A step from stats: a revival of rights
Noah Stahl McClatchy Tribune
Issue date: 11/23/09 Section: Opinion
In short, there is no discussion of rights present. Does a 20-year-old have the right to drink beer? Does an 18-year-old have such a right? Given that they are adults, is the State justified in forcibly forbidding them to exercise their own judgment about whether to drink or not? These are the questions that those debating this issue should ask. But questions such as these would likely strike advocates of either position as bizarre - scarily, there are no rights taken into consideration here, only the desired behaviors of individuals.
To see the problem with this approach, suppose for a moment that the Founding Fathers had used it when developing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Would we still have the right to free speech? Well, that would depend on what speech the public desires to hear or read-thus, some studies would have to be conducted to see what the effects of allowing any given type of speech are, and whether such speech is determined to be "constructive" by policy. Should there be a law preventing unwarranted government search and seizure of private property? Who could say-there hadn't been any conclusive research to determine the effects of that kind of policy.
Thankfully, the Founders approached law in an entirely different way: as a matter of principle. They proposed that government be instituted in an attempt to secure the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on the basis of fundamental principles of human nature, not as the result of a series of statical studies. When principles like individual rights are thrown aside, anything goes. At times as these when "constructive behavioral change" becomes the guiding standard of government policy, there is no room left for considerations of freedom.
If we want to see a principled approach to government and law, we must start by challenging the assumption that public desire for behavioral change trumps the rights of the individual.
To see the problem with this approach, suppose for a moment that the Founding Fathers had used it when developing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Would we still have the right to free speech? Well, that would depend on what speech the public desires to hear or read-thus, some studies would have to be conducted to see what the effects of allowing any given type of speech are, and whether such speech is determined to be "constructive" by policy. Should there be a law preventing unwarranted government search and seizure of private property? Who could say-there hadn't been any conclusive research to determine the effects of that kind of policy.
Thankfully, the Founders approached law in an entirely different way: as a matter of principle. They proposed that government be instituted in an attempt to secure the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on the basis of fundamental principles of human nature, not as the result of a series of statical studies. When principles like individual rights are thrown aside, anything goes. At times as these when "constructive behavioral change" becomes the guiding standard of government policy, there is no room left for considerations of freedom.
If we want to see a principled approach to government and law, we must start by challenging the assumption that public desire for behavioral change trumps the rights of the individual.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Tom Alciere
posted 11/23/09 @ 7:39 PM EST
There are benefits to hiring gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests as weapons of unprovoked violence, to intimidate Mr. and Mrs. Twenty into giving up their God-given right to drink the beverage of their choice, but that does not mean the government has a right to force this blatantly unjust law on Mr. (Continued…)
Tadd
posted 11/23/09 @ 7:52 PM EST
While I find this article interesting, you premise about the Constitution ("Would we still have the right to free speech? Well, that would depend on what speech the public desires to hear or read-thus, some studies would have to be conducted to see what the effects of allowing any given type of speech are, and whether such speech is determined to be "constructive" by policy. (Continued…)
Post a Comment