Inalienable Rights

Inalienable Rights

During the course of my discussions with other libertarians and non-libertarians the question of inalienable rights typically comes up. Often these rights are discussed without any clear understanding of what they actually are. I felt it prudent to address this issue in this post for the sake of clarity and , of course , feedback. Let me first start off by defining what is meant by a 'right' itself and what an 'inalienable right' means.

What is a 'right' and what is an 'inalienable right?'

I understand a right to imply a certain kind of duty. It depends if one is talking about negative or positive rights. In the negative sense, we would say that one has a right not to be coerced which implies a duty upon others to refrain from unjust coercion of others. If there is a chosen positive obligation or construction of positive rights via contract or some other means of voluntary consent, then a person's right to X implies the duty upon another to provide X. When one mentions there are 'rights,' she implies that people ought to respect these rights. I say 'ought to' because a right involves an ethical implication. If we say people have a right to liberty then it is important to distinguish what is actually meant by that especially in the libertarian sense. There are several ways to look at this and I can think of two that are very relevant. One way is that the right to liberty is ours , meaning it comes from the rights-bearer. This would mean that the right to liberty is our duty in the positive sense. One can make the argument that we only have liberty if we exercise our right to it. I find problems with this view as it logically concludes that one may give up this right , since it belongs to them, and something like 'voluntary slavery' can be justified. It also implies that one looses their liberty as soon as they quit their duties to exercise their liberty. For example, one could claim ethical justification for coercing someone else not willing to exercise their right to liberty.

There is , however, another way to view the right to liberty , and that is in the negative sense. The 'rights bearer' becomes an 'agent' and his duty becomes to not coerce others rather than to just exercise his own liberty. Thus the ethical proposition becomes people should not deny liberty to others and others should not deny liberty to him. It sort of morphs into a duty to respect the liberty of others rather than a duty to exercise your own liberty. I think this is consistent and can even be applied universally in a general sense. It also makes the right of liberty inalienable.

By an inalienable right I mean a right which cannot be divested by someone even in contract. In order to non-fraudulently divest a right one has to hold that right to be alienable. An ownership right over an object can be alienated by transferring that right to another either by trade or gift which can be specified in contract or verbal agreement. I don't hold liberty to be a 'commodity' that can be owned like a chair or other possession object. Furthermore, look at the right of liberty from the negative sense ( i.e. one's duty to respect others' right of liberty or more specifically , right not to be coerced) liberty is not something that can be legitimately divested by the individual since it is not something that is held by the individual but rather a right respected by society to which the individual is part of.


What do I mean by liberty?

The standard libertarian meaning of the word . The right not to be unjustly coerced and the one's own duty not to unjustly coerce others. I shall now discuss what rights and inalienable rights mean to humans and what their function is.


The function of rights and inalienable rights.

Before I continue I would like to mention what rights are not. Rights , as a physical entity or object in material reality, do not exist. This is yet another reason why certain rights are inalienable since they cannot be traded like objects are. Since rights do not exist as a material force to protect us from theft , murder , rape, etc it is inaccurate to promote rights as an actual deterrent to these acts of aggression. Its not as if I have a force field called 'rights' to protect me from a bullet. Rights are duties we ought to carry out. By implying the ought , they are ethical in nature. One may have a job , career , or some employment somewhere, it does not mean that that person physically goes to work and does his work. A job does not mean work , it means a duty or obligation to work somewhere. It means if you have a job ( i.e. an employment contract somewhere) you ought to go to work at that job on the condition that you are compensated for whatever you agreed to.

However, it is not always true that one ought to do something simply because they made a prior commitment to it. In my views , ethics are not only instrumental in the sense that they only apply to means, but they are also intrinsic as they apply to ends as well.

One can think of a situation in the early 1940's during WW2 in which a German Nazi concentration camp guard has agreed to his 'job' or duty in maintaining the slaughterhouse of people. It would be unethical , in my opinion, to say that the guard ought to go to 'work' because he made a commitment to imprison and kill innocent people. The end is unethical and violates the inalienable right of liberty of others , or rather , he is disregarding his duty not to unjustly coerce others.

Inalienable Rights and Slavery:

Arguing from the standpoint of liberty is not a right to be traded like a commodity then any sort of 'voluntary' slave contract would be fraudulent since the person 'desiring to be a voluntary slave' is not putting up something that legitimately belongs to only him (i.e. liberty). He cannot alienate liberty from himself like his Ipod since it is not his duty to uphold his liberty but rather to respect the liberty of others.

'Voluntary Slavery' is also a contradiction in terms from my point of view. Slavery implies a unilateral non-voluntary relationship in which coercion , or the threat of coercion and not voluntarism, is the the nature of the relationship. When he agrees to a contract of 'voluntary slavery,' presumably for compensation , then he is agreeing to basically rent out his labor (product) for an amount of time ( be it an hour , day, year , ten years , life). He is actually alienating the product of his labor since he cannot alienate his human energy or his person.

Conceivably , two people can make a contract in which one agrees to 'obey everything you tell me for a year in exchange for $2000.' However, the 'service' specified in the contract is not enforceable. Lets say the 'master' orders the 'slave' to lick his feet. Lets say the 'slave' has a change of heart and no longer wants to abide by the terms of the contract. If the 'master' seeks to coerce the service out of the 'slave,' then he must use unjust force to do so since he cannot physiologically will the 'slave' to do it. As soon as the 'slave' does not want to sustain the contract anymore, it is no longer applicable because the contract specified 'voluntary slavery' yet when the 'slave' does not want to sustain the contract anymore it becomes involuntary at that point effectively null n' voiding the contract. All the 'master' can seek as restitution is his money back plus damages ( interest) as to not be stolen from but not involuntary service. In the entire 'transaction' the 'slave's' right of liberty or , rather , right from unjust coercion, was inalienable.


Conclusion

I do this topic way too little justice. This is by no means a sufficient explanation of rights and inalienable rights. However , I think it does illuminate ways on how we maybe ought to view the concept of inalienability and rights from the perspective of being 'agents' and not necessarily 'right bearers.' The duties entailed by a right of liberty should not hinge on our ability to perpetually exercise these rights but rather should be to not unjustly coerce others and violate their liberty. Its not a matter of having liberty , its a matter of respecting liberty.