Right Thinking About Rights

There is no such thing as an absolute, unlimited right.

I realize that many will take umbrage at that statement so allow me to elaborate. This is crucial considering the state of the body politic and the social contract which undergirds it. The concept of rights as it is commonly understood is derived from the Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Interestingly the point I am trying to make comes further in this same paragraph;

That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

The Declaration does not absolutize individual rights it contextualizes them in community. In elaborating upon our experiment in democracy Mortimer Adler defined what he called the American Testament as consisting of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address. The first defines the reasons for separating from England and the purposes to which this new nation is called. The Constitution is, arguably, the most boring of the three. It is a manual for governing.The bill of rights was attached as the first group of amendments, but the heart of the Constitution is the blueprint for tripartite, shared governance. In the Gettysburg Address Lincoln issues a civic call to repentance and reflection. So these founding documents provide:

• Identity
• Structure
• Conscience

Context, Community Contract. It is less about individuality than it is about defining who, what, where, when, why, and how we should treat one another. So beyond any specifics, the documents libertarians look to, in and of themselves tell me that any “right” I have is constrained by who I am in the broader context of who we are.  We have chosen to structure our society in this fashion and to accept  the moral and ethical imperative to extend that identity and structure to all inhabitants.

Back to my first point. These “rights” are not absolute. Rights exist in formal and informal contextual matrices Rights include responsibilities. These rights and responsibilities are embedded in relationships. These relationships have rules and restrictions to allow for the beneficial exercise of those rights in such a way that they do not endanger the relationships which give them form.

For example; my wife and I just returned from Carmi. She drove home as I distributed the food (DQ baby). She drove the entire trip on the right side of the road. Why? Because in our country the embedded matrix of our “right to drive” has the restriction that we drive on the right hand side of the road. In fact when learning how to drive we call the manual…the Rules of the Road. Driving on the left hand side in defiance of the rules, no matter how vociferously you object will result in losing the right. Other irresponsible behaviors include driving while intoxicated, driving while texting, driving recklessly. As an individual we have to choose to restrain ourselves according to the rules in order to exercise the right. A society in which this principle no longer operates is at best dysfunctional and at worst collapsing.

Application; you have a right to not wear a mask in public. When, however Grayville First Christian Church re-emerges we will require masks to attend worship. That is to say the relational matrix of our “church” is choosing to limit the exercise of our “right” responsibly, by not endangering others. That does not mean that we are dull-witted, fools inhabiting a deep-state, Orwellian nightmare. It merely means that we refuse to use the plea of “my rights” as a cover for selfish, irresponsible behavior. Rights, responsibilities, relationships, rules. That is how a society works. My guess is that the rights many claim are not permitted to the small children in their homes because that kind of utopia does not exist in the fallen world. Wives do not commonly accede to their husband's "right" to have sexual relationships with other women. The claim of unfettered rights is essentially the claim of a cad or a child. I do not care for either to be the measure of civility.

I know, some of you will object. It won’t be because your analysis is any better than mine. It won’t be because you have principle behind you. It will be because until we choose otherwise we inhabit a story wherein we simply will not be told that we have no right to touch the tree in the middle of the garden.