On Rights

The core of any discussion of rights is the three-part concept of life, liberty, and property. This defines the sphere of individual authority to act without trespassing against others, and defines the sphere where others trespass against you. Rights are not something that can be guaranteed. Rather, rights are either recognized, or violated. It is the violation that defines the right. Some assert that if a right can be violated, it didn't exist in the first place. This belief betrays a misunderstanding of the concept. Rights are simply a universal and reciprocal measure for human interaction at any time or place.

The universal principle can be expressed in many specific matters. The most recent school shooting has resulted in heated arguments about rights as they apply to firearms. Since this is the foremost subject of public discussion, I will begin with the topic, but I would like to expand the concept further to others as well.

Ownership of any firearm, including an actual assault rifle, and not merely an AR-15, is not a violation of anyone else's life, liberty, or property. A firearm can be used to defend life, liberty, and property against any who would violate these rights. The fact that a small minority of people have used guns to violate the rights of others has no bearing whatsoever on those who have committed no crimes. It certainly doesn't help matters when those who call for new legislation betray their own ignorance with every accusation they spout.

The human urge to act in response to a tragedy almost invariably results in a very specific fallacious political argument. We see the politician's syllogism rear its ugly head with alarming frequency.

1. Something must be done
2. This is something
3. Therefore, this is what must be done

In the case of a mass shooting, the something takes the form of proposing bans, registration, or licensing. A permit or license is permission to do something that has been otherwise banned. A ban on any action or object that does not inherently violate life, liberty, or property is itself a threat to violate life, liberty, and property. Registration is the imposition of a government approval process for ownership and exchange of property under threat of violation of rights.

Specific to the gun debate, possessing AR-15 rifles, much less actual machine guns, cannot be a crime in and of itself. If there is no victim whose rights have been violated, there is no crime. If there is no crime, the law and its enforcement are criminal.

Similarly, to broaden the concept, marijuana and or switchblade knives are not inherently criminal to possess. Neither are actions like selling without a permit, driving without a license, or crossing a national border without a passport. People too readily confuse legality with morality, and assert that if a thing is banned, it is immoral.

Suppose for a moment that owning an AR-15 rifle is declared illegal nationwide tomorrow, and the Supreme Court immediately upholds the law as "constitutional." What has changed? The object is the same. It remains an inanimate tool to be used as its owner chooses. The intentions of the owner are the same. If he is a peaceful individual who does not wish to initiate coercive force against anyone, his actions do not change based on the dictates of strangers far away.

The only change is that people who call themselves "law enforcement" will now use weapons to attack anyone found in violation of the legal dictate. they will violate the life, liberty, and property of any who do not obey. This is criminal behavior by the universal standard of rights. There is no special immunity for anyone, regardless of rituals performed in legislative halls, or costumes worn by enforcers. The universal standard applies to all.

Police are in the wrong now when they enforce drug laws. Drugs are bad, but the vices of an individual do not justify aggression against him. The violence associated with black markets, the problem of drug impurities, the epidemic of bathtub methamphetamine, and every other justification for the drug war is a consequence of the drug war. One systemic violation of rights begat a chain reaction of destruction that will continue until the initial injustice ends.

So if you claim the authority to violate the rights of others, whether you think they should not own an object, consume a substance, believe an idea, or act without arbitrary permission, you bear the burden of proof. The one who does not violate the life, liberty, or property of others does not owe you any explanation, excuse, or apology.