Rights, Government and Society

We know from history and from our own natures that a large group of people cannot coexist without law. Anarchy is not conducive to individual happiness except in a society where every member is of impeccable character. But since character cannot be developed except as the by-product of the process of learning about and embracing natural law, we must conclude that anarchy is never a good social state. The process of individual progression induces a sense of achievement and well-being in a person whereas anarchy is perpetual chaos and ideas like 'progress' that imply direction lose meaning.

Too much law and too much government oppress the people they rule over. This oppression is defined as the elimination of the individual's power of choice to live, act, and do as they please. The type of law permissible is one that defines consequences for behavior and action. Civil law must be in harmony with natural law in order to work, in order for the society to be prosperous, progressive, successful and happy. An attempt to legislate contrary to natural law will bring the society to the natural consequences: the people will be forced to violate either the civil law by one action or natural law by another. Either action yields consequences for violation of law. Henry David Thoreau once observed that, "under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." He concludes that since the violation of civil law, out of harmony with natural law (unjust), will bear no ill fruit on one's character; it is far better to break an unjust civil law than to break natural law. Confucious observed that, "If a State is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are the subjects of shame; if a State is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are the subjects of shame." Thoreau declares, "It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State, than it would to obey [an unjust law]."

The purpose of government is not to try to legislate arbitrary laws that they have no reason for believing will increase and safeguard the welfare of the people. Government discovers the principles of reality, prosperity, self-reliance, productivity, and happiness (and enacts laws in accordance thereto) in the same way that the individual discovers those principles. But the government is a group of people determining these principles and so is less likely to make costly and bitter mistakes than an individual drawing upon only one life's experiences. The Founding Fathers and others have spoken of a 'Tyranny of the Majority' that happens when a majority go against the principles of reality to the misery of all. The Founding Fathers relied on an elaborate system of checks and balances designed to maximize the number of people involved in major decisions.

The United States' Declaration of Independence speaks of inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are inalienable because the deprivation of these lead to misery and eventually revolution. All people must have the power to drive their own lives in order for anyone to be happy. These rights are common to American citizens because all Americans, by living in America, have chosen to acknowledge and respect these rights to each. The Bill of Rights includes the rights to free speech, press, religion, petition, assembly, own weapons to check the power of government, protection from unlawful search and seizure and from quartering troops, etc. etc. because Americans have collectively acknowledged that these rights will be respected. A right is only a right because the people and the people's government have chosen to honor it as a right. There is no 'right' or privilege afforded to anyone without the people's and the government's consent. If the people or the government do not give their consent to any 'right' then it is not a right, by definition.

Now that the California Supreme Court has decided to uphold the will of the people (which is good, but a court should never have had the power to decide one way or the other on this), there has been a proliferation of rhetoric about the 'right' that is most fundamental for any person to marry any person they love. Rights are dictated by the people and the government. If the people say it's not a right, it's not a right, by definition. If you think it should be a right then you have to convince the people to respect it as a right collectively. A right is not a right because you think it should be a right.

Of course in a more general sense we all have the right to do absolutely as we please, we just have to deal with the consequences. If I am not happy, and am living in circumstances where I cannot be happy then what's the point? The only power any man can have over me ends with my death. Just as under some circumstances the only place for a just man is in prison, sometimes the only place for a just man is on the battlefield, or in the grave. Socrates and Jesus have both made comments that the extent of man's power is to deprive a man of mortal life. Man is first responsible for himself, then his family, then his community, then his state and finally his country. If the well-being of one is costing another then we must fall back to our first duty.