Government and the Business of Rights

or "The Government is Supposed to Protect You, Not Provide For You"

The following is a series of rambling thoughts based on ideas discussed in my Social and Political Philosophy class.

For those of you familiar with the Declaration of Independence, you are probably aware of the Lockean influences on the formation of our great nation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". 

These are perhaps some of the most famous words in the American consciousness. Here, Thomas Jefferson clearly echoes John Locke, who instead names life, liberty, and property.  Locke was most definitely in the minds of our Founding Fathers when they were forming our great nation.

Further investigation into Locke reveals what he believes the purpose of government to be, and I do believe that our Founding Fathers shared that same belief.

From Chapter Nine of Locke's Second Treatise of Government, entitled "Of the Ends of Political Society and Government", Locke states that

"The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property". 

This requires further understanding of what Locke's definition of property is.  While Locke often describes property as distinct from life and liberty, at the same time property also encompasses the both of them.  Above and before all else, the first thing that is your property is yourself, your life, and by extension, your labor.  It is by mixing your labor with things that you come to own them.  This is also known as the "labor theory of property".

This leads to the necessity of liberty.  Liberty is defined as "freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, and hampering conditions". Every American is familiar with the idea of liberty.  It is, of course, one of the core values upon which American was founded.  It is the idea of the American individual, free from the constrains of government, able to do what he wishes and create his own life.

Liberty is what we will call "negative rights", or "rights of non-interference".  When the idea of natural rights is discussed, I believe that it is these negative rights that are being spoken of.

In contrast, we have "positive rights", or "rights of being provided with something".  As an example, in modern American society, the right to a public education is a positive right.  In contrast, the right to not be stopped from acquiring a private education is a negative right.

It is my view that the business of government is, for the most part, to deal with negative, not positive, rights.

In the view of Locke, there are three necessary aspects for a government to exist.  These are not subject to a majority opinion, for to infringe upon them would be the remove the ability of a government to achieve its chief end.  These three items are an independent and impartial judiciary, a police force to deal with domestic threats to liberty, and a military to deal with foreign threats to the same.

Through these three institutions, a government is able to achieve its chief end, the preservation of the property of its citizens, or, upholding the negative rights of its citizens.

If you will look at the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, you will find that by and large these amendments concern statements of negative rights.

In the early days of our country, or even fifty years ago, these negative rights used to be enough for Americans.  We were free to go about and make lives for ourselves, to mix our labor with objects and accumulate our property, and the government was there to make sure these actions were free and protected.

However, not it seems as if these liberties are not enough.  These days, it seems that Americans are interested not in being protected, but in being provided for.  There are those crying that Americans have a right to health care, a right to housing, and rights to all sorts of things.  

And by a right to health care or housing, they do not mean that they have a right not to be interfered with in their pursuit of ownership of these goods.  They mean that they have a right to be provided with these things.

Now, should the majority of Americans (or I suppose, the majority of American legislators) decide that the government should provide such a thing to its citizens, then of course the government would be obliged to do so.  But such a thing would never be a right in the sense that it is inalienable, like our liberties are.

Our liberties exist to allow us us to follow whatever actions we chose (excepting, of course, when these actions infringe upon the rights of others), and are not given to us at the leisure of the government.  They have always been ours, and they always will be.

However, such a "right" as health care is something that is bestowed by the government, and only at the whim of the majority.  Should there come such a time when the majority no longer believes it is within the government's responsibility to provide such a benefit, then such a "right" would cease to exist.

Is a right that exists only at the whim of the voting public (or legislators) truly a right?  Or is it merely a fleeting benefit, one that can drift away to sea with changing political tides? 

Those that stand upon liberties, those inalienable rights with which we are endowed by our Creator, build their house on the solid ground.

Those that stand upon these "rights" to benefits, those that are given as gifts by the government, build their house on sand.

And when the storm comes, which will still stand?