Unalienable Rights

Going off topic here from religion, let us talk a bit about rights. We all know the unalienable rights listed in our constitution. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are the rights that people claim to absolute. Rights that are said to be constant no matter the situation. Yet, in reality, people do not actually have any inherit rights. We have only the rights that the government allows us to have. Man does not automatically deserve anything. It is not a given that he is living or free or happy. There is no real basis of this claim. By what authority does man decide he deserves these things? The past certainly does not lend it to him. Slavery, murder, and despair are quite common in its archives. Even now, man has the right to only that which he can enforce. And even then, these unalienable rights are restricted. If you have not ceased reading this in irritation and/or anger at my previous comments, I thank you and invite you to look with me at each separate claim.

First off, the right to life. Obviously we are not entirely too keen on murder. We proclaim that every man has the right to live no matter what. This belief however is not entirely consistent. The court decides whether or not someone may live or die, and the government enforces it. If all men have the right to life, where does that leave capital punishment? Does that make the execution of a serial killer unjust? Now some of you are waiting on baited breath to jump and say “BUT, but, but, but, it is completely different! You see Ms. Fox, they forfeited that right when they took another life!” To which I ask you to consider two things. 1) Unalienable means inseparable. You can not remove one from the other. By saying that killing another justifies the death of the perpetrator, you are in essence saying that it is not unalienable. That it can in fact be taken away and can in fact not apply. Intentionally or not, you admit that this right comes (and is withdrawn) solely by the law, and in fact not bestowed by nature. If the latter were true, nothing would ever justify capital punishment. 2) Consider also, if the right to life is removed by murder, then what fate awaits the man who kills the murderer of his wife? Is he simply fulfilling this eye for an eye principle? Or does he also, deserve death?

Next we consider the right of freedom. Similar to the first, we again must look at the law. I am quite sure that a few of you took the side against capital punishment while reading the above. Taking the mindset of “well, yeah! It is not ok at all! That is why we should do away with the death sentence.” To which I respond with two things. The first being a segue (Pronounced 'seg-way'.Yes that is how you actually spell it. The English language everyone!) into the right of freedom. If we were to do away with capital punishment on these grounds, than incarceration must also be eliminated from our justice system. For why would the right to remain unimprisoned be any different than the right to life? Does one unalienable or inseparable right have more weight than another? If we have no right to execute a man than by the same token we can not lock him up. Therefore, we can not send a man to prison for murder. By doing so, we again admit that this right is a privilege set in place by the law. One that can be removed or granted at anytime. The second thing I will respond with refers to both a fore mentioned rights. It is foolish to attempt to change the law to conform to the rights it has set in place. If we do not allow it to punish those who have broken these rights, then the rights themselves are pointless. It is all well and good to say that man has a right to life and freedom. But when one man kidnaps another and murders him, thus violating them both, the law must be able to act. It must be able to enforce meaning and value to its claims. It must be able to prove that there are consequences to taking a life, rather than simply stating that the right to live exists. If it fails to enforce the privileges it sets in place, then they may as well not exist.

Lastly, we have arguably the most selfish of rights, the pursuit of happiness. Oh this one... it really is quite odd when you think about it. The entire point of rules and society is to restrict people from doing what they want to do. To prevent people from doing things that cause harm to others. Yet this rule states that people have the right to do what everything else says they can not. What if, to pursue happiness, a man kidnaps a woman he has fallen in love with? In this case, who has a greater right? The one who seeks happiness or the one who seeks freedom? The pursuit of happiness is one of the most selfish aspects of the nature of man. They will disregard all others in order to accomplish it. And again we must consider the law in this matter. If a man destroys the lives of others through dishonesty and deceit in the purpose of finding happiness, does the law have a right to stop him? In the end, it contains the same flaws as the previous two. And, like the others, it is revealed to be a privilege and not a natural right.

-BlackFox

(965)