Who's right when it comes to Rights?

One of the most fundamental questions that exist in relation to our freedom and the role government occupies in our lives involves the origin of rights. Where do rights come from and how are they bestowed? What we beleive as the answer to this question determines, in large part, the position we take on many of the issues of our day. When we come to understand how others answer this question, especially those in positions of political or legislative power, we gain a glimpse into what motivates their actions and helps shape their attitudes.

The healthcare debate that has so occupied the national conscienceness over the past year is a fascinating case study into the all important concept of the origin of rights.

Watch this short clip of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)



Consider what the senator is saying here. Senator Harkin is asserting the notion that the inalienable rights to which we as humans are entitled are bestowed upon us by the benevolence of governement. The members of the U.S. Senate, according to Senator Harkin, in all their wisdom and generosity are taking the step to transform what was heretofore considered a privelege, into an inalienable right that they will now extend to American citizens. He goes even further within his remarks to state, "But like every right we've ever passed to the American people, we revisit it later to enhance and build on those rights". Not only is healthcare a new right in their mind, but other rights we already possess were first passed to us by them (congress). This last statement by Senator Harkin also implies that government has the discretion to revist rights and enhance those rights as they deem appropriate. Who, we may ask, decides what constitutes an enhancement of a right and according to what criteria? Who really is most likely to benefit from an enhancement deemed appropriate by career politicians who have repeatedly demonstrated their primary motivation is to retain and increase their own power? Does the very nature of a right even require or allow enhancement?

Senator Harkin is not alone in his belief that rights originate with those in government. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has stated, "So today we stand ready to pass a bill into law that finally makes access to quality health care a right for every American, not a privilege for a fortunate few in our country". He too seems to believe that it is through the magnanimous gestures of congress that rights are given to the American people. Then there's Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who said following passage of the senate version of the health care bill, "finally. . . healthcare is a right -a human right- and not just a privelege for the most fortunate".

I make reference to these statements not as a commentary on health care legislation, that is another discussion altogether, but to illustrate a very important point regarding how the belief in the origin of rights influences attitudes and behavior. As these senators, and many, many others within the ranks of our elected representatives subscribe to the belief that they are the purveyors of our rights, they place themselves in a position of power over us. If they believe that the rights we enjoy are ours because of their goodness, wisdom, virtue, and benevolence, how easy it is for them to begin to think of themselves as somehow superior to the rest of us. The elitism that has so infected those in elected power is a natural extension of this thinking that all good comes to us from them.

This causes me to think of the verse "Shall the ax boast itself against him that heweth therewith? Shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself as if it were no wood." (2 Nephi 20:15)

How easy and natural it becomes for those who believe that our rights exist at their pleasure to begin to think of those rights, and those of us to whom those rights are extended, as being subject to them, just as the saw is subject to "him that shaketh it".

We, as American citizens, therefore become subjects to our leaders (in their minds), and they become our mighty benefactors. This mindset certainly helps explain the elitism, entitlement, and self-importance exhibited far too often by those elected to represent us.

But the real danger inherent to the belief that rights originate with government, and are bestowed upon us through the beneficence of government leaders, is not the emergence of an elitist class or an oligarchy, or even the insufferable arrogance of those who believe themselves to be our superiors, it is something far more sinister.

This danger was clearly outlined by Elder Ezra Taft Benson in his work 'The Proper Role of Government' when he stated, "If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary, that they can be denied by government." If the government can give healthcare, it can at its later discretion, take healthcare away. If the government bestows freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc., it can, therefore, take these from us at its whim. This, my friends, is called tyranny.

The system of government established for this nation, and guaranteed by our constitution, does not support such abuses by government as would exist if efforts were made to take rights away from us. This is not part of the plan. Our inspired founders believed that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. Notice that they did not say "endowed by our congressmen, president, governors, etc. with inalienable rights".

This, therefore, takes us to the center of the issue. Elder Benson stated, "Let us consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know as human rights. There are only two possible sources. Rights are either God-given as part of the divine plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition, and religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights".

If we believe, as did our founding fathers, Elder Benson, the scriptures, and the words of latter-day prophets, that the rights we enjoy are granted to us from God, then the role of our elected officials (including Senators Harkin, Dodd, and Reid) is not to pass rights on to the American people as they've so declared, but to preserve and protect the rights our Father in heaven has already given us. How differently would the various debates in Washington sound if our representatives confined themselves to this role rather than trying to make themselves our gods?

As we stand together to defend our liberty and those rights with which God has endowed us, it is of the greatest importance that we understand and believe that our life, our liberty, our property, and our pursuit of happiness in this world are inherent to the human condition, and not a gift from those who seek dominion over us. As we understand, we must help others to understand also, so we can rise together to defend and preserve those rights.

When anyone speaks of rights being afforded to us by any authority other than our Father in heaven, we should consider long and hard if this person deserves our support, or whether we should act within our rights as American citizens to rescind the power we've afforded them through the electoral process.

Thanks,
Richard