Well, I wrote this little piece a while back and thought that someone reading this might find it interesting. It concerns the nature of what a right is, and why government has the right to rule
---------------------------------------------------
Interesting debate... I will not (yet) drill down to philosophical minutiae but I will start my premise here.
There are two types of "things". Foundational things and non foundational things (I forgot the big philosobabel word for the second one). A foundational thing is something which cannot be broken down into simpler things and still be reassembled into only the original thing. A non foundational thing is something which can be broken down in the above manner and completely reassembled. If something is non foundational, then it must be evaluated for any purposes first by breaking it down and analyzing what results, determining if one has yet to reach such a foundational thing. A foundational thing must be analyzed from the premise that it is either true or false for reasons of its own.
How then can one analyze such a foundational thing? From Aristotle, one can apply the notion of the teleological purpose in order to analyze a foundational thing. The teleological purpose of a thing is the end purpose/end goal/end reason for that thing to exist, for it to perform its function. This idea is useful in analysis of the foundational thing because in cannot be broken down in a meaningful manner. It is, in essence, a beginning.
Also key to my analysis is the idea of objects and properties (familar to computer coders of all sorts no doubt).
What is an object? An object is something which exists and possess properties, each of which themselves possibly being objects. What is a property. A property is some aspect of an object which limits or helps to define its existence.
To the analysis of a right.
I postulate that a right, being a property of something, is a foundational thing in and of itself, which has the purpose of defining the limits at which an object, possessing that property, can be said to exist for legal purposes.
The objects covered by law have various properties, among them rights, duties, obligations, powers, functions etc.
Why is a right a foundational thing?
The answer starts with the presupposition that a right might not be a foundational thing. Therefore a right must have components which upon reassembly become a right again. What are the components of a right. Well let's hypothesize that the components of a right are an object, the thing possessing the right, and a property, which property though? Is it the property of life. Does this mean that only living things have rights. Possibly but upon reassembly, the idea that land has rights goes out the window (this disappoints the radical environmentalist no doubt and makes large sections of out law illogical). Also a government is not a living thing, wherein does it get the rights to tax and kill or authorize its agents to kill. Where do corporations get their rights. From the government of course... wait...? Hmmm...
Well, life is out the window so to speak. What other properties does an individual have which can be a unique component of a right. Height, weight, girth, no... A... Age... no. What about intelligence (don't we all wish). If intelligence is the critical compenent this quickly and easily takes away the rights of all registered Democrats. Hmmm. I kind of like this one but I can see flaws. Damn! We have assigned rights to various animals including some very dumb ones, to things which have no inherent intelligence (land, water, corporations, governments) and to the dead. Unless we as a society are willing to remove all of these "rights" there goes this one.
I think that I could go on in this manner analyzing various properties of individual objects, disqualifying them as I go.I think that I can find a reason to disqualify any and all such properties as being a unique component of a right and therefore define a right as a foundational object.
Since a right is a foundational object, following my line of analysis, I proceed to the end purpose of the right, the cause for a rights existence. As stated above, right, being a property of something, is a foundational thing in and of itself, which has the purpose of defining the limits at which an object, possessing that property, can be said to exist for legal purposes.
...A word on limits. Those of you familiar with pre-calculus are familiar with the sense I intended the word. A limit in mathematical is used to evaluate how a number behaves at extremes. My definition can be restated as "A right, being a property of something, is a foundational thing in and of itself, which has the purpose of defining how any object, possessing that property, exists in the entire range of circumstances covered by law"...
Proceding now to that teleological cause for a rights existence, each of us is an individual who exists in a common continuity with a unique perspective upon that continuity. We notice others around us and for various, inherent reasons (sexual desire, hunger, fear of death, etc) associate with others. The range of behaviors of and for these relationships can be said to exist with the following domain [absolute chaos, absolute order]. Both absolutes are undesirable circumstances. Hell, much of that middle ground is undesirable. To avoid this argument spinning vastly out of control, I will resolve the state of these behaviors with a simple question.
How many solutions are there to every problem?
Ans- One, whatever solution is chosen that also solves the problem. [this does not mean that this is a moral or ethical solution. It just resolves the issue of current law and morality by saying ok here we are. Let's analyze the subject at hand with our current state as presupposition]. In essence, this ensuing teleological definition presupposes that the current state exists. The citizens of the US have chosen their "status quo" via the electoral process. It is what it is, regardless of where inside the previously mention domain of order and chaos it is.
Since the population residing here has chosen to associate with one another, and choice includes not moving elsewhere ie to another nation or and not making an effort to kill those with whom you do not wish to associate (the quaint European term for this practice is ethnic cleansing), it is functional to have a set of rules in order to regulate how we live together. As mentioned previously objects covered by law possess many properties, rights foremost among them.
If such rights were not codified, in future events, it becomes possible to violate them, but, following this effect without a cause, since the right was not encoded, it could not have been violated. Only the future and the present can be altered, it is a waste of energy to make law attempting to change the past (I mean everything that this last statement says on its face). Without the end purpose cause, one could not justify a right. Put differently, only the goal of avoiding rights violations provides the cause or reason for defining the right.
Why, for example can you sue someone who tried to murder you? Because he violated your right not to be murdered, this issue being addressed before you were endangered. Some will say that wise men observed the past and therefore made law in response to that. The problem, as the empiricists point out, is that the fact that something occurred is no guarantee that it may or will occur again.
A government's right to rule with the above definition in mind can be said to be a limit upon what the government actually does. Expanding the previous sentence...
The US government is a thing of the people. The first question to ask is "which people?" The answer is all of those who have provided input into the US polity. This answer is less obvious than it seems. The input mentioned is not just voting, or encoding law, paying taxes or running for office. Everyone drop of blood spilled for the American nation, Reverend King, John Basilone, those who died on 9/11, Patrick Henry, Pres. McKinley, etc, has contributed. Every baby born, every bill paid, every check cashed, every store that is robbed, every bulding that is blown up and every one that dies, every American citizen and resident plus a few others (except for those damn Canadians and the French, oh hell just the modern French).
The core of this polity is the Constitution, a static object. This object binds the dynamic populace together across time. The government arises in the union between the populace as bound together by the Constitution. In this sense, since the Constitution is an expression how the complete range of this populace must interrelate, and such relationships may occur in extremes or be driven to extremes, it becomes not just prudent but necessary to define such limits. One particular limit is itself, the rulership. These limits are usually expressed as rights under that Constitution and by extension through various local constitutions rights through each state.
In short, what gives the government the right to rule? The consent by some part of the rulees expressed via the Constitution to enforce that rulership.
Questions, Comments, Suggestions?...
