Rights are those activities that do not require time, effort, money, or property from another party to result in their fulfillment. Such requirements would disqualify an activity from the lawful designation of (a) right(s) In addition, the exercise of any legitimate right does not impose upon another party's rights or the exercise thereof, any burden, nor cause demonstrated harm to any party who is in the lawful pursuit of their own activities, otherwise, it is not a right.
No one needs to approve of, benefit by, or agree with the exercise of any rights, nor, by registering their objections, have any expectation of recourse against the exercise of any right(s). The rights enumerated in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not intended to exclude the existence of other rights, nor their free exercise, such unspecified rights to be determined by the whole of the people, or the states, respectively. The entirety of the argument concerning rights may be resolved by requiring a demonstrated injury to one or more parties or a general deleterious effect upon the nation as a whole in order to lawfully infringe on activities in question.
Your scriptural analogy to the Declaration is a bit "imperfect"; you added "due process" and "inheritance". I'm glad you're a fan of due process, in fact I hope you're doing your part for liberty by being a vocal advocate of that right for all of the people we've put into concentration camps this year. If these rights preceded government, they shouldn't require citizenship to be valid...right?
As for the use of "inheritance", I don't think the Constitution says anything about that. It's obvious where you're going, it's the old concept of putting "property rights" on a par with the other natural rights in the Declaration. That dog ain't gonna hunt on my property. It's certainly possible to enjoy life and liberty and pursue happiness without owning any property! And it was someone else's property before it was yours. Native American societies thrived for centuries with no concept of private property ownership. It's a political choice, not a natural right.
"The notion of a “living Constitution” that can be reinterpreted to manufacture new rights through legislation does not produce rights at all—it produces social constructs."
Well, societies do need social constructs to survive. But why can't we decide that one of our social constructs - or more accurately, the social compact that holds us together - is that everyone has a right to health care and that the government can secure that right by making it available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay? I haven't ever heard anyone claim that that's a natural/God-given right that is beyond the reach of government. But if a society chooses to consider something a right, and it's agreed upon lawfully and properly, then it's a right, until the society decides that it's not. Right?
In fact, isn't anything that's not prohibited by law, per se, a right?
If you have a right to do it, legally, than why wouldn't it be a right?
It's just not a natural right. That's an important distinction to make, but it kind of reduces your argument to a question of semantics.
From there, I won't bother going down the "taxes-are-tyranny" trope, it remains a selfish and unsustainable concept, IMHO.
Well, "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." would seem to indicate there are rights given by God - and anything given that can be taken away is not a right, by definition. Those are not rights in the classical sense. They are permissions.
In the classical liberal and natural-law tradition—the one that informed Locke, Blackstone, Jefferson, and Madison—rights are pre-political. They are not created by governments; governments are created to secure them. Jefferson’s formulation in the Declaration is explicit: rights are endowed, not granted. Speech, conscience, self-defense, property—these are treated as inherent attributes of personhood. A government may violate them, but it cannot legitimately erase them any more than it can repeal gravity.
Once a “right” can be given, it is no longer a right in that sense. It becomes a benefit, entitlement, or privilege—something contingent on political will, budgetary capacity, or ideological fashion. If a legislature can vote it into existence, it can vote it out of existence.
It is also not a right if it is given to one person by first taking from another—cuts even deeper. Classical rights are non-rivalrous: my right to speak does not require silencing you; my right to worship does not require conscripting your labor; my right to own property does not require confiscating yours. When the realization of a claimed “right” depends on coercing another private citizen—especially through compelled labor, taxation beyond basic state functions, or mandated participation—it ceases to be a right and becomes a redistributive claim enforced by the state.
This does not mean societies cannot or should not provide social goods. It means calling them “rights” obscures what is actually happening. Welfare programs, subsidies, guarantees, and protections may be wise or foolish, just or unjust—but they are policy choices, not moral absolutes. Labeling them “rights” is a rhetorical move designed to place them beyond debate and above tradeoffs.
This is the subversion playbook in plain sight: blur the lines until nothing means anything. Take inalienable, God-given rights that preexist government, mash them together with constitutional protections ratified by consent of the governed, then dilute the whole concept by declaring every progressive impulse a “right”—up to and including the left’s deranged theory that personal desire equals entitlement. When everything is a right, nothing is. Rights become policy preferences enforced at gunpoint, not shields against power. The Founders built a system to protect liberty, not to sanctify the right to fuck a duck. This isn’t evolution—it’s erosion, and it’s deliberate.
I don't know of anyone who considers personal desire an entitlement. I would struggle to even imagine what thought process would generate that belief.
You see the process of conflating natural rights with policy preferences as "deliberate". Who do you think is driving the process, and to what end? Please name names and tell us what "they" have to gain from their efforts.
Pauline Kael didn't know anybody who voted for Republicans either.
Simple answer. Power. If you can convince someone some sort of benefit is "right", you will have power over them - and it is most certainly intentional. While both parties do it, Democrats live for it. The greatest expansions in the welfare state came under Democrat regimes.
Will we EVER get away from the trope that helping people actually hurts them? Sure, that can be true, if you design a program that is ineffective, but that's the challenge of getting it right, not a reason to not address the problem.
It always comes down to money, because money IS power.
So if you help poor people, they will give you their vote. I see that as a reasonable bargain, not an exercise of power over anyone. If you help wealthy people, they'll give you their vote too, and that's not an exercise of power over them either - in fact that's more likely an exercise of power over YOU, the elected official, because it's legal to bribe - oh, sorry, I meant to say LOBBY for your support regardless of what your constituents need and want. All your constituents can offer you is their vote. The lobbyists offer much more immediate benefits.
The Founders knew all about power - they were leading the nation out from under it. That's why they chose to distribute it widely within the structure, so that it couldn't concentrate and usurp other powers. If we could instill an appreciation for that concept into every American, we would be a better and stronger nation, and maybe eventually regain our status as the envy of the modern world. Something that's so easy to lose, and so hard to re-establish.
You see the process of conflating natural rights with policy preferences as “"deliberate". Who do you think is driving the process, and to what end?”
Let’s begin with those who do not recognize natural rights: the Chinese Communist Party, the Kleptocratic Russian Federation, and the Islamo-Fascist Regime in Iran.
To what end? Subversion of the American populace with the goal of the utter annihilation of One Nation Under God and the Consent of the Governed.
So you think that foreign influence is behind it? There may be some truth in that - we know that Russia and China participate vigorously in sowing dissent and disinformation on social media. Not sure how much of that Iran does, if any. I personally observed Russian efforts to destabilize Western society way back in 1969 in Berlin; they would disrupt public events and try to start riots, allowed drugs to pour in, etc. It's been their M.O. for a long time. China usually plays a longer game, and a less public one, and they are more interested in their own success than world domination, other than economically. But that doesn't mean that they don't try to influence us in ways that serve their interests as well.
I suspect, though, that if either country is working at this level of understanding, it's a very small part of their operation. How many Americans even know the difference between natural and man-made rights? And any success that they do have in this area will take a long time to bear any fruit, if ever. It's like us trying to convince North Koreans that a free press and the resultant chaos that comes with it is a better alternative to their poor but stable and safe society. They know nothing different, and have no power to change it anyway.
But have you no concern for the actions of the current administration - particularly as driven by Project 2025 - to curtail our liberties and impose their political and cultural will on the country, and doing so in the harshest manner possible? Is one side always right and the other side always wrong? Do you think one-party rule would be a good idea? Isn't our whole system of governance built on a philosophy of compromise, negotiation, and consensus broad enough to maximize freedom for all and minimize the conflicts between one person's freedom and another's? What happened to the adage that I was taught embodied the spirit of freedom, which is "live and let live"?
We will always have to fend off various enemies in various ways. My concern is more with the incredible naivete of the American voter, and the failure of our education system to instill critical thinking skills and an appreciation for reason and logic in our students. I find it shocking that 47% of Americans read at only a 6th grade level or less, and 21% are functionally illiterate. Democracy can only work if the population is well informed and motivated to participate. We have not enough of the former and too much of the latter, and that's a lethal combination.
A great piece. Thank you.
Rights are those activities that do not require time, effort, money, or property from another party to result in their fulfillment. Such requirements would disqualify an activity from the lawful designation of (a) right(s) In addition, the exercise of any legitimate right does not impose upon another party's rights or the exercise thereof, any burden, nor cause demonstrated harm to any party who is in the lawful pursuit of their own activities, otherwise, it is not a right.
No one needs to approve of, benefit by, or agree with the exercise of any rights, nor, by registering their objections, have any expectation of recourse against the exercise of any right(s). The rights enumerated in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not intended to exclude the existence of other rights, nor their free exercise, such unspecified rights to be determined by the whole of the people, or the states, respectively. The entirety of the argument concerning rights may be resolved by requiring a demonstrated injury to one or more parties or a general deleterious effect upon the nation as a whole in order to lawfully infringe on activities in question.
Thank you for sharing. Well done.
Your scriptural analogy to the Declaration is a bit "imperfect"; you added "due process" and "inheritance". I'm glad you're a fan of due process, in fact I hope you're doing your part for liberty by being a vocal advocate of that right for all of the people we've put into concentration camps this year. If these rights preceded government, they shouldn't require citizenship to be valid...right?
As for the use of "inheritance", I don't think the Constitution says anything about that. It's obvious where you're going, it's the old concept of putting "property rights" on a par with the other natural rights in the Declaration. That dog ain't gonna hunt on my property. It's certainly possible to enjoy life and liberty and pursue happiness without owning any property! And it was someone else's property before it was yours. Native American societies thrived for centuries with no concept of private property ownership. It's a political choice, not a natural right.
"The notion of a “living Constitution” that can be reinterpreted to manufacture new rights through legislation does not produce rights at all—it produces social constructs."
Well, societies do need social constructs to survive. But why can't we decide that one of our social constructs - or more accurately, the social compact that holds us together - is that everyone has a right to health care and that the government can secure that right by making it available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay? I haven't ever heard anyone claim that that's a natural/God-given right that is beyond the reach of government. But if a society chooses to consider something a right, and it's agreed upon lawfully and properly, then it's a right, until the society decides that it's not. Right?
In fact, isn't anything that's not prohibited by law, per se, a right?
If you have a right to do it, legally, than why wouldn't it be a right?
It's just not a natural right. That's an important distinction to make, but it kind of reduces your argument to a question of semantics.
From there, I won't bother going down the "taxes-are-tyranny" trope, it remains a selfish and unsustainable concept, IMHO.
Well, "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." would seem to indicate there are rights given by God - and anything given that can be taken away is not a right, by definition. Those are not rights in the classical sense. They are permissions.
In the classical liberal and natural-law tradition—the one that informed Locke, Blackstone, Jefferson, and Madison—rights are pre-political. They are not created by governments; governments are created to secure them. Jefferson’s formulation in the Declaration is explicit: rights are endowed, not granted. Speech, conscience, self-defense, property—these are treated as inherent attributes of personhood. A government may violate them, but it cannot legitimately erase them any more than it can repeal gravity.
Once a “right” can be given, it is no longer a right in that sense. It becomes a benefit, entitlement, or privilege—something contingent on political will, budgetary capacity, or ideological fashion. If a legislature can vote it into existence, it can vote it out of existence.
It is also not a right if it is given to one person by first taking from another—cuts even deeper. Classical rights are non-rivalrous: my right to speak does not require silencing you; my right to worship does not require conscripting your labor; my right to own property does not require confiscating yours. When the realization of a claimed “right” depends on coercing another private citizen—especially through compelled labor, taxation beyond basic state functions, or mandated participation—it ceases to be a right and becomes a redistributive claim enforced by the state.
This does not mean societies cannot or should not provide social goods. It means calling them “rights” obscures what is actually happening. Welfare programs, subsidies, guarantees, and protections may be wise or foolish, just or unjust—but they are policy choices, not moral absolutes. Labeling them “rights” is a rhetorical move designed to place them beyond debate and above tradeoffs.
Sad that you took so many words to be wrong.
This is the subversion playbook in plain sight: blur the lines until nothing means anything. Take inalienable, God-given rights that preexist government, mash them together with constitutional protections ratified by consent of the governed, then dilute the whole concept by declaring every progressive impulse a “right”—up to and including the left’s deranged theory that personal desire equals entitlement. When everything is a right, nothing is. Rights become policy preferences enforced at gunpoint, not shields against power. The Founders built a system to protect liberty, not to sanctify the right to fuck a duck. This isn’t evolution—it’s erosion, and it’s deliberate.
I don't know of anyone who considers personal desire an entitlement. I would struggle to even imagine what thought process would generate that belief.
You see the process of conflating natural rights with policy preferences as "deliberate". Who do you think is driving the process, and to what end? Please name names and tell us what "they" have to gain from their efforts.
Pauline Kael didn't know anybody who voted for Republicans either.
Simple answer. Power. If you can convince someone some sort of benefit is "right", you will have power over them - and it is most certainly intentional. While both parties do it, Democrats live for it. The greatest expansions in the welfare state came under Democrat regimes.
Will we EVER get away from the trope that helping people actually hurts them? Sure, that can be true, if you design a program that is ineffective, but that's the challenge of getting it right, not a reason to not address the problem.
It always comes down to money, because money IS power.
So if you help poor people, they will give you their vote. I see that as a reasonable bargain, not an exercise of power over anyone. If you help wealthy people, they'll give you their vote too, and that's not an exercise of power over them either - in fact that's more likely an exercise of power over YOU, the elected official, because it's legal to bribe - oh, sorry, I meant to say LOBBY for your support regardless of what your constituents need and want. All your constituents can offer you is their vote. The lobbyists offer much more immediate benefits.
The Founders knew all about power - they were leading the nation out from under it. That's why they chose to distribute it widely within the structure, so that it couldn't concentrate and usurp other powers. If we could instill an appreciation for that concept into every American, we would be a better and stronger nation, and maybe eventually regain our status as the envy of the modern world. Something that's so easy to lose, and so hard to re-establish.
You see the process of conflating natural rights with policy preferences as “"deliberate". Who do you think is driving the process, and to what end?”
Let’s begin with those who do not recognize natural rights: the Chinese Communist Party, the Kleptocratic Russian Federation, and the Islamo-Fascist Regime in Iran.
To what end? Subversion of the American populace with the goal of the utter annihilation of One Nation Under God and the Consent of the Governed.
So you think that foreign influence is behind it? There may be some truth in that - we know that Russia and China participate vigorously in sowing dissent and disinformation on social media. Not sure how much of that Iran does, if any. I personally observed Russian efforts to destabilize Western society way back in 1969 in Berlin; they would disrupt public events and try to start riots, allowed drugs to pour in, etc. It's been their M.O. for a long time. China usually plays a longer game, and a less public one, and they are more interested in their own success than world domination, other than economically. But that doesn't mean that they don't try to influence us in ways that serve their interests as well.
I suspect, though, that if either country is working at this level of understanding, it's a very small part of their operation. How many Americans even know the difference between natural and man-made rights? And any success that they do have in this area will take a long time to bear any fruit, if ever. It's like us trying to convince North Koreans that a free press and the resultant chaos that comes with it is a better alternative to their poor but stable and safe society. They know nothing different, and have no power to change it anyway.
But have you no concern for the actions of the current administration - particularly as driven by Project 2025 - to curtail our liberties and impose their political and cultural will on the country, and doing so in the harshest manner possible? Is one side always right and the other side always wrong? Do you think one-party rule would be a good idea? Isn't our whole system of governance built on a philosophy of compromise, negotiation, and consensus broad enough to maximize freedom for all and minimize the conflicts between one person's freedom and another's? What happened to the adage that I was taught embodied the spirit of freedom, which is "live and let live"?
We will always have to fend off various enemies in various ways. My concern is more with the incredible naivete of the American voter, and the failure of our education system to instill critical thinking skills and an appreciation for reason and logic in our students. I find it shocking that 47% of Americans read at only a 6th grade level or less, and 21% are functionally illiterate. Democracy can only work if the population is well informed and motivated to participate. We have not enough of the former and too much of the latter, and that's a lethal combination.
There was more to my reply.
Is there a character limit, or was I censored?