There are various versions of the natural rights perspective,
but this blog has focused on the original version attributed to the philosophy
of John Locke, how that version was interpreted in America during the time of
the writing of the US Constitution in
1787, and the contemporary version which is noted for its lack of substantive
normative elements.
Locke wrote of the moral
superiority of hard work as he rallied readers to oppose the privileged
position of the nobility in Britain of the late 1600s – a group called the “no
ability” by Thomas Paine. Today’s
version simply holds that valuing hard work is up to the individual to accept
or reject.
Of course, the later version
is what has become dominant in how the nation defines its politics and many of
its social views. If one accepts this
description, one can readily imagine how deduced and associated values affect
relations between and among people from family situations to boardroom
discussions. This blog used a plot line
from a show, Men of a Certain Age,[1] to
illustrate how natural rights thinking prevails as a family deals with a common
issue.
The plot begins when the
main character, a divorced father who has custody of his teenaged daughter,
comes home unexpectedly to find her in a compromising position with her
boyfriend. A vibrant “conversation” ensues
between the father and the daughter and among the topics that pop up is individual
rights. By engaging in this discussion,
father and daughter demonstrate how politically defined principles affect domestic,
homebound concerns.
If
one shifts one’s attention from family situations to the economy, the influence
is more direct. Capitalist or free market
approach to economics is morally based on natural rights arguments, demonstrating
how the natural rights perspective is actualized in this very important
institution.
Perhaps these moral
elements do not become more passionately expressed than when the economy is in
duress as it was in 2008,
highlighting many of the moral issues in which defenders and opponents of this
view debated what should be done or not done. The prospect of losing millions of jobs in a
relatively short amount of time will make any person review and reevaluate what
he/she believes is good and evil.
One cannot deny the enormous wealth that
capitalist/free market economies have been able to create. The attributes of free market allow people to
overcome the obstacles that keep them economically constrained. They embolden people to actively seek and
discover what their interests are and find ways to advance them.
Despite exploitive conditions that
early factory workers or miners sustained, over the longer term, more people
benefited by instituting free markets in the industrial age. Why?
Because in a capitalist economy each person looks after his or her own
interests by the means he or she chooses to pursue. When so engaged, in a system of competition, a
person is motivated to act productively and efficiently to maximize his/her
interests. Accumulatively, the interests
of the greater society are also advanced – at least most of the time.
Where a liberty-based morality holds,
as is the case with a free market society, a people will tend to prohibit attempts
to interfere with the workings of such a system – even when the economy is in
danger of collapse as it was in ’08.
Defenders of free market system might be motivated to exert such a
prohibition for financial reasons, but many do so for moral reasons as well.
Among its defenders, there are those –
the purists – who argue for unrestrained markets. For example, there are libertarians who claim
that an integral aspect of capitalist systems is the tenet that individuals who
have the freedom to make their own choices should be held accountable for those
choices. When government bails out those
who have freely chosen to pursue counterproductive options, it promotes the
entailed “foolishness” and all the counterproductive consequences such behaviors
produce. This is immoral in their
estimations.
But not
all defenders of free markets agree.
There are those who might consider themselves as moderates. Usually, moderates see a role for government
in free market economies. They might
even see that role as moral as when the government bailed out certain segments
of the economy in 2008 such as the banks and the auto industry. Without government action, the economy would
have probably collapsed into a world depression causing untold human
misery. For them, such a turn would have
been immoral.
Therefore,
such a governmental role was considered justified – if not the particulars of
what was done in ’08 – by most of the populous.
The qualifier is, to see such interference as legitimate, a person needs
to compromise pure natural rights values, at least as they are currently defined. In a free market society, though, the burden
to justify such government interference lies with those who propose it.
To
summarize, purists, those who abide by uncompromised natural rights beliefs –
i.e. in a belief in unfettered individualism and free markets – approach a near
hands-off posture by government. They
oppose most governmental programs such as Social Security. This bias is so ingrained that people such as
libertarians see interference by government as immoral.
On the
other hand, those who basically agree that people should be left to their own
devices in identifying and seeking their interests and believe people should be
able to own and control property such as businesses, also believe government is
there to help with those cases in which either the individual or the economy
fails. They tolerate some restraints
and, beyond that, government programs that help those who might find themselves
at a level of destitution. After all,
given the vicissitudes of life, anyone can be so afflicted.
It is
over these diverse views that much of the nation’s political debates
occur. That is, most political
disagreements revolve around how strongly citizens hold natural rights
values. Currently, the debate over
healthcare reflects how purists and moderates are pitted against each
other.
Those
who are purer in their natural rights beliefs are considered conservative
voters[2] and
those who see a place for economic restraints, socialist programs such as
Social Security and welfare programs, are considered liberals (albeit, the term
liberal is somewhat confusing in that natural rights beliefs are based on
classical liberal philosophy) or progressives.
To see this division at play, one need only watch the evening news.
[1] Mike Royce and Ray Romano, Men of a Certain Age,
Ray Romano (2009; Hollywood, CA: TNT)
television series.
[2] Conservatism is not limited to this standard. Social conservatives – those who tend to be
pro-religion – are also considered conservative voters and might even disagree
with economic conservatives about how anti-government they are in relation to
economic activity.
No comments:
Post a Comment