Been feeling distracted and tired lately. Concerned about money. Not “OMG, how will I keep the lights on?” money issues. More like “How do I juggle all this?” It’s temporary (vehicle repairs, taxes) and I’m not asking anything from anybody. Everything is fine. Just know that right now I feel muzzy-headed, unclear on many of life’s little details, as if I want to crawl back in bed by 9:00 a.m., and for some reason also ravenous for protein. Preferably protein saturated in honey and brown sugar (so it’s a good thing I made beef jerky the other day, yes?)
Anyhow, I don’t have much for you right now, so I thought I’d just share a little email exchange from the weekend. It’s the kind of communication that should make you glad you didn’t opt for a career as a freelance writer.
Background: I wrote a S.W.A.T. magazine article asking, “Do we have a right to rebellion?” The article isn’t online, but basically I was answering that statist eejit Paul Begala’s multi-idiocy remarks from earlier this year. Then some “expert” answered me.
Before I get to the exchange itself, I’ll acknowledge that, yes, I’m well aware that some readers here deny that any such things as rights exist. Consider your point to be noted in advance. We have a right to differ. 🙂 But my position in the article was that we damn well do have a right to rebellion, Mr. Begala to the contrary.
For the rest of you who consider discussions of the nature of rights meaningful, on to the exchange.
One Nicholas Johnson of Kentucky wrote (capitalization his):
A Correction Regarding CLAIRE WOLFE’s April 2015 article “Right To Rebellion”
CLAIRE WOLFE’s April 2015 article “Right To Rebellion” is a colorful political rant based on an argument that self-destructs within the title itself. The author’s conclusions about rebellion are clearly based on a misunderstanding of the nature of government and rights. For the sake of helping the author not publish such a mistake again in the future, I submit a short lesson in the fundamentals of politics. To begin, let’s look at the definitions of the words in the title. A ‘right’ is a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. ‘Rebellion’ is the act of resistance to the position of an established authority. In short, a right is a legal entitlement, and rebellion is resistance to authority. Therefore, I think the author would agree, “Right To Rebellion” is analogous to saying “legal entitlement to resist authority.”
However, this oxymoronic expression is inherently contradictory. Rights (legal entitlements) by definition stem from the established legal authority. To rebel is, by definition, to work outside of and against the authority. For the author’s premise that there is a “Right To Rebellion” to hold true, it would be necessary for the established authority to grant the right to work outside of the establishment. Obviously this is impossible, as, by definition, working outside of the authority of the establishment is not a right which can be granted by the authority, as this would inherently invalidate and delegitimize the authority itself.
To put this in very plain terms, the author is essentially declaring that “the established authority gives us the legal entitlement to work outside the established authority.” Obviously this is impossible as working outside the established authority is inherently rebellious, and if the right to rebel were, in fact, granted by the established authority, then it would be permissible and thus not rebellion. As one can see, “right to rebellion” is an inherently oxymoronic phrase and a logical impossibility since if something is a right, it is granted by the established authority, and therefore not rebellious, and if something is rebellious, it is working against the established authority, and therefore not a right.
Thank you for considering this factual correction as a service to your readers. Perhaps in the future CLAIRE WOLFE can stick to writing about “SURVIVAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS” instead of illogically misconstruing political terminology and concepts.
Normally, I’d ignore such. But Mr. Johnson wrote to the S.W.A.T. Mail Room and editor Denny Hansen asked me to respond. So, duly chastized for my illogical misconstructions and quaking with humility for being “factually corrected” by someone so obviously superior in knowledge and reasoning, I wrote:
Ah, but speaking of arguments that internally self-destruct, Mr. Johnson’s does exactly that!
In his first paragraph, he states that a right can be a moral OR legal
“entitlement.” Then he goes on as if the word “moral” never appeared —
as though rights are solely granted by law.Dictionary.com defines a right as “a just claim or title, whether legal,
prescriptive, or moral” and “a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.”So the _moral_ aspect of rights is clearly key. And morality is completely separate from and far deeper than law. How, then, did the moral aspect of rights disappear so effortlessly from the rest of Mr. Johnson’s argument?
The notion of rights being granted by government seems to have been created by the left to justify such things as a “right” to housing or medical care. Enlightenment thinkers knew better. Our own Declaration of
Independence is quite clear on the matter: all men “are _endowed by
their Creator_ with certain unalienable Rights.”In other words, rights are built into human nature. And “[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it …”If rights are solely the gift of government, then they can be obliterated by government at whim. I wouldn’t care to live under such tyranny! And I don’t. No matter how bad government gets, every individual in the world has an inborn, inalienable right not to put up with it.
I thank Mr. Johnson for taking the time to bestow his “factual correction” on my misconstructions and to cure my woeful illogic. However, I believe he needs to remove the beam from his own eye before getting upset over the mote in mine.
Quite possibly you could do better than I did. I could have done better myself, had I had full use of my brain.
Perhaps together we can give Mr. J. something to think about. Feel free.
Since Mr. Johnson’s peculiar position is based in government, I’ll address his assertions in that light.
Quite aside from the Declaration’s very specific citation for the source of “rights” which conflicts with J’s statist assertion, I just went through the Constitution and the “Bill of Rights” again. Funny thing; nowhere in there does it say a word about the creation of rights; only the protection of rights that somehow seems to be previously existent. Why, the 9th amendment even recognizes that individual rights not mentioned in the Constitution exist.
I suspect Mr. J is a public indoctrination camp graduate who never read the Constitution (and probably would have trouble with the complicated words anyway).
But perhaps there was something in the original Articles of Confederation about the government creating and granting rights.
Nope. In fact, “Each State retains […] every power, jurisdiction, and right…”
Yep, rights already existed. Oddly, enough, the only “rights” granted by the Articles are a couple of limited and hedged rights assigned (not created) by the States to the central government.*
Personally, I see rights and responsibilities (flip sides of the same coin) as a key part of being a person. This doesn’t seem to be inconsistent with the belief that a Creator gave people those rights, since that would be how and why we are people by that belief structure.
If Johnson thinks rights are handed out and retracted by the whim of government, then he doesn’t believe we are people.
He thinks we’re property. Of the State, of course.
He can kiss my muscular buttocks.
=====
* Going back all the way to the Magna Carta, you find the same asssumption of the preexistence of rights.
“If Johnson thinks rights are handed out and retracted by the whim of government, then he doesn’t believe we are people.
He thinks we’re property. Of the State, of course.”
Damn. I wish I’d said that. Going back to the Magna Carta is good, too. (Hardly anybody knows what’s in it, but they know it was an Official Big Deal.)
Well done, Bear.
Feel free to use it.
Here’s my take on the issue, not being religious in any recognizable sense.
I view rights as moral constructs. They’re all in the mind. The universe really doesn’t care whether we’re free men or slaves, Saints or despots, Angels or Devils. We decide what is necessary for man to live the way we think he ought to live, and establish those necessities as “rights”. People like me choose the way Locke chose, and claim the rights not to be murdered, robbed, or otherwise interfered with so long as we respect the same rights of others. Other people have a different view of what befits man, and a different set of rights. The Darwinian universe and our willingness and ability to defend our positions determine which viewpoints win out.
As far as legal rights, this country was designed from the beginning to recognize and defend the proper state of Man that Locke envisioned. It is baked into the cake, so to speak, and when I express allegiance to the idea of America that’s what I am cleaving to. It doesn’t matter what the current management of the country thinks of that ideal, or whether a democratic majority decides to add or subtract rights from the list. I didn’t sign up for that. My America defends the rights of the individual, and if you try to change that, you have a fight on your hands, nonviolent or otherwise.
Just recently wrote something on this subject. Johnson is demonstrating his own primary religion here… worship of the state. I’ve asked the question before: From what does the “state” derive its authority? If not from the people who allow it to operate, whether intentionally or from ignorance, where does it come from? And if human beings have that authority naturally, originally, then they can take it back. And that’s the “rebellion” that has the controllers, those who worship the “states” of this world, terrified.
Are You a Citizen?
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/?p=7100
Citizen
noun
1. a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien ).
2. an inhabitant of a city or town, especially one entitled to its privileges or franchises.
If you are a “citizen,” you belong to the government of the territory where you live and work. You “owe” them both obedience and whatever part of your life or property they decide to take from you. Generally speaking, you have little or no recourse. If you refuse to surrender your freedom or property long enough, they will see to it you spend your life in a cage… or are killed.
Johnson was an arrogant bastard, wasn’t he?
You covered the ignored word, /moral/, quite well, Claire. Whereas Bear covered the “legal” aspects equally well. (Can his remarks find their way into the S.W.A.T. letters?)
The “right to rebel” is nothing less than the Right to Self-Defense; when one rebels, s/he is fighting back against perceived injustice or inequities — and that’s something even kids understand at an early age. No “political terminology or concepts” involved.
(BTW, since when were you confined to Survival Weapons and Tactics?)
I agree with Bear. The Constitution DOES give us the Right of Rebellion, in the 9th amendment. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Therefore, since the constitution does not specifically mention “rebellion” as a right retained by the government (which the founders were not stupid enough to try) it is certainly a RIGHT retained by the people.
Regardless, as you stated very well, it is a moral right.
In addition, LIBERTY is listed as among the “unalienable” rights in the Declaration of Independence and it further states that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the People to alter or abolish it.”
Nuff said.
Heh. I just recalled an exchange of letters with former Indiana Senator Dick(head) Lugar, 15-16 years ago. Speaking in regards to one of our little DOD military vacations, he maintained that all people have a right to secession, and the USA had a duty to assist.
So then I asked when he’d be introducing a bill to recognize the CSA. Apparently, like Johnson, Dickhead figured that right ended at our border.
Very good stuff here!
Tahn, you’re going to get in trouble for this: “Constitution DOES give us the Right of Rebellion.” So I’ll say it before anybody else does: The Constitution never gave anybody any right; it just acknowledged pre-existing rights. But yes, the moral right existed before any constitution on earth.
Right Claire, It acknowledges our right. My bad.
You can talk about rights and government all you want, and Claire and Bear and others above do so masterfully. But the legality of a rebellion inevitably depends on the outcome.
The American Revolution of 1776 was legal because Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown.
The Confederate Secession of 1861 was illegal because Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox.
It’s the “Winners Write the Laws” rule.
Heh. As soon as I saw Johnson mention “moral or” and then continue as if he hadn’t, I bought flowers for his rhetorical grave. Hell, he’d already dug it.
LarryA – I have to agree — and disagree. I know what you’re saying and, from a practical POV, you’re correct (though it’s possible to continue the fight even after the war is over — witness the Jacobites’ struggle, beginning in 1688 through 1746).
But the /concept/ of rebellion is not about legality, and not even about war — but about the right to declare for oneself where s/he stands. And that right resides in Everyman from the day of birth.
“It’s the “Winners Write the Laws” rule.”
And that’s one reason not to care whether rebellion is technically “legal” or not. One of Begala’s idiocies (that I was answering in my SWAT article) was his assertion that, Why, George Washington hisownself was against rebellion! (when it came to whiskey). Yet Begala somehow failed to notice that GW was all in favor of rebellion — when he led troops in a successful one.
That was almost as blind-dumb as Mr. J “digging his own rhetorical grave.”
“(BTW, since when were you confined to Survival Weapons and Tactics?)”
Since never, Pat, as I’m sure you know well. In fact I was hired to be SWAT’s “contrarian” political writer. But I got a kick out of Johnson relegating me to that “lesser” task. He wasn’t quite telling me to get back into the kitchen and only write about sewing and babies, but it definitely had that same quality of dismissal.
Tahn — I knew you knew that. I just figured I’d beat up on you mildly before somebody else stepped in and did it with a jackhammer.
Oh, well, Locke has already made an appearance. Your correspondent likely would not be able to follow the Lockean argument anyway, and if he could, would likely disagree. So that makes him a Hobbesian, I guess. (It’d be more fun to be a Calvinist, but I digress.)
Short-form Locke: You own yourself. Thence proceeds all rights.
Rights (and their accompanying responsibilities) exist with, without, and often in spite of government. Like dignity and self-respect, they are things that no one can give to you, because if someone tries, then they aren’t really yours.
Claire, can you use this controversy to sway your editor to place the full text of your “Do we have a right to rebellion?” article online? It would be a nice tax-time treat from the magazine to readers – and would help bring in new folks from around the web to their site.
I took a swing at this question 15 years ago in the Freeman – (an article that was mostly a spinoff from Freedom in Chains) –
http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-right-of-resistance
George Washington was a criminal. Adolph Hitler was not. GW engaged in armed insurrection against the legally legitimate authority of the Crown. AH changed the law and acted legally under the Reich Enabling Act. What the victorious Allies called Crimes Against Humanity were perfectly legal in the Third Reich. Had Herr Schicklgruber & Co prevailed by force of arms there would have been no Nuremberg Trials and there would be no Jews left in Europe. Thank God that did not occur. Israel lives – the Third Reich does not. If there truly is no right to insurrection We the People of the United States owe Britain a most humble apology. Better to perish in the struggle for Liberty than live to see defeat. Freiheit uber Alles!
I have the right to be left the hell alone. If you abrogate that right, you should expect some rebellion, in spades.
A fine article, Claire, and there are some fine comments here in this thread. Johnson’s argument begins from a flawed premise: His comment “In short, a right is a legal entitlement” is simply incorrect (or, rather, incomplete), as you correctly pointed out. Everything which flows from it is therefore necessarily flawed.
Incidentally, going back to the Magna Carta can be fun and, sometimes, useful, but in reality there is little there which is relevant today. See, http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/magna2.html It was written primarily to protect the barons and landed aristocracy from the depredations of the king, not to protect the commoners (although it certainly does contain features, such as the right to jury trial, which benefit everyone). And while it does contain numerous references to what I would characterize as “historic liberties”, and what it sometimes refers to as “ancient” rights, it never really discusses the source of such liberties or rights. Once can assume that they were viewed as derived from God, but one could equally well assume that they had been granted by the kings of antiquity. I don’t think you can really glean much of use there on the subject of any “right of rebellion”.
I would also like to read the full text of your article, if that can be arranged.
Incidentally, going back to the Magna Carta can be fun and, sometimes, useful, but in reality there is little there which is relevant today.
Prior to the Magna Carta the theory was that the Church (what we know as the Catholic Church, but then it was The Church) oversaw all things spiritual. The King was anointed by God to oversee all things temporal. IOW it was His kingdom, and he ruled with the authority of God, and was responsible for protecting God’s Church.
To administer the kingdom the King appointed nobles to oversee subdivisions. They promised to follow his orders, which came from God, and in return he would help protect them from invasions, barbarians, outlaws, etc.
The Magna Carta was therefore the first break in the legal philosophy that the King held unlimited power ordained by God. It was a big step toward individual sovereignty.
It speaks directly to Johnson’s belief that “government authority” overrides all else.
[Before I get to the exchange itself, I’ll acknowledge that, yes, I’m well aware that some readers here deny that any such things as rights exist. Consider your point to be noted in advance. We have a right to differ. :-)]
Uh, can I comment anyway? 🙂
It’s not so much that we differ in the important aspects, but in the use of language to convey those aspects. That is, I find the language of rights obfuscates reality, and brings about such controversies as this one with Nicholas Johnson. Avoiding that language and speaking directly, simplifies the picture and makes things clearer.
For example, you say “… every individual in the world has an inborn, inalienable right not to put up with it.” I would say instead, “Every individual in the world can decide as he pleases, when he no longer wants to put up with it.” How could Johnson argue against that? He can’t.
Pretty much every statement of negative rights can be recast, eliminating the word “right” and making it clearer what is being said. And positive rights just look silly; instead of “I have a right to health care”, which sounds impressive, it is “I can get health care,” which no one would argue, or “I’m entitled to health care paid for by someone else” which is a much harder sell.
Abandoning the language of rights means:
1) No more arguments about where rights come from;
2) Positive rights are a harder sell;
3) No implicit designation of government as the adjudicator of rights;
4) Better connection to reality (e.g. German Jews would have prepared better).
To me, the concept of rights was a tool developed by the “libertarians” of the 18th Century (or so) to fight tyranny. It was useful for a while, but by now it has been co-opted by the ruling class, and serves its ends. This is similar to the initial impact of literacy after Gutenberg; for a long time the ruling class worked to keep the peons ignorant; then the Prussians made the innovation of going with literacy but controlling and guiding it in government schools.
What Mr. Johnson does not understand is that the government is not the Legal authority, but rather a designation of the people to maintain Liberty, Freedom and our Inalienable rights.
It was charged by its boss, The People, by a specific set of rules that was built on the foundation that we the Authority have the right to throw off tyranny where we see fit to do so.
There is the Natural law and there is Man’s law, at no point can man trump the natural state of man, it is an impossibility. Therefore to say that an entity created by man to maintain the Natural law of man can not be disposed of its charge for having not lived up to its end of the bargain is ludicrous on its face.
I believe that Logic would call it an appeal to authority.
Ah… Unfortunately, Joe, there is no provision in this for those of us who never delegated, designated or consented to having anyone but ourselves “maintain liberty, etc. in our own lives.
It is not a matter of “rights,” but of natural authority – which is always individual.
Anyone can delegate their natural authority over themselves to others if they wish… but they can’t do so for anyone else. You can’t legitimately sign a contract promising that someone else will pay the bill against their will. The fact that non-voluntary governments do so all the time is rather strong proof of their illegitimacy.
All I want is to be left alone. But that is most certainly not something any external “authority” is willing to even consider. They may mean to rule well… but they mean to rule.
I look at this through the lens of what lawyers call “agency law”, the relationship between principal and agent (or “master and servant” in old parlance). Government (the servant) is created by the people (the master) and charged with certain duties. One of the fundamental tenets of agency law is that the principal always* retains the power to withdraw the authority of its agent, either in whole or in part. If the agent resists that withdrawal, the principal may have to resort to force. And in the situation of the people versus the government, that’s called “rebellion”. So even in the legal sense which Mr. Johnson purports to use, the power to forcibly restrain, change or even eliminate a government always resides in the people.
Incidentally, this is also the reason I argue that individual states possess the legal right to withdraw from the union should they so choose. Any powers delegated by them to the federal government can be withdrawn at any time.
* Actually, there is a specific limitation on this when the grant of agency is “coupled with an interest”, but that is inapplicable here.
Somewhat off-topic, but I think of interest: There appears to be another “Bundy Ranch” situation brewing, this time in Oregon. http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2015/04/13/bundy-ranch-type-standoff-brewing-in-southern-oregon-between-miners-and-blm/
Laird — Thank you. FYI, because a couple of people have expressed concern; I’ve been watching that situation and the most recent word seems to be that it’s heading toward a peaceful resolution, sans standoff.
I’ll keep on keeping my eyes open, though, and if you or anybody else gets word that something more is developing, by all means let me know.
The confusion exists – and most of this discussion results from – the conflation of the concept of “rights” in philosophy and as term of art in law. In the former case, the concepts of Paul Bonneau work neatly. In the latter case, the concept of legal rights is a shorthand saving a lot of discussion on points generally conceded by both sides.
Yes Chris. Unfortunately, that “shorthand” conveniently puts the government in a superior position telling us what we can and cannot do. It leads to such things as “free speech zones” – as long as there is such a zone somewhere, our right to free speech is taken care of.
As Jeff Snyder put it, “The fundamental question is not what rights do I have, but why may anyone exercise coercive authority over me in the first place? *It is coercion, not freedom, which must be justified.* If coercion is not legitimate, there is no need for ‘rights.’ Arguing ‘rights’ is arguing from an acknowledged and accepted subordinate unfree position.”
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro2.html
It is not for the convenience of the legal profession that we live our lives. If some people want to use such shorthand, that is no concern of mine, and I have no way to stop it in any case. What concerns me is coercion by government thugs, whether excused by legal tricks or any other means.