Still More On Rights

I'm a believer in the distinction between positive and negative rights. Put simply, whether a right is positive or negative depends on what an outside party must do.

For example: A negative right to own a firearm means that you may not prevent me from buying one. A positive right to own a firearm means you have to buy me one. I say buy because I believe in property rights as well. A negative right to own a gun does not create a right to steal one.

I believe that almost all rights are negative. I have a right to property, but you don't have to buy me any. I have a right to life, but you don't have to save me or provide for me. I have a right to own a gun, but you don't have to issue one to me. I have a right to get an education, but you don't have to pay for it.

Rights only exist as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

You cannot deprive me of my rights until you show that I am violating the rights of others. I have a right to own property. This does not grant me a right to steal. Theft is a violation of another's right to property. So I can deprive a thief of his rights when he steals from me.

I believe that once you violate one of a person's rights, you have forfeited all of yours; including right to live. Violate my property rights and I am now empowered to kill you. If through the kindness of my heart I do anything less, like restrain you until the police can collect you, I am within my rights as well. Remember, it is charity not duty that would keep a thief alive in my house.

This is an aspect of rights that the law fairly routinely gets wrong. Duties to retreat, prohibitions on using lethal force to protect property, etc...

The State is not given special immunity from retribution. There may be special forms of retribution that are used on The State, but they are accountable to the same rules as the rest of us, and should be held to a much higher standard.

Back to the police example. This guy wanted to go home to see if there was anything to salvage. The police stopped him. When he attempted to bypass the police, they jumped in front of his truck. That led to his arrest.

Lots of people are defending the police. I cannot. The State, through the police, were violating this citizen's right to his property. This is primarily because of bad law; however, I will not accept the "following orders" defense.

Now, in our example, let's change the actors around a bit.

I have decided that your house is a death trap. I wait on your lawn for you to return home and physically prevent you from entering your house when my arguments fail to convince you of the danger. Now who has committed assault?

Why is The State doing the same thing as above BETTER than an individual? Think hard before answering. It's not better. It's EXACTLY THE SAME THING!! The police do not have the power to violate my rights, look it up, any more than a common citizen. This is the fine line between subject and citizen. Subjects must do what The State tells them. Subjects only have what "rights" The State decides they have.

It has long been my position that The State should operate under stronger restrictions than individuals because, if for no other reason, The State can bring so many more resources to bear on a given event. When an individual citizen is killed, that person is all gone. When an individual agent of The State is killed, The State remains, and is not greatly diminished. To choose the noble decision to serve the community as an agent of The State means surrendering a certain amount of individuality and some of the attendant rights. Read that again, becoming a cop means you have fewer rights on the job, not more. This applies to soldiers as well. I noticed in my service contract I was surrendering many of my rights while I was enlisted in the Army. Again, I am not asking the police for anything I was not willing to give.

There is still more, but it's only slowly congealing.