One of the most argued concepts in domestic and international politics is the definition and description of what rights human beings possess by virtue of being human. There are federal and state commissions and international agencies appointed for the purposes of determining what those rights are and how they may be enforced. But which of these so-called rights are naturally possessed by indviduals and which are merely government enforced privileges?

The definitions of the words right and privilege are clear. A right is a liberty that is possessed without need of government sanction. Rights exist, they cannot be granted. Rather, it is the responsibility of government to support the rights of indvidual citizens, not to create them. A privilege is a liberty granted to an individual or a group by persons in authority.

In order to determine what the rights of humans are, it is helpful to consider the state of the human race before the creation of communities and nations. In the distant past, humans roamed the Earth alone or in small groups Each individual was responsible for his own actions and suffered the consequences of mistakes in judgement. Later, when it became beneficial for groups of humans to associate for purposes of mutual defense, trade or other aspects of community, social contracts were developed to define the duties and obligations of each member of the society. For more information about the development of human society, please read the article, "Individuals and Society". In any case, the powers and duties of government were freely ceded to the governing authority. In other words, individuals, in forming a community, voluntarily delegate some of the powers of sovereignty in order to provide benefit to all members. In some communities, its members allowed the delegation of virtually all their power to an authority, such as a monarch. Although a king's power over the people is often hard to limit once it is established, it was freely given in the beginning.

So, we might define the most natural right of humans to be the liberty to act and think independently. As the concept of community developed it became obvious that in order for each individual to act freely, it was necessary that other members not interfere with that right. For example, if a person were to kill another, it would necessarily interfere with that individual's right to act and think independently since a dead person cannot do either. Therefore, it logically follows that among the natural rights is to live and others do not have the authority to interfere with it. However, it is clear that sanctions must exist to enforce that right. If a person chooses to take the life of another, it is logical to assume that the intended victim has the right to try to prevent the lose of his own life, even if it is necessary for the would be killer to die in order to do so. Therefore, it is reasonable to add self defense to the list of natural rights. To extend this concept, it is mentioned above that one of the primary reasons for the creation of a community through social contract is to provide for mutal defense. In this respect, one might assume that the members of such a community have pledged to assist one another in the exercise of the right of self-defense. On a national scale, it is logical to assume that the same concept applies.

The next right to be considered is the ownership of property. Once again, let us consider the state of the human race at the beginning of its history. The entire world and all its resources were available for use. If an individual was able to acquire food, it naturally became his property and he had the right to consume it. Later, when humans developed agricultural skills, the same concept would apply. The land upon which an individual grew his food would be his, provided that he did not appropriate land already owned by another. If a person were to manipulate the resources of the Earth to create crafts, weapons, furniture or anything else, those objects would rightfully belong to him, unless the resources had not been appropriated by another. I think we can add property rights to our list.

At this point, we have examined life, liberty and property, the same basic rights promoted by the English philospher John Locke more than three hundred years ago. It is clear that these principles, along with the freedom of thought and action, have existed since the earliest days of the human race. In our modern world, individuals and groups have attempted to pervert this basic and fundamental concepts through the use of convoluted and often illogical lines of thought.In

For example, many believe that the natural prohibition against the taking of human life is absolute. These are the people who are totally opposed to capital punishment and often argue against the right of individuals to defend themselves. Let's consider the ramifications of this idea. If either individuals or society at large refuse to defend against attack, it would be implied that the attack is appropriate. Only by acting against the perpetrator is an individual or community able to protect life. The person who attempts or commits a murder has shown a blatant disregard for the natural rights of individuals and must be stopped. In many cases, taking the life of a murderer is the only practical way to protect the lives of future victims. It would perhaps be different is the criminal could be removed permanently from society, but at this point in time it is not possible to exile such a person to a lonely asteroid in the depths of space.

Another example of faulty reasoning is the theory that so-called "homeless" people have the right to live on the streets of our cities. To prevent them from doing so is viewed as an infringment of their freedom. However, those who hold such a view have failed to consider the property rights of the other members of the community. The streets of our cities are public property. That is to say that these lands are held in common by the citizens of the community. Public property is owned jointly. Therefore, the privilege of the "homeless" to live on the streets must be subject to the consent of the citizens, who are the owners of the property. To grant such a privilege without such consent is clearly an infringment on the rights of the community members.

Another aspect of the property rights issue involves the idea, held by many, that all humans have a right to housing. It is difficult to see how this view can be justified. To do so one must have reason to support the proposition that an authority has the right to force individuals to donate their own resources and private property to support those who do not choose to provide for themselves. The effect of such a belief on society is also easy to see. If an individual refuses to produce wealth and acquire such property as is necessary to provide for his needs, he or she becomes a burden on the community and requires the charity of others, either voluntary or forced, to survive. Each of these indivudals, who are not contributing to the economy, decreases the potential wealth that can exist in the community as a whole.

This is not to say that voluntary charity is a bad thing. There are those in our communities who are in need of temporary assistance to get their lives in order. To help these people is a praiseworthy thing to do. However, charitable assistance should be aimed toward helping the invidual gain independence as rapidly as possible. Please note that this assistance should be given freely and not forced by the State.

The left-leaning pundits in our midst have also claimed that individuals have a right to a job. It is not clear upon what they base this assertion. Employment involves a contractual agreement between employer and employee. In other words, an individual enters into an agreement to trade his or her labor for compensation and to abide by rules and regulations established by the employer. This agreement is entered into voluntarily and provides valuable consideration to both parties. Unless a term of service is specified, the employee and the employer are free to terminate the contract at any time, with or without cause. To hold either party to less than this would constitute involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. To force an employer to continue employment of an indivudal against the employer's will or to impose limitations or restrictions on his conduct of the business is a clear infringment of the employer's property rights.

This brings us to another issue. It used to be common to see signs in place of business to inform customers that the business owner "reserves the right to refuse service to anyone". This should be a given. The owner has invested time, money and effort into the business. It is his private property. It is also his right to invite whoever he chooses to enter upon the premises to conduct business. No one has an inherent right to do business a one place or another. If an invitation to do business is extended, it may just as easily be withdrawn. If a restaurant owner chooses to allow his customers to smoke on the premises, that is his right. Anyone who is offended by smoking is just as free to take his business elsewhere.

The attempted expansion of the list of rights is not limited to tangible things. Many in our national community have promoted the notion that individuals have a right to be free from being "offended". As a result, we have seen a significant increase in attacks on First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion. Although we admit that some limitations must be imposed of freedom of speech to protect the safety of our citizens. The often repeated cliche about yelling fire in a crowded theatre illustrates this. However, the safety of individuals is not affected by hearing speech that one may find offensive. Judging from the number of incidences reported in the media, it appears that Americans have become quite "thin-skinned" in recent years.

Those on the left are quite vocal about limiting the free speech rights of conservatives and libertarians, but claim their right to say anything they choose. They attempt to limited the religious freedom of Christian Middle America but preach tolerance and accomodation of the relgious beliefs of Muslims.

These are just a few of the areas where the immoral and unconstitutional expansion of rights is being attempted. It should be clear that the trend should and must be reversed if we are to survive as a free people. I call upon all freedom loving individuals to stand up and join the fight against those who are seeking to enslave us. Speak out, fight back, before it is too late.

WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS?