“What are my rights?  Where did they come from?  Are they permanent or can they change?  I know I have some.  I think there’s something about them in the Constitution; something about free speech, something about guns, another one about the police searching my house, and maybe another one about religion or something?  But these were all written in the 1700s.  Are they even relevant in modern society?  Times change, right?  I hear all of these blowhards on these news shows debating rights and they’re getting nowhere.  Why are they questioning someone’s right to make a minimum wage?  And how can someone say that owning an automatic rifle is a right but receiving health care when you’re sick isn’t?  That just doesn’t add up to me.  Who decides what is and is not a right?”

This crude illustration represents the abysmal level of understanding and awareness of the concept of rights in our society presently.  I constantly hear these questions and comments from coworkers and acquaintances.  The most disturbing factor here is not that the questions are being asked, but the nuance behind them.  They are, almost without exception, rhetorical questions put forth by lost souls who have relinquished all hope for definitive answers.  They consider the issue to be an everlasting perplexity open to subjective interpretation.  “It’s all just one person’s opinion against another person’s opinion.  Neither one can be said to be right.  The government will just choose one side and legally mandate that that’s what our rights are.  And I’m sure the government has our best interests in mind when they define our rights.”  And worse yet, these people are far less common than those who don’t bother asking the questions at all.  They are, for one reason or another, completely apathetic towards their rights!  A huge sect of the country’s population simply leaves the issue alone.  Both of these demographics serve to perfectly illustrate the truism that if you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.

So why has a concept so central to our existence been reduced to this seemingly endless barrage of multiple warring opinions?  And why are individual rights commonly considered to be defined according to some governmental pronouncement?  Since this is my post, I’ll tell you why.

The plain and simple truth is that there has been a wholesale abandonment of basic philosophies and principals in our society.  Any “issue” can be argued until the end of time with no constructive conclusion if there is no philosophical groundwork behind it.  The trendy rationale of the day seems to be some sort of quasi “pragmatism;”  “If it makes sense to me at the moment, I’ll go with it.”  On this level of deliberation, these peoples’ positions are subject to the next convincingly eloquent argument one puts forth on an issue; regardless of its philosophical consistency or moral validity.  For example, many people are perfectly capable of formulating an impressive case in favor of the federal government handing out tax money for bailouts, so long as the moral and philosophical implications of it are left completely unmentioned; as is the case in any debate you will see or hear in the mainstream media.  A discussion of this type may involve two opposing “experts,” “analysts,” “consultants,” or whatever over-inflated title the media wishes to ascribe to them, bickering back and forth about how the government should go about “reviving the economy.”  The “liberal” states “this money should go to the individuals who were either duped by predatory lending into taking loans that the greedy bankers knew would default or are suffering from the reckless speculation of Wall Street fat cats. The consumer is the one that will stimulate the economy by making more purchases with this money, thereby driving production, creating jobs, and getting the economy back on its feet.” The “conservative” fires back with “first of all this assistance should go to the lending institutions because they will allow the consumer to make more substantial purchases and stimulate the economy that much more. And furthermore, if we help out the producers themselves, they can directly create more jobs, increase productivity, and restore this great country to its rightful place as the leader of industry.” Do you see the beauty of this debate? No matter which one of these people we side with, we are accepting the same underlying philosophical premise: it’s okay for the government to confiscate the property of some and appropriate it to others for the purpose of instilling economic prosperity. We are not hearing two sides of an issue; this is a scuffle over two facets of one side of the issue. The notion that the government should have no involvement at all is not represented; except on the rare occasion that they interview someone like Ron Paul or Peter Schiff, and then they are quick to marginalize them and accuse them of being extremists with unrealistic and impractical positions.  There is absolutely no reference to the fact that one of our society’s founding principals (and one of the factors that made us the most successful civilization in human history) was that the government was to have no role whatsoever in the economy except to punish those guilty of dealing through force or fraud. This idea is left out for fear of people finding out that this principal is being regularly and systematically violated.

I’m at a loss to pin down the precise cause of this.  Is it pure intellectual laziness toward the notion of forming a consistent ideology?  Is it the will of a malicious conspiratorial group who run the media and the government?  This is probably a topic for another post.  Whatever the cause, the subject of rights is inundated with this type of completely inconsequential quibbling over diluted topics.  It is simply two or more individuals spouting the byproducts of their ignorance and apathy.  No one is consistently individualist, consistently collectivist, consistently statist, or consistently anything.  Many modern-day so-called “conservatives” take an individualist stance on property ownership; and then they support a military draft, one of the most statist and anti-individualist concepts in existence.  Can they really believe that the individual citizen rightfully owns his/her material possessions but not their own life?!  Consider it for a moment.  Can someone really be said to be free if there is some governmental right to hijack their very person and force them into servitude that could likely lead to their death?  I guess plenty of people think so, and you will find them everywhere.  Meanwhile, we have “liberals” who rail against the Patriot Act in favor of the individual’s right to privacy and then demand that the state confiscate peoples’ earned income to fund performance art projects.   So the government can extort people’s property from them at will so long as they don’t violate their privacy in the process?  In this atmosphere, is it any wonder that so many people believe that rights are duly decided by arbitrary whim?

So is there really a definitive answer to all of this?  Yes, and it is very simple.  (As a side note: whenever someone tells you that a concept is too complex for you to understand, they are probably purposefully convoluting the issue to conceal some kind of dishonesty on their part.)  Thanks to Ayn Rand’s school of Objectivism, the issue has been definitively and eloquently settled.  There is only one right that exists; and if you’re reading this, the tagline of this site has already told you what it is.  Every individual has the right to their own life.  That’s it.  Every other right is simply an offshoot of this central right.  You are the rightful owner of your life, your pursuits, your destiny.  It is strictly your responsibility to sustain your own survivability; and you may keep and dispose of your life however you see fit.  The only limitation you are obligated to recognize is that you may not interfere with anyone else’s equal right to life, and no one can interfere with yours; especially the government! And make no mistake.  Material property and monetary income are components of one’s life.  It’s dismissive and irresponsible to call them “mere possessions.”  They are the products of one’s mental and physical energy, and if one does not have full possession and discretion over the use of his/her own mental and physical creativity and ingenuity; then they do not fully own their life.  As Ayn Rand stated many times; “no rights can exist without property rights.”

All of this is consistent with the individualist philosophy.  Because one’s life is the ultimate right, the individual is the only entity that can possess it.  No collective can justly possess rights.  Any call for the rights of a group necessarily violates the rights of the individuals who fall outside that group.  “Group rights” almost always means group government subsidies; monetary-wise, policy-wise, or otherwise; and are always granted at the expense of someone else’s rights.  And don’t be fooled by the flowery euphemism “minority rights.”  This is still a call for collective rights.  The smallest minority in existence is the individual (another Randism).  But I digress.  This also a topic for another post.

When the Bill of Rights was suggested for inclusion in the US Constitution, several of the Founding Fathers were against it.  They knew that the right to life was the source of all other rights; and feared that any codified listing of rights would be widely considered to be exhaustive and be too narrowly interpreted.  But their opposition saw a need to make a clear and concise list of the most common rights violations occurring in other countries at the time (particularly several European countries) in order to express an overt prohibition against our own government following suit.  Needless to say, the latter side won out, but the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment served to state emphatically that the Bill of Rights was not intended to be all-inclusive and that the manifestations of the right to life are unlimited.

Now let’s revisit some of the questions from earlier.  Is minimum wage a valid right?  We’ve already established that your monetary income is an integral part of your life, so yes; right?  Not so fast.  Don’t forget that two parties are inherent in this scenario; employer and employee.  The employee has the right to earn a wage.  The employer has the right to receive some sort of benefit (usually labor) for the wage he pays.  In a society based on individual rights, the nature of this bargain (and all human relationships) is mutually beneficial, voluntary trade.  So it is strictly up to these two parties to negotiate the terms of the exchange.  Are we starting to see a problem with a third party butting in and dictating a minimum wage?  By forcing the employer to pay a wage that he may not have voluntarily agreed to, the government takes away his right to manage his business, property and finances (his life) as he chooses.  This may also be costing the potential employee the job (his right to choose his livelihood) if the employer doesn’t have the means or desire to hire him at the minimum wage, even though he may have been perfectly willing to work for less. While the employee has the right to any agreed-upon compensation for his services, no minimum amount is inherently owed to him. (Minimum wage also has numerous economic implications; but I’d be straying from the subject again).

Now the “automatic rifle vs. free health care” issue.  Your life is yours to protect and defend from violent attack by any means you choose.  This includes an automatic rifle.  This tool (like most any tool) may carry with it the possibility to be used to commit murder, but until the moment you use it to violate someone else’s rights, your possession of it is perfectly legitimate.  On the other hand, the demand for free health care necessarily violates the rights of others.  Like the minimum wage scenario, it calls for the enrichment of someone at someone else’s expense. As discussed above, anyone is free to voluntarily trade their products and services to others on whatever terms they choose.  But you have no right to forcibly expropriate the productive effort of someone else (or to have the government do it for you).    A doctor could not be forced to render their services involuntarily.  This would be an act of enslavement.  Now you may be thinking that this reasoning is silly because the doctors are compensated.  The government pays them to serve the public.  They may not have voluntarily agreed to the amount they receive, but they can just choose not to be doctors if they don’t like it, right?  Not so fast.  Who did you say pays them?  The government?  Does the government have its own money?  Oh yeah, taxes. That’s right.  Now we come to the meat of this issue.  Unlike the minimum wage situation, this does not involve two parties.  It involves millions: the doctor, the patient, and the tax-payers. Conversion of the medical industry into a federal program and doctors into government agents funded by tax dollars is exactly what advocates of “socialized medicine” are asking for, and this whole exercise in altruism violates the rights of all of those involved.  The doctor’s right to offer his/her services for the price they choose is abrogated, the patient has lost the right to shop for the best doctor based on quality and price, and the tax-payers’ property is being plundered to finance the transaction.  So tell me how this sort of interaction should take place as a matter of right.  Is there anything right about this?

So the question posed by the title of this post has an easy answer.  Who decides what my rights are?  NO ONE.  Your right to life is inherent in your very existence and is inalienable (the Founding Fathers didn’t choose that word lightly); as is any right that facilitates it.  They are not subject to anyone’s capricious proclamations and there is no expiration date on them. They exist whether your present government chooses to acknowledge them or not.  No government anywhere has the authority to alter them.  The Supreme Court (before they forgot their role) said it best in United States v. Cruikshank (1876):  “A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern.”

Share This:

“Mankind is best when it is most free. This will be clear when we grasp the principles of liberty. We must recall that the basic principle is freedom of choice, which saying many have on their lips but few on their minds.” – Dante Alighieri

Share This:

“The act of playing music with people of different cultures, religions, economics, and politics is a powerful statement. It shows that we can find ways of working together and sharing our experiences with another in a positive way. Music has the power to break down the walls between cultures, to raise the level of human understanding.” – Mark Johnson, founder, Playing for Change

“After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.” – Aldous Huxley, Music at Night, 1931

There has only been a few times when I have seen harmonic resonance in effect. Resonance in its simplest terms is when an object vibrating at its natural frequency causes another object to vibrate with that same frequency. An example would be to strum a note on a guitar and that same note vibrates on a second guitar.

The time that I’ve seen this theory of harmonic resonance in effect was in a New York City subway. A crowd was gathered around a man who played the guitar like it was the only thing he had ever known. He danced with that guitar as if he was the most peaceful free man in existence, he was the only man in the world. Everyone realized the connection between the man and his music, and the music and ourselves – we were all connected. The man stopped a crowd of people at the busiest hour in the most hectic of cities! The heart that he played that guitar with resonated throughout that entire station. I saw myself as if I wasn’t even inside a subway, but like that man alone in the world. I don’t mean alone as in lonely, but alone as in all-one, I was at peace. I only wish the whole world could hear that sweet song, because we all could use a moment of peace through music.

I first discovered the documentary Playing for Change over 6 months ago. I’ve been waiting for the release ever since I first watched an interview between Bill Moyers and the director Mark Johnson. The video brings together street musicians living all over the world as they play together, but remain within their countries thousands of miles away. I couldn’t believe the resonance that it reverberated through my soul. I understand now why Schopenhauer believed music to be the closest thing to the divine. Music has been around since the beginning of time. There are mantras tracked back so far in Hindu history that linguists say they contain not a single word, but are man singing bird song. Music takes us back in time to when we danced at the prom. Music can also stop us in our tracks and brings our minds to silence. Music can bring us out from our suffering of impossibility to looking up with our heads held high for any possibility. If I must find a way to peace, then I hope I can walk to a tune of a gentle song.

Join the movement! Click here: Playing for change

Share This:

“Freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression or punitive action by the government and nothing else. It does not mean the right to demand the financial support or the material means to express your views at the expense of other men who may not wish to support you. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right”; does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort. Private citizens cannot use physical force or coercion; they cannot censor or suppress anyone’s views or publications. Only the government can do so. And censorship is a concept that pertains only to
governmental action.” – “The Fascist New Frontier,” The Ayn Rand Column, 106.

A careful examination of the above quote amplifies the seriousness of the first amendment, and also allows us to reflect upon such a great freedom.  What if I could never speak my own opinion without fear of government reprisal?  We can’t force someone to approve of our opinions. We have to work for that respect with one’s own effort.  My site today has 32 hits this month, not many by far, but I work each day to earn more readers by providing information and quotes that may open their eyes or inspire them to see that our rights are nothing to be taken for granted.  Each time we express an idea we express liberty. Each time we are heard, we are free.

The dangers of censorship are alive and thriving in today’s media.  This may be America but we are not immune to the whims of those of power or of those who own the television companies.  The video I am posting above is about the censorship of Ron Paul.  If you haven’t heard of Dr. Paul you may have been the victim of censorship. I feel a deep compassionate regret for you.  You weren’t granted the freedom to make an educated decision or aquire the truth because of censorship.  In my opinion, you were a victim of theft.  Someone took the truth from you and you weren’t given the chance to know.  Even though the election is over and Dr. Paul is not running for president, I think of Santayanas wise words when he said, “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.”  My words may not awaken a person to their senses, but I’m quite sure this video will.

Share This:

The term a trillion dollars has been thrown around in these recent weeks.  Like any term or phrase that is constantly repeated it tends to lose its value over time.  I have heard the trillion dollar remark thrown around so much that I happened to lose scope of exactly how much money that is.  Thanks to a post I found Read more

Share This:

Do not yield to the bad, but always oppose it with courage. – Virgil

Ludwig von Mises chose that quote in high school to be his personal motto. I believe a man is as good as his heroes and a newly acquired hero of mine is Mises. He is a champion of economics and individual liberty. You may wonder how economics is linked with liberty and how they come hand in hand. Simply, you exercise your liberty each time you Read more

Share This:

At one time long ago, I held close to my convictions, opinions, beliefs and values thinking they would carry me through my future years.  I’m realizing more every day that I’m breaking down these convictions one by one, in the face of new truths.  If that time long ago was bright and full of certainties, today is even brighter without the guarantees.  Sometimes, I feel that everything I know is wrong, but then I have to tell myself that is also a blessing.  Discovering the wrong means I have found the right, realizing the truth means I have destroyed a lie.  If you want to discover the truth, like I have, to the point that it may even frighten while at the same time enlightening you, read Economics in One Lesson. Read more

Share This:

I can’t seriously believe they put Stephen Baldwin up against Ron Paul. The only real facts that Baldwin was able to put out there was the fact that he was in Biodome and Half-Baked. I guess they figured just about anyone would lose so why not feed Baldwin to the wolves. I like how near the end they cut off Ron Paul when he is simply trying to say he is pro-choice. Correction: I didn’t like it. Stephen Baldwin is an idiot and it takes our society to hold actors to such a high regard that they put them in debates with politicians.

Share This: