Freedom and Rights in Group Living
by doogles on May 22nd, 2019, 5:23 am
This was a short chapter in a book I published in 2007. So please ignore any references to earlier chapters.
WE LIKE TO THINK WE HAVE ‘FREEDOM’ AND WE LIKE TO THINK WE HAVE ‘RIGHTS’ in our society. But what do people mean when they start talking about their rights, and about this being a ‘free’ country?
I hear acquaintances talking about their rights as citizens not to be breath-tested or blood-tested by police, or to be forced to have vaccinations in the control of disease, or to be forced to have chest X-rays in national plans for tuberculosis eradication. Some Australian Aborigines claim they have ‘Land Rights’. Some people claim animals have rights.
You may have seen people on television being evicted from their properties because of inability to meet their mortgages, and claiming to the media that nobody has the right to evict them from their homes, even though they have signed the rights to their homes over to a bank for money.
You may have seen a similar incident wherein a wealthy poultry farmer was fined millions for continuing to sell his eggs outside of an Egg-Board system, and claiming that this was a ‘free’ country, and that he had every right to sell outside of the system.
In fact, the way people talk, you would think that in a ‘free’ country like ours, they have a right to do anything they wish to do, and that nobody has a right to tell them otherwise.
Let’s see what we can make out of all of this. The first thing I find my mind stumbling on is this notion of freedom.
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Once again, we explore dictionary definitions, hoping to achieve a starting point. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1982) provides synonyms for freedom as personal liberty, non-slavery, civil liberty, independence.
The Webster's New Dictionary provides synonyms similarly as not under control or power of another, having liberty, independent, able to move in any direction, not burdened by obligation.
This does not help very much with our social concepts. Certainly, we are not independent when we have to pay taxes and when we can be conscripted to go to war, and when we do have to conform to the will of the majority in most things.
The Dictionaries are even more useless to us when it comes to defining Rights. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as just, fair treatment, while the New Webster's Dictionary does not even list the word.
As an alternative, we can look at what others have said about ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’ over the millennia.
STATEMENTS OF RIGHTS
In Chapter 5, I suggested that all large populations of high density would have to possess rules of conduct to control our tendencies to behave according to our primitive drives.
Although archaeologists have suggested that high-density group living (as distinct from nomadic existence) has been around for about 10000 years, at the time of writing this, the oldest known tablets outlining laws relating to crime and punishment are known as the Code of Ur-Nammu. This code listed crimes and punishment and was drawn up most probably by King Ur of Nammu approximately 4000 years ago and written in the Sumerian language. A number of other tablets have been discovered in the Middle East including the Code of Hammurabi, the sixth King of Babylon, dated at about 1750 BCE. It was a list of approximately 280 deeds regarded as crimes against the best interests of the group along with specific punishments for those crimes. They represented the rights of citizens of the time.
It would be presumptuous to think that these were the first codes of conduct for groups of people living in high density, large population groups. We are dependent on records being discovered, and so far these are the earliest available.
The Ten Commandments of Moses have been dated at about 1300 to 1400 BCE. These were more in the nature of passive rights in that they listed the things that one could not do rather than the things one could do. The implication of the Commandment, for example, that says ‘Thou shall not kill’ was that you had a right NOT to be killed by anybody.
From approximately the years 262 to 232 Before the Common Era (BCE), Emperor Ashoki of India had edicts of behaviour chiselled into stone blocks, and placed in various strategic areas of his empire. He generally encouraged his subjects to follow the Buddhist principle of the Dhamma in being generous, kind and moral. There were specific edicts against living beings being slaughtered or used for sacrifice; provision was made for medicines to be made available to humans and animals; prisoners had to be unfettered and treated properly. He also gave some animals rights by declaring scores of species to be protected. This was possibly the first edict promoting the protection of fauna anywhere in the world.
So for 4000 years at least, evidence is available that large groups of people have had to abide by lists of rules.
One of the first documents on ‘Rights’, in the sense that it was an agreement between parties, was the Magna Carta, first drawn up in 1215. Its main purpose was to give English Barons the right to overrule the will of the King if they did not agree with his edicts. Apparently, King John renounced this Magna Carta as soon as the Barons left London, and thus initiated the first English Civil War. But it was re-introduced when King John died, without the clauses giving Barons the rights to overrule the King. It contained rules pertaining to inheritance, guardianship of estates, compensation, marriage of heirs, repayment of debts to Jews, taxes, the rights of law enforcers and of accused persons, standardisation of measurements, and of possession and dispossession of property.
The English Bill of Rights of 1689 spelt out a number of specific human rights. These included clauses such as freedom from new taxes being imposed by royal edict alone without agreement by Parliament, freedom to petition the monarch, freedom (for Protestants) to have arms for their defence, suitable to their class status and as allowed by law, freedom of speech in Parliament (parliamentary privilege), freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and freedom from excessive bail.
Seven decades later in America, Samuel Adams drew up a Statement of the Rights of the Colonists in 1772, which said “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists were these: First a right to life, second to liberty, thirdly to property”.
Thomas Jefferson’s contribution in The Declaration of Independence in 1776 was that “We hold those truths to be self evident - that all men are created equal; that they are endowed with certain inaliable rights - that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
In 1948, the United Nations produced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It contains 30 Articles of Rights. Here are three examples. Article 1 states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Article 5 – “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 24 – “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.”
This United Nations Declaration looks good on paper, but it doesn’t really give us a notion of the overall principle of ‘Rights’. Ostensibly, the UN expects that all of its member nations will observe these rights in the establishment of their laws and constitutions. But the UN cannot insist that countries adopt them nor can it police infringements of them unless invited to do so. UN forces can only enter countries on request from that country. The only time enforcement against any particular country can come about without permission is if the Security Council determines that a country is of particular risk to world peace.
We really need a broader view of ‘freedom and rights’ and some better definitions. Let’s see what we can make of the terms, first by interpreting what some other more recent well known humans have said about them.
WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID MORE RECENTLY ABOUT FREEDOM AND RIGHTS
A number of writers and poets have tried to express themselves in their interpretation of ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’.
Aldous Huxley, in Music at Night, stated that “There is no such thing as natural rights; there are only adjustments of conflicting claims”. As you will see later, my own conclusions converge with this view to a large extent.
More people have had something to say about ‘freedom’ than those who have had something to say about ‘rights’.
Jean Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract, stated that “Man is born free, yet he is everywhere in chains”. This obviously is referring to the restrictions that civilisation places on expression of our innate drives.
Thomas Paine, in the American Crisis IV - “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting”. My last comment applies in this case as well. We have to support the rules of our communities.
Lord Byron in Childe Harold IV wrote “Yet, freedom! Yet thy banner, torn but flying. Streams like the thunderstorm against the wind.” What was he drinking before he exuded this gibberish?
Hartley Coleridge, in Liberty - “But what is freedom? Rightly understood, A universal licence to be good”. We have to support the rules of our communities.
Abraham Lincoln in his Annual message to Congress in 1862 said, “In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to the free - honourable alike in what we give and what we preserve”
.
Mark Twain in Pudd’nhead Wilson’s Calendar - “It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence not to use either”.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt in The Four Freedoms Address 1941 – “The first freedom is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way - everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want - everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear - everywhere in the world”. But from what we have said earlier, his ‘freedom from want’ maybe should have been limited to ‘freedom from need’.
George Orwell in 1984 - “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows”. Maybe he should have used the word ‘right’ instead of the second use of the word ‘freedom’.
Now if you are anything like me after reading the above, you will still not have a clear mental image of ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’.
There are times when single words such as ‘freedom’ or ‘rights’ do not conjure up in our minds an adequate enough image as a starting point. Now this ties in with everything we have spoken about earlier about how our minds work in imagery scenarios. If a single word does not conjure up an adequate scenario in our minds, then I feel that we have to begin our thinking about the subject by creating an actual scenario in our minds as a starting point for discussion.
TRY IMAGINING A SCENARIO WHERE SOMEONE HAS TOTAL FREEDOM
Let’s start afresh by using our imaginations. Let’s conjure up in our minds a picture of the most ideal state of freedom a human could experience. Just stop for a moment, and try picturing this in your own mind before you go any further. If you are having problems, read what I imagine.
My vision is of a single person on an island with adequate food and water, and with no desire to leave that island. The person has never heard of a god. The island is not owned by any nation. Now this person is totally free in every sense of the word. There is nobody there to tell that person what he or she should or should not do. The person has total free will and can do anything he or she likes to do. This is complete freedom, and it’s a good simplistic starting point for discussion. Can you disagree with this theoretical image of a very basic concept of freedom as it applies to a single person?
But it’s only a theoretical and imaginary scenario. This idyllic existence is not likely to be permanent when you stop to think about it.
Firstly, if the person is not under the protection of a State or Country, then any shipload of ruffians could land on the island and could do anything they like with this person - beat, rape, kill, throw him/her off the island or make them work as a slave or servant on the island. Under these circumstances, this person has no rights except for the rights given by the boatload of ruffians.
There are no such things as ownership or personal rights unless they are backed up by might. If you cannot defend it, you cannot keep it, whether it’s your assets or your life. This principle has always applied in the past, as it will in the future. It’s a universal law. We retain ownership of houses and property within our society only because we have backed each other up in principle through our laws and law enforcement power (or might). If Germany or Japan had been successful during the Second World War, they would have become the owners of anything of ours here in Australia that they desired. It’s as simple as that.
A next best scenario would be if the person is living alone on this island as a kind of caretaker for a State or Nation. In that case, the person would have the protection of that Nation but would no longer be free to do exactly as he/she would like to do. She would have to carry out his paid or allotted duties in the manner prescribed by the State or Nation (I’ll drop the gender correctness here).
A close third would be where a citizen of a nation has purchased an island freehold. Then he would be able to do much as he would like. Well, at least up to the point where he would have to conform to local Building Regulations, local Fauna and Flora Protection Acts, Shipping and Navigation Acts, Regulations with respect to the use and state of any boat or firearms he might have, and of course, he would have to act within the laws of the State toward any visitors. So how free would he be in this situation?
And also, how many people could afford to own an island to achieve the latter kind of freedom? The concept remains theoretical to most of us, because we find ourselves controlled in life to live in areas close to our places of employment.
WE HAVE TO HAVE RULES
If there is a need to have more than one person living together, harmoniously, without slavery, then we have to have rules. The reason for this is the fact that whether we like to admit it or not, we are all selfish and self-seeking by nature, as we concluded in Chapter 1. We are emotionally reactive by nature, as we discussed in the same chapter and in more depth in Chapter 3, and we need restrictions on these drives and emotions.
These restrictions on many of our interpersonal relationships appear in our culture in the form of Rules. Such Rules spell out our Rights. In our culture, most of our Rights are in fact spelt out in all of our Acts of Parliament which are enacted only if supported by greater numbers (Might). These Rights are man-made.
Where does freedom come into this picture of Rules and Rights? The difference between those countries regarded as totalitarian, from which people seek freedom, and democratic countries, is that in the former countries, the laws are drawn up by an appointed body of people or by a single dictator without the general populace having any say in their formation. In democratically elected governments, theoretically, we have an equal say in the formation of our laws. We all have a single vote in electing those persons we believe will support legislation that would be in our best interests at the time of each election.
For this system to work well, again theoretically, the implication is that we will accept the will of the majority.
All parties support legislation preventing us from reacting physically if the result does not go the way we would have liked. But on the other hand, there is also legislation which gives us the right to speak publicly, at times and in places listed as suitable by Local Government Bylaws, if we subsequently desire to change the decision of the majority. In democracies, nobody supports military force as a decision maker. All support eloquence of argument.
Local, State, and Federal Government bodies all produce Laws, Bylaws, and Regulations.
Institutions and Companies, and Unions, all have rules and regulations governing the ‘rights’ of staff, members and others associated with them. Committees and Clubs all have Constitutions and Bylaws listing our ‘rights’ as members. It seems safe to say that all groups of people have sets of rules listing what their members can and cannot do. In a democratic society, we have an equal right to stand for election to become leaders of these groups, and we have the same number of votes as everyone else in electing those we would like to represent us. In this way, we have a say in what ‘rights’, we, and everybody else, should have.
According to this reasoning, the word ‘freedom’ seems to mean ‘having an equal say with everyone else about our rights’.
MIGHT DETERMINES RIGHTS AT ANY GIVEN TIME
If the majority support a rule or bylaw, then that is a case of ‘might’ determining ‘rights’ at that time. This concept of ‘might determining rights’ does not just apply to democratic situations. It applies far more universally. It is the basis of the ‘pecking order’ within and between all species. It is the basis of the law applying when predatory animals kill other animals for food.
If a shark sees you and eats you, then the might of the shark has determined your rights at that time. If subsequently, the majority of people decide to kill that shark, then the might of a vengeful group of humans has determined the ultimate rights of the shark at that time. This time element means that rights are not intrinsic to any living being, but are determined by might at any given time.
If a mob of thugs corners you, the rights at issue at that time will be determined by either that mob of thugs or by yourself, depending on which of you is the stronger. If you happened to be a Steven Segal, you would determine the rights of all present at that time. If you are not, then you could be injured or killed. The might backing the rights of protection given to you by the law is not available at that time and it is the might of the thugs determining your rights on that occasion. Might determines rights at any given time.
Within families, household rules for children under legal age are determined, subject to existing State and Federal laws against abuse, by parents. Parents generally have might over children and thus determine the rules of behaviour in the home. Similar domestic codes spell out your rights of behaviour in boarding houses, motels and hotels; the might is the power of the landlord to reject you as a guest.
In democratic situations, rights are determined by the majority of persons, and spelled out in all of the rules that apply to you in every club, committee, group, or local, state, federal, or world authority with which you are involved. These rights are subject to change depending on the mood or inclination of the might that determines them at any given time.
If you do not live in a ‘free’ country, the best you can hope for is that the might that determines your rights is benevolent rather than malevolent.
So a right is whatever is determined by might at any given time. In this way, we can talk about long-term rights and immediate rights. In democratic situations, the long-term rights are spelt out in the rules determined by majority decisions at every level of our lives. Freedom is the right to have an equal say with everyone else about the rules that govern you in these situations.
Outside of human group living, nature determines rights.