Rights – vs. What Ifs and Mights

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

by Eric Peters EricPetersAutos.com

Recently by Eric Peters: Permission Slips Instead of Rights

“Rights” – like “freedom” – is one of those terms that means different things to different people. Often, mutually contradictory things. Perhaps the simplest way to identify a right is to ask whether its exercise causes a provable harm to another.

Not “might” harm a theoretical “someone.” (Or – much worse – “I don’t like that” … and therefore you shouldn’t be allowed to do that).

A demonstrable harm – to an actual person.

If such exists as a result of your actions, then your actions were wrong – because you violated someone’s rights.

Otherwise – if your actions have caused no harm – you have every right to expect to be left free to proceed. And to be left in peace.

Immediately, the objection pops up: Won’t problems arise if people are left free to act as they please? Won’t people abuse the freedom to act – or act stupidly?

Yes – certainly.

Some people will. But that should not become the pretext for abusing the rights of others who have caused no harm.

Group-guilt is bad. Pre-guilt even worse.

Consider: Has taking away everyone’s rights ever prevented those inevitable “some people” from behaving irresponsibly or stupidly? At any time – in any place? This is the question. And the answer – obviously – is: No. Because there will always be irresponsible, stupid – even evil – people … in any society, under any form of government. A moment’s reflection will confirm the truth of this. Irresponsibility, stupidity – evil, even – cannot be “lawed” out of existence.

But rights can be.

And all-too-often, they are. Not on the basis of actual harm done, either. But on the basis of what if? … and might.

In the absence of speed limits, for example, there will be people who drive beyond their ability to control the car. Some will inevitably wreck. Others – innocents – will be harmed in the process. This is tragic. But erecting speed limits doesn’t prevent – or even significantly reduce – such occurrences. What it does do is take away everyone’s rights before anyone’s rights have actually been violated. It cements the concept of prior restraint into both law and the public consciousness – such that it becomes acceptable to limit everyone’s freedom because of the possibility that someone might act irresponsibly, or stupidly. In short order everyone finds their freedom of action preemptively fenced in, their lives under the control of others – whose judgment is by no means superior, but who do possess superior force. Force that’s applied in ever-increasing doses in a never-ending quest to get a handle on irresponsibility and stupidity – by assuming everyone is irresponsible and stupid and treating them as such – even when they’re not.

This is how rights – real ones – are put to sleep. On the basis of what if … and someone might.

Read the rest of the article

Eric Peters [send him mail] is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities and Road Hogs (2011). Visit his website.

The Best of Eric Peters

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts