Friday, October 24th, 2014

Rights – vs. What Ifs and Mights

Eric Peters
Eric Peters Autos
December 5th, 2012
Reader Views: 520

“Rights” – like “freedom” – is one of those terms that means different things to different people. Often, mutually contradictory things. Perhaps the simplest way to identify a right is to ask whether its exercise causes a provable harm to another.

Not “might” harm a theoretical “someone.” (Or – much worse – “I don’t like that” … and therefore you shouldn’t be allowed to do that).

A demonstrable harm  – to an actual person.

If such exists as a result of your actions, then your actions were wrong – because you violated someone’s rights.

Otherwise – if your actions have caused no harm – you have every right to expect to be left free to proceed. And to be left in peace.

Immediately, the objection pops up: Won’t problems arise if people are left free to act as they please? Won’t people abuse the freedom to act – or act stupidly?

Yes – certainly.

Some people will. But that should not become the pretext for abusing the rights of others who have caused no harm.

Group-guilt is bad. Pre-guilt even worse.

Consider: Has taking away everyone’s rights ever prevented those inevitable “some people” from behaving irresponsibly or stupidly? At any time – in any place? This is the question. And the answer – obviously – is: No. Because there will always be irresponsible, stupid  – even evil – people … in anysociety, under any form of government. A moment’s reflection will confirm the truth of this. Irresponsibility, stupidity – evil, even – cannot be “lawed” out of existence.

But rights can be.

And all-too-often, they are.

Not on the basis of actual harm done, either. But on the basis of what if? … and might.

In the absence of speed limits, for example, there will be people who drive beyond their ability to control the car. Some will inevitably wreck. Others – innocents – will be harmed in the process. This is tragic. But erecting speed limits doesn’t prevent – or even significantly reduce – such occurrences. What it does do is take away everyone’s rights before anyone’s rights have actually been violated. It cements the concept of prior restraint into both law and the public consciousness -  such that it becomes acceptable to limit everyone’s freedom because of the possibility that someone might act irresponsibly, or stupidly. In short order everyone finds their freedom of action preemptively fenced in, their lives under the control of others – whose judgment is by no means superior, but who do possess superior force. Force that’s applied in ever-increasing doses in a never-ending quest to get a handle on irresponsibility and stupidity – by assuming everyone is irresponsible and stupid and treating them as such – even when they’re not.

This is how rights – real ones – are put to sleep. On the basis of what if … and someone might.

Meanwhile, crime – actual harm done to actual flesh and blood people – continues on its merry way.  If anything, real crime – with real victims – is enabled because so much in the way of attention and resources is frittered away on non-crimes.

Consider, just for instance, how much police manpower is spent enforcing arbitrary traffic laws. Stalking, stopping and issuing fines to people who haven’t actually harmed anyone. Oh, they might? Well, possibly. But wouldn’t it be more judicious to wait until our hypothetical they actually do harm someone?

As opposed to harming everyone by such things as radar traps and checkpoints?

Which is better: To be free to travel unmolested, but with the knowledge that it’s possible (although not very likely) that you might get hit by a “speeder” or drunk driver? Or to know that you will be ticketed merely for exceeding an arbitrary velocity – or forced to submit to a random stop/interrogation/presentation of your papers because the law has decreed that everyone must be treated as a presumptively drunk driver?

Unfortunately for the cause of liberty in America, a dauntingly large percentage of the population appears to be perfectly willing to live in a society that regards might and what if? as more than sufficient cause to extinguish their rights.

And everyone else’s, too.

The circles grow smaller. Because might and what if? are infinites. Rights – properly understood – finite specifics. They are lines in the sand, beyond which others may not trespass against us. Because we have not trespassed against them. And until we do, we have every right to insist we be left in peace, free to go about our business – exercising our own judgment, to reap the benefits – and accept the consequences. And to resist when this freedom is denied us.

Freedom – respect for human rights – does not mean an end to human suffering. Just less of it. Because irresponsible, stupid – even evil – individuals can only do so much damage. And be held accountable far more easily. Empower the collective to impose itself on millions of individuals – and the potential damage is essentially limitless.

It is the difference between an occasional pile up on the road – and a pile of bodies in a mass grave.

Throw it in the Woods?

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple


Contributed by Eric Peters of Eric Peters Autos.

Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author who has written for the Detroit News and Free PressInvestors Business DailyThe American SpectatorNational Review, The Chicago Tribune and Wall Street Journal. His books include Road Hogs (2011) and  Automotive Atrocities (2004). His next book, “The Politics of Driving,” is scheduled for release in 2012. Visit his web site at Eric Peters Autos.

Please share: Spread the word to sheeple far and wide

Get Regular Updates!     Enter Email Address           privacy information  

Leave A Comment...
The Daily Sheeple Home Page


  • OldGuy

    I am in 98% agreement with this author. The 2% loss is because of the human variable. Society is inherently self absorbed, selfish and irresponsible. We live in an entitlement society. The idea that humans can and more importantly will behave and act properly is preposterous. Most of the current laws are for revenue generation or because of political or religious pressure. The simple truth is you cannot legislate stupidity. So for those that cross the boundaries of stupidity there should be consequences that leave no doubt that you have been punished. This will either remove the stupid from the equation completely or will remind the stupid that it was not worth it.

    I was taught that an accident by definition is something you have absolutely no control over. Everything else was preventable.

    Our population is beyond hope at this time unfortunately. We have no means to control our urges and emotions and thus would never be able to cope without the plethora of controls that are placed on us. I would love to live in a responsible, courteous and free society but never see it happening. Imagine for a minute LA or NY or any other large metropolitan venue without restraints. It would be worse than … well anything I could imagine. Even with current laws if you try to follow them the public will run your ass over. Try doing the speed limit. Try actually stopping at a stop sign with traffic behind you. Try standing in a line and waiting your turn without someone cutting the line. Hell try asking a cop for directions, lol.

    So I will wish for a free society but will never expect it. A free society is not economically viable. There is no profit in freedom. Society has forgotten that freedom requires an enormous amount of responsibility. Society has also forgotten the meaning of responsibility. So we are doubly screwed.

  • SKIP

    I think the article leaves out an huge contributing factor to the poor conduct of ‘some’ individuals and that would be RACE! The black elephant in the room that shall not be named. Less than a few % of our population is responsible for almost ALL of the murders, rapes, robberies and welfare cheating in our country, but again, race shall not be named.

Get Regular Updates!
Get Sheeple news delivered to your inbox. It's totally free and well worth the price!
email address privacy

Copyright 2009 - 2014 The Daily Sheeple. (v.8)

The ideas expressed on this site are solely the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions of sponsors or firms affiliated with the author(s). The author may or may not have a financial interest in any company or advertiser referenced. Any action taken as a result of information, analysis, or advertisement on this site is ultimately the responsibility of the reader. The Daily Sheeple is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.