How Did It Come to This?
“Rights” have become the bane of our lives. They are the Achilles heel of western societies. We should not be surprised. Whenever fallen man elevates an aspect of creation or the created order into an absolute—that is, deifies it—the outcome is destructive. The new “deity” enslaves its subjects.
Political theories based upon rights were first promulgated in the West to protect subjects in the face of tyrannical monarchs with absolutist pretensions. The doctrine of the “divine right of kings” was so damaging and destructive that it led to inevitable reactions on the part of feudal nobility (in the first instance) then on the part of emerging middle classes and property owners, and finally on the part of the common people.
A great deal of the reaction against monarchical tyranny was formulated around doctrines of rights. But a critical issue is the source of rights. Who or what bestows rights? Whence do they originate? If rights originate in government they are pliable. What is granted can be removed—at the next election. If they originate in Nature—or anything in the creation—they can change, mutate, disappear, alter, or be rescinded. For “Nature” is a pliable concept, subject to man's perception and interpretation. Moreover, the natural order is also profoundly chaotic, beyond the complete discovery of man. Yet again, Nature is brute and bloody. It turns out that appeals to the natural order can be used to justify almost any human depravity (homosexuality, cannibalism, slavery, kidnapping, theft—and so on). Brute Nature is an utterly unreliable base upon which to build theories of rights and justice.
The only reliable and sustainable ground for human rights is in God, the Creator of mankind. Some of the founders of the United States realised this. Some understood it self-consciously and in true biblical faith. They signed the Declaration of Independence believing that the Deity spoken of in that document was none other than the Living God, the Creator and Sustainer of all things. Other signatories did not believe in the God of the Scriptures: they believed in another deity—a transcendent being who was essentially unknowable. If it was to be known at all, it could only be indirectly through the study of Nature. To all intents, then, these signatories grounded their understanding of rights in Nature: god was simply a formal, warranting concept.
But together, all signatories agreed that rights come from a deity (regardless of how he or it is to be conceived). The United States Declaration of Independence was a logical historical progression of the stream of thought which sought to ground government upon human rights. It is obvious that the Declaration claims there are divinely bestowed rights which both limits the power of government and protects the freedoms and prerogatives of citizens in the face of the government—for the deity is greater than the state.
The doctrine that rights are bestowed by a creator and are not derived from man or society was an important component of rights based political theory. The idea was that human rights were sacrosanct: because they were not derived from anything in the creation, they could not be taken away by any human power. They were inalienable. But as soon as one separates human rights from the one and only Creator of mankind (as, indeed, signatories like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson did) the doctrine of rights inevitably in time will become a tool for oppression and the assertion of power by governments over citizens. We will be brought back to absolutism—an absolutism far more relentless and all encompassing than ever contemplated under the doctrine of the divine right of kings.
In the West, the very principles put forward to protect against arbitrary and tyrannical power have been used in our day to reassert and reimpose claims of omni-competence and absolutism on the part of governments—with powers never dreamed on by Louis XIV or Henry VIII. Without the Living and True God, rights theories become tools of oppression and slavery. How does this happen?
When the Founders asserted that the deity had granted mankind certain inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness they had in mind freedom rights. These were privileges bestowed upon mankind by a creator. In pursuing life, liberty and happiness no earthly power could gainsay or refuse or obstruct. In fact, in the face of freedom rights (people being free to pursue and acquire life, liberty and happiness) everyone else in society, including the courts, state, corporations—and all created reality—had a corresponding duty not to obstruct, interfere, or prevent.
Thus, is education, or marriage, or practising plumbing a right? Yes. It is a freedom right: everyone can pursue these things and achieve them as their heart desires for the deity has decreed it and granted it. No power, especially the power of the government, can impede or contradict. So far, so good. When the Founders spoke of rights, then, they largely meant freedom rights.
As we know, however, the United States, along with the West as a whole, forsook the God of the Scriptures and began to worship other gods. These gods were human speculations and human creations. These gods were subject to human construction and manipulation—which is the essence of idolatry. All idolatry is really an assertion of human autonomy. Consequently, doctrines of rights—instead of protecting people from oppressive and arbitrary tyranny—increasingly came to advance it in leaps and bounds.
As society became more and more autonomous, so inevitably freedom rights morphed into demand rights. As we saw above, a freedom right imposes an obligations upon others to get out of the way and allow others to pursue their legitimate concerns. A demand right imposes obligations upon others to provide and deliver what individuals want. This is an inevitable outcome of a society which makes man ultimate. Is it not the duty and prerogative of deity to provide and deliver? If man truly is autonomous, if he can make up his own deities, then he must ensure that his deities and gods provide. So, freedom rights morph into demand rights. A demand right means that others have a duty to provide. This is the essence and beginning of the current ideology of entitlements. It is the Mother of the Venn.
Is education a right? Yes. But no longer a freedom right—something lawful and legitimate to pursue. Now it becomes a demand right—something which society (others) need to provide for me. Is being healthy a right? Yes. But no longer a freedom right. It is now a demand right—something which all society has an obligation to provide for me. The result is an ever expanding list of entitlements bringing an ever expanding increase in government powers to compel society to meet burgeoning entitlements. The end result is the expansion of government powers and prerogatives beyond the wildest dreams of historical tyrants.
Now, at this point, someone will point out that at least the citizens retain the power of electing their own governments. So they retain a modicum of control over the cancer of demand rights. But this is deceptive and misleading. Once the ideology of demand rights has been accepted—and it will be as long as the religion of humanism holds sway—the only restrictions upon government powers are economic ones. Can the government (aka, the people) afford to pay for more entitlements?
The electorate will always go for more, given half a chance. Is it preferable to strive to get something, or have others provide it for me? It is a no-brainer. Cut backs can only be “sold” to the voters if they are couched in the ideology of demand rights. “We need to reduce government spending, so that we can increase our productivity/raise our standards of living so that we will then be able to afford a world class (more expensive) education system, or health system—blah, blah, blah.” The ideology of demand rights stays firmly in place all the while—as it always will. It will never change until the established idolatrous religion of our day changes.
Henry VIII's eyes would have popped and watered at the power of modern Western governments. That such a government could exist would have been inconceivable. What once was freedom has turned into a comprehensive, interfering, anodyne tyranny. What was once used to hold back the powers of government has become a tool for relentless expansion of state powers. The reason: our world has denied the God of our fathers. They have turned to worship other gods who require both to be bribed and to be worshipped.
No comments:
Post a Comment