A previous post linked to an opinion piece arguing that conservatives have work harder at defending individual rights than liberals. Boose states:

I would have to agree with darwin that a lot of individual rights get supported more by liberals than by conservatives. But darwin doesn’t seem to be counting economic rights as rights in the same way that privacy is a right. Conservatives pretty consistently fight against zoning laws that impinge on people’s rights to their own property, while liberals fight against the expansion of military powers into a previously civilian realm. Do you disagree steve?

I’m not sure I can agree with that statement. I know a popular sentiment is that conservatives defend economic rights while liberal defend social rights. However I will remind you that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he went to war to end slavery. It was the democrats who supported slavery. In the first half of the last century democrats also supported ‘separate but equal’ laws. Much of the political impetus for civil rights during the sixties came from religions institutions which are distinctly non-liberal. However I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the work of many liberals in bringing about civil rights. From which I think liberal has deserved earned the reputation of defender of civil rights.

The right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the constitution, but has been used to justify the right to an abortion. In that sense liberals are not defending a constitutionally enumerated right. Besides, in the abortion issue, one can easily make the argument that conservatives are defending the rights of the unborn child. In this context, the liberals are denying the unborn child’s rights. If you ask me, pointing to abortion as an example of liberals defending our rights is problematic.

Speaking of constitutionally enumerated rights that liberals have an abysmal track record of defending, what’s with them denying the obvious meaning found in our second right? They do perilous constitutionally acrobatic feats to fabricate rights out of thin air for abortion. A feat rivaled only by their attempts to deny owning a gun, a right that is written plain as day in the constitution. Since owning a gun is more of a ‘social right’ then economic right the conservatives come out ahead here.

Economic Rights

As to the aforementioned ‘economic rights’, that is owing property, which is probably the most important right the citizenry has, the liberals have built their entire political platform out of denying that right. Giving the citizenry ownership over property is the most important restriction we place on the state. Liberals want to restrict this right, and in other countries have created governments predicated on eliminating it completely. Current countries forbidding private ownership are on the top of the list for human rights violations. No liberal would move to North Korea and yet they happily support, over and over again, laws that violate our right to ownership. Progressive tax? You bet. High corporate tax? Absolutely. Inheritance tax. Where do I sign up? Name a legislation restricting private property and I can name you a liberal group supporting it.

Quite honestly, if you want me to view you as a defender of rights then the right to private property had better be paramount. The fact that liberals have built their political philosophy around restricting this right tells me everything I need to know about liberal commitment to defending individual rights.

Currently, the only area where I see the liberals doing a better job is in defending the rights of homosexuals. I vehemently oppose laws that treat gay people as second class citizens. Gay couples should have the right to marry, adopt or have children, and have all the legal rights married heterosexuals enjoy. Conservatives arguing otherwise are denying these people their rights guaranteed by the constitution. Such blatant violation of rights is a great reason to denounce conservatism and embrace libertarianism.

Ruining Rights

I noticed Darwin mentioned public trial. I can only imagine he means Gitmo. Through absolutely no interpretation, no matter how charitable your argument is, can it be said that liberals defended citizen rights by having the Supreme Court declare that non-citizen captured in a war have habeas corpus. If you want to show that liberals protect citizen rights then you have to show how a citizen’s right has been violated. Non-citizen by their very definition are not citizens and therefore cannot have their rights violated. Duh, I might add.

I would further argue, by giving non-citizens rights of citizens you ruin the point of rights. Rights exist to protect citizens from the monopoly of coercion the state enjoys. The state is given a monopoly so that it can protect the citizenry from both internal and external threats. Effectively the state is given the power to protect and in return is restricted in some fundamental ways. By extending these rights to protect non-citizens from the state you hamstring the states capacity to defend the citizenry. If the state can’t adequately defend its citizenry from external threats, then what’s the point of giving it a monopoly on coercion? Furthermore, who needs rights against a toothless state? It’s not like it can enforce its laws or territorial integrity.

By giving rights to non-citizens you call into question the whole reason for having rights in the first place. Support for judicial rulings that call into the question the purpose of rights cannot reasonably be considered an example of defending constitutional rights. The liberals work with Gitmo is an example of ruining our rights, not defending them.

View of Government Influences Defending Rights

Ultimately, conservatives do a better job defending rights then liberals do. However, if you ask me this seems obvious. Over the course of this blog’s history, Darwin’s comments reveal a Pollyanna view of the state when contrasted with my own cynical view. Regardless of which view is correct, these views have an impact on how worried one is on the state transgressing citizen rights.

If you view the state as benign with the capacity to remedy social injustice you will view minor right violations as mere peccadilloes. Consequently, you will be less adamant about defending individual rights particularly when they interfere with remedying social injustice. Thus it’s unsurprising to find liberals less inclined to defend rights. Those that view the state as malign with the capacity to do social injustice will view minor right violations as indications of a slippery slope to tyranny. These people will be much more adamant about defending individual rights as a way of restricting the state’s monopoly on coercion. Thus it’s unsurprising to find libertarians and conservatives more inclined to defend rights than liberals.

It’s simple. If you see the state as benevolent, then it won’t bother you if minor right violations occur. If you see the state as malevolent, then minor right violations will bother you. Someone that is bothered by something is more likely to do something about it than someone that isn’t.

David Bernstein notes that the conservative judges of the Supreme Court are much more likely to defend individual rights than liberals.

The Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, upholding the Second Amendment right of individuals to own firearms, should finally lay to rest the widespread myth that the defining difference between liberal and conservative justices is that the former support “individual rights” and “civil liberties,” while the latter routinely defer to government assertions of authority. The Heller dissent presents the remarkable spectacle of four liberal Supreme Court justices tying themselves into an intellectual knot to narrow the protections the Bill of Rights provides.

Liberals: expanding state power to achieve ‘equality’ since the 1960’s.

Bipartisan support for trampling the first amendment to protect the children. It like trampling the second amendment to insure children are not killed by gun violence. Just like it, except it does not enjoy bipartisan support.

Seriously though, why should this kind of thing be regulated at the federal level. Why not lets theses issues resolves themselves with more local government. Ever since its inception this country has been trending towards a large massive federal government. I can’t see any good reason for why this should be. Keep laws and regulations as local as possible to insure maximum efficiency.

A law giving immunity to those that report suspicious activity related to terrorism was shot down by democrats. This is an example of a law that is appropriate in helping deal with terrorism while opening the possibility for abuse. It seems prudent that citizens have no fear of retribution for reporting suspicious behavior.

I suspect the reluctance on the democrats side is that it opens the door to discrimination without consequence. Given that most Al Qaeda operatives fit a couple of profiles, reducing the cost of vigilance towards those that match the profiles is prudent even if it means more hassle to this group. Increased hassle for some citizens seems more desirable than dead citizens.

Tinker with citizen rights to prevent death by terrorism and democrats have a stroke, but completely eliminate one of our constitutional rights to prevent civilian death with handguns and the democrats don’t just support the bill, hell, they sponsor it.

Related to the last point.

Freaking Hypocrites.