___________________________

I think this fella was trying to say some of the same things but drank too much coffee and got a little testy. I may be brewing up a rant of my own...

• Modern Bill of Rights

I almost forgot. This is an excellent opportunity to share a link from the International Society for Individual Liberty. It is a 10 minute Flash presentation (1.01 Mb, 3+ minutes to load by dial-up) and is available in other languages directly from the ISIL home page. Please support them if you can.

• "Philosophy of Liberty"