For several decades now, there have been multitudes of pronouncements and speeches about individual rights and group rights. These have emanated from clerics, TV news magazine shows, politicians, activists espousing various causes, jurists and regulators, and probably some who are not mentioned here. All of them no doubt promote worthy objectives. However, in general they fail to consider the rights of other individuals and/or groups.
Often the arguments or claims invoke the Scriptures of one or more of the world’s great religions as a basis for the position taken. But even a cursory review of some of these Scriptures, e. g. Hebraic, Christian and Muslim reveals that, while advocating individual rights, they also place heavy emphasis on individual responsibility. Hence it is time to examine the relationship of individual rights and individual responsibilities.
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence contain general statements of such rights, but they do not state that they may be exercised for the benefit of one individual or group while simultaneously diminishing the rights of other individuals or groups.
In the dictionary, words beginning in “re” precede those beginning with “ri.” And that illustrates a basic principle – BEFORE ASSERTINGINDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ONE MUST DISCHARGE HIS INDIVUDUAL RESPONSIBILITIES. It seems self-evident that if this principle is followed by all then rights will automatically flow appropriately to all.
So – how are responsibilities defined for this purpose? There are two general types:
1. Assigned, delegated or assumed.
2. Inherent or basic.
With each type of responsibility goes, or should go, commensurate authority:
1. In the case of inherent responsibilities, authority for individuals is inherent.
2. For Government, such authority, while inherent, derives its inherent authority from the Constitution. This applies to all three branches of Federal Government – Legislative Executive, and Judicial. It further flows to state and local governments from the U. S. Constitution, state constitutions, local charters and the like.
The inherent type is the one contemplated in the capitalized statement above.
Inherent responsibilities are those common to all human individuals regardless of circumstances:
1. Each individual is responsible to take care of himself and his family to the best of his ability.
2. Each individual is responsible not to impose on society in general or on any individual member of society. (For this purpose, “impose” and “imposition” refer to a deliberate act by one party, in circumstances under the immediate and direct control of that party, which results in a detriment to another party. This excludes accidental or unintentional impositions, but in those kinds of case restitution should be made wherever possible and feasible.)
Within the constraints of those principles each individual should be free to do whatever he wishes. These principles are really nothing more than a restatement of the Golden Rule. They are also self evident; common sense analysis tells one that universal adherence to them would make the world far more peaceful and prosperous than it is today.
Of course, universal adherence to the principles is currently an even more remote probability than the achievement of Utopia. However, they can be, and should be taught to all people as much as possible. If they can be inculcated in the attitudes of children from the earliest practicable age, then a future generation will have a much better world than that of the current generation. The feel good or politically correct approach that nowadays is almost universal itself is a hindrance to the development of good order in society, reflecting as it does the views of people who do not understand that they themselves are not necessarily qualified to establish codes of moral conduct. Therefore it needs to be abandoned.
The principles discussed above apply not only to individuals but also to society as a whole, as it is represented by the various levels of government. Here we have the same problem – groups of fallible human beings arrogating unto themselves the moral privilege of establishing rights for some individuals while simultaneously abridging the rights of others. Governmental bodies, especially legislative ones, have long since abandoned the idea that they are servants of the people in favor of a ruling elite approach which sets themselves up as superior moral determiners of what is right and what is wrong in individual morals and conduct. Somehow these bodies need to reclassify themselves as organizations composed of the people’s servants who impose the absolute minimum in restrictions on individual freedom, and who consider it their main duty to provide policies and procedures to insure to the extent possible that all individuals are discharging their inherent responsibilities. Thus most laws for internal application should be based on the idea of preventing imposition by one individual or group on other individuals or groups. Above all, each Governmental organization should recognize its own imperfections as well as its proper role as a servant of the people, and should act accordingly.
It is necessary to have a system of laws and regulations to insure the maintenance of a civilized society. Therefore, Government must, of necessity, impose some restrictions and/or responsibilities on society as a whole, and in such cases all members of society share equally in the resulting impositions. But when government (as represented by fallible human beings) decides that it is necessary to establish a benefit for some individuals or groups within society by restricting the rights and freedom of other individuals or groups, then it is (or should be) incumbent upon government to compensate the injured individuals or groups.
The compensation could range from direct monetary compensation to provision of alternate rights and benefits to requiring the beneficiaries to accept responsibilities for any harm to the injured individuals or groups. And if government doesn’t do this then it is denying the injured ones the equal protection of the law.
Two examples of this kind of problem are Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the Endangered Species Act. As to Equal Employment there is no argument that all Government bodies, which represent all the people should practice this. But when it is forced upon private enterprises, which have no authority or ability to conduct activities on behalf of society as a whole, and whose members bear the responsibility of success or failure of the enterprise, then we have another example of creeping socialism. In a truly free country, an employer should be free to hire and fire at will. If he wants to hire only black men, only white men or only green eyed Italian women over 5 ½ feet tall, he should be free to do so. Conversely, if he decides to establish an employment program based on diversity, that is his privilege. So at best, the Government should stay out of it; at worst, if in its infinite collective wisdom it decides to restrict freedom, it should indemnify the enterprise for any damage which may result from establishment of a diversity or quota system.
With respect to the Endangered Species Act, some different factors exist. The Federal Government owns about 30% of the land area of the U. S. If state and local holdings are added to that, then governmental bodies own probably 40% - 50% of the total land area of the U. S., or probably somewhat over one billion acres. Much of this is in forests, parks and monuments. That ought to be enough to take care of a bunch of endangered species. But if unusual cases the Government in its wisdom determines that a particular piece of land is absolutely essential to the existence of a species, then instead dictating by law it should negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement with the landowner, one which will compensate him for giving up his right to free use of his land. See Appendix A for an actual example.
The foregoing illustrate a basic defect in society today – the seizure of authority without accepting any responsibility whatever for that over which authority is going to be exercised. While this type of authority can generally be described as assumed authority, it is probably more appropriate to classify it as asserted authority to recognize the duress associated with it.
The second type of responsibility – assigned, delegated or assumed – has another characteristic which is not required in the first type. That is the axiom that all delegations or assignments of responsibilities must carry with them commensurate authority for the carrying out of the responsibilities. One of the serious defects of modern society is the failure to assure that a delegatee or assignee is vested with the proper authority to carry out the mission. Therefore, each person who delegates or assigns responsibility must see that appropriate authority accompanies the delegation or assignment. If he cannot do that, then he must share responsibility for any failure to accomplish the mission. See Appendix B for an illustration of this principle.
Assumed Responsibility is that taken to himself by an individual, usually in connection with a specific event or occurrence when no properly constituted authority is present, or if present, is capable of handling the situation. For example, after a traffic accident an individual might take the responsibility for directing traffic until police arrive. Or in the case of an obstreperous passenger on an airplane or train, another passenger might restrain him until he can be put in the custody of properly constituted authorities. In these cases, successful discharge of the responsibility depends on the voluntary cooperation of those involved, or on upon physical ability to carry out the activity, or both.
So, what does all this mean? It means that before you caterwaul about your “rights” (other than the inherent ones of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) you should first examine your own conduct, to be sure that you are discharging your inherent responsibilities. Then you may properly assert whatever rights you think you deserve, provided that you observe the second inherent responsibility. And society, as represented by government bodies (including regulators) must recognize its own responsibility to not impose on its members. It must also recognize its own fallibility. This dictates that there be as few laws and regulations as possible consistent with the maintenance of a civilized society. Government has lost sight of this principle of freedom.
All of this points to the conclusion that both society and government have lost sight of the basic principles of individual responsibility and individual freedom on which this country was founded.
One final note – people who believe that their definition of “human rights,” “group rights,” “societal rights,” et al must always control should recognize their own egotism and possibly their own arrogance.
J. D. Eiland
January 2009
APPENDIX A
Actual Example of “Endangered Species” Philosophy
The following is quoted from the august 2006 Newsletter of the Citizens for Private Property Rights, an organization located in California:
“Scott Schellinger owns 20 acres in Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California where he is planning to develop a 145 unit housing project.
One day in April 2005, Bob Evans, a 72 year old environmentally conscious resident accidentally discovered a rare endangered flower called the Sebastopol Meadowfoam growing on Schellinger’s land.
Being an opponent to growth and development, Evans promptly notified state wildlife authorities of Schellinger’s apparent “bad luck” for having a federally protected speciesshow up on his land.
However, when the wildlife people came to investigate, they noted that the species appeared to be out of place. They noted that it normally occurs at a lower elevation and it was associated with other plants that normally didn’t occur at that location. As a result the authorities determined that the meadowfoam had been transplanted and stated that it appeared to be a case of fraud. As a result of this surprising verdict from Fish and Game, the agents ordered the plant to be removed and closed their case.
Despite this official ruling, biology professor, Phil Northen, head of the local chapter of the Native Land Society was summoned by Evans and his environmental pals to observe this unusual occurrence and he naturally disagreed with wildlife authorities’ decision claiming that the plants were native. As a result of the environmental stigma created by fraudulent use of the ESA, Schellinger’s project was tabled by the planning commission.”
At this writing I have been unable to ascertain the ultimate outcome of the case. Entirely apart from the question of fraud, the treatment of Mr. Schellinger was wrong. Rather than merely tabling the application and leaving the applicant “twisting in the wind” the authorities should have said to him, in effect: “Since ESA legislation is for the benefit of society as a whole, the burden of complying with such legislation must fall on society as a whole, not on individuals. Therefore, until this matter is resolved, the County will pay you an amount sufficient to cover the ongoing cost associated with the land – taxes, insurance and upkeep- plus a modest return on your investment.” Such action would place the burden where it belongs.
APPENDIX B
Illustration of Assignment of Responsibility and Delegation of Authority
Assume that Ms. Smith, a fifth grade teacher at Hopeful Grammar School, has been given the responsibility by her superiors to assure that he children in her class of 25 will be able to read at a level above their grade by the end of the school year.
Her superiors should now give her the authority to take whatever action she deems necessary to maintain discipline and to accomplish her assigned task. The authority can be restricted in some respects, such as prohibition of corporal punishment, but must leave her free to teach by whatever methods she deems necessary. This means that, in the absence of moral turpitude, gross negligence, gross incompetence, or insubordination, her decisions should not be subject to change or question by anyone, including superiors, parents, public interest groups or any others.
Likewise, her decisions on discipline should be unquestioned unless she inflicts physical harm. Correspondingly, any physical assault on a teacher on school grounds should be treated as a felonious act, and the perpetrator should be punished accordingly.
J.D. Eiland
January 2009
COPYRIGHT 2009
NO REPRODUCTION OR DUPLICATION
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION
No comments:
Post a Comment