Defending Rights
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.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Ultimately both parties trample rights whenever they think it will get them some votes or some campaign contributions.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Your reliance on calling out gun control in your arguments is silly. In national elections, be it for president, congressmen, or judicial appointees have not factored this element into a real issue is some time. While I agree it might be timely given the recent vote in the courts regarding washington, I don’t see it as a hot issue anymore. Heck look at the national election taking shape. Have you heard either McCain or Obama mention guns (with the exception of Obama’s snarky comment)? The 2nd ammendment defenders have mobilized well and have basically won. Gun ownership is going to continue to be legal through appropriate channels and easy for the average american to achieve.
Abortion will also remain legal through appropriate channels as it serves it’s purpose for our country. While you might hear it come up every now and again in the news, it is a far cry from the real issues facing the average american voter.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I would merely say that your concession on civil rights proves my point pretty nicely. Also, claiming that property rights are the most important is pretty silly. An army that act like the British army did before the revolution makes any property rights that you might have had relatively useless. Also, you’re clinging to the constitution a little bit too much. Just because a right isn’t explicitly specified in the constitution, it isn’t any less of a right. The right to an abortion is just as much about your property right to your own body as gun ownership. The right to a gay marriage and many civil rights are just as much about the government butting out of people’s lives as zoning laws.
Lastly, the argument that most conservatives are fully interested in the government leaving people alone is misguided. Many conservatives are happy to hear that the government is funding their pet religious project, and it isn’t as though the Bush republicans didn’t do a damn good job of expanding government power. What you really mean when you talk about “conservatives” is “libertarians”. The only thing is that conservatives are more in line with the policies you’re interested in because the political spectrum has been moving in the liberal direction for a while now.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Its hard for me to give Liberal the banner on defending individual rights when there only claim to fame is civil rights in the sixties. One could easily argue that conservatives have consistently defended individual rights on gun ownership. In other words its a wash, both groups have defended an individual right.
In regards to abortion I realize arguing right to privacy is not an enumerated right was weak. Thats why I buttressed this position with a second argument about how the conservatives on this topic are fighting for the child’s right to life. Oddly, if i had to give priority to rights, I would probably land on the right to life over the right to privacy, but really having neither does not sound very appealing. However, the fact that one group is fighting for the individual right to life while the other group is fighting for the individual right to privacy means neither group comes out ahead in defending individual rights count.
In your revision i still see the conservatives coming out more in favor of individual rights because they defend economic rights. However if we were to split the two political groups into sub groups each I think we can probably agree. The more religious right side of conservatism is much more into violating individual rights then the more economic\libertarian side.
It might be true that democrats can be separated into two groups. The liberal group has an abysmal track record defending economic rights but a solid record defending civil rights. I’m not sure what the other sub group of democrats looks like. Traditionally they used to support strong state rights. They were also the ones that supported separate but equal laws.
Ultimately, the economic conservative\libertarian has done the best job of defending individual rights. I think a strong argument can be made that liberals come in second over the religious conservatives, but the problem here is that religious groups fought just as hard for civil rights in the sixties. In matters of abortion both groups fight for different individual rights. But what puts liberal ahead is their valiant effort to defend the rights of homosexuals.